The God of the Holy Bible endorses slavery today

Allow me to begin by pointing out the fallacy, which is the foundation of my opponents argument. "If the CON cannot directly show that God condemns slavery then the CON must agree that God permits it."This is a perfect example of the classic Either Or fallacy. Just because someone doesn't condemn something, doesn't mean the permit it. Keeping my interpretatio of what it meant to be a slave in the Bible, the Bible is consistent in regards to this issue. Lets begin by showing a misrepresentations of the wording of the Bible, that my adversary presents.To sell; Sure, I'll agree with my adversary that the Bible does instruct people on the selling of slaves. Absolutely. But we must remember, these servants (a much more accurate term) sold themselves into "slavery" for protection and the essential needs of life. But my true question is, why does that matter? How does selling someone's service, automatically make them your property? If I go mow someone's lawn (willfully I remind you) am I selling myself to that person as their possesion? No, I'm selling my service in exchange for capital. Whereas back then, they would sell their service in exchange for a bed to sleep on, and a hot meal. Now, if I'm mowing that person's lawn and they come up to me and say, "Hey, I don't need you to mow my lawn anymore. Steve needs his lawn mowed, you'll get the same compensation if you do his instead." Would it be reasonable for me to be outraged? No. So why is it reasonable for someone to "sell" their "slaves" at this time? "Not only does God permit slavery, He instructs the method of branding the slave through mutilation." I guess, if you use the word mutilation increadibly loosely you could make this case. People put gauges in their ear all the time, are they really mutilating themselves? This would seem to me to be a way the "slave" could show his eternal commitment to his master. People get tattoos of a lover's name all the time, it's more like that than mutilation. Besides, all this verse proves is that these "slaves" had many options in how they wanted to live their lives, and granting them freedom to choose to stay with their loved ones. "He condemns kidnapping, yet here He permits the selling of another human into slavery." Reread my input on the word "sell" in the Bible. Also, consider the fact "selling" one's daughter into slavery is much like adoption. If people can't provide for their children, should they just let them starve to death. Would that be more humane than this thing my adversary is calling "slavery"? "Here we have God endorsing that if a master beats his slave to death the master shall be punish, although as long as the slave lives it is okay to do this because the master OWNS the slave." I full heartedly agree with my adversary if he were to say physical punishment is morally reprehensible. Like I said earlier, I am no Christian, but this argument isn't about if the Bible is ethical. It also talks about striking women and striking children, the Bible permits violence as a means of punishment. What can I say? This is about what it meant to be a slave, not whether or not violence is good for punishment. Just as a side note, I'd like to remind the viewers that this is yet another law ordained by God to protect slaves. To make sure they were not unjustly treated. An easier way to explain what The God of the Bible is saying is, "Don't hit them that hard! Good god people. You don't want to kill them. If you kill them, you're going to be put to death for murder..." He's outlining the fact that these "slaves" are PEOPLE. When the Bible says property, he simply means money. People should not get vengence on the slave owner for POSSIBLY causing a death, because the loss of the slave owners "capital" is punishment enough given reasonable doubt. "We must assume that the daughter is okay with this and doing this at her own will or else there is a conflict with God." Sure. much like we can assume children put up for adoption conscented to it. This entire argument revolves around a huge misconception, so allow to clarify one last time;People sold themselves, or their children into servitude, if they could not be provided for. As in, if someone's option is either be a servant or die, we can easily compare this exchange to that of adoption and "selling" yourself into a homeless shelter. Except, instead of a homeless shelter, where everything is free, they are required to work and earn their stay. Same thing with daughters and sons, instead of a free stay paid by the federal government (as we know, welfare systems and foster home didn't exist back then) they had to work to compensate for the food and shelter they receive."We all know that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination." And this is the true meat and bones of my argument. Yes, slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. I believe my adversary and I agree whole heartadley on this. However, I have proved that the "slavery" of the Bible is not an outrage or a moral abomination. If we can agree that slavery is unpermissable, but what we see in the Bible is far, FAR, from the slavery we see as horrific, then that constitutes a different word. So to wrap up my argument;My opponent claimed if I can prove either premise incorrect, than I am the winner of the debate.The premises:Premise 1: The God of the Holy Bible states that it is permissible to own slaves. (Leviticus 25:44-46)Premise 2: The God of the Holy Bible never changes. (Malachi 3:6)Conclusion: Therefore it is still permissible by the God of the Holy Bible to own slaves today.I have proved premise 1 to be incorrect, under the grounds that slavery is not the appropriate word for what was happening at this time. Thus, proving the conclusion to be unsatisfactory. I would like to thank my opponent for the great debate, I had a really good time with this one. Thanks for putting in the effort to formulate well thought out arguments, as well as let few of my points go unrebbutalled.