The bible advocates war, revenge, slavery, rape and even genocide

FRAMEWORK Here is the resolution: "The bible advocates for war, revenge, slavery, rape, and even genocide." Like I was saying before, there are multiple ways to interpret the resolution, and I shouldn't be punished because my opponent didn't make the resolution clear enough. I was actually pretty nice and interpreted the resolution in a way that gave both our sides plenty of ground to argue on. It would be unfair to say him cherry picking verses in the bible that advocate for something in a very isolated way is enough to say the bible advocates for it. It is possible for a passage in the bible to advocate for war, while the bible is actually against it. We have to look at the big picture, and not pretend as if a few verses are enough to say the entire body of work advocates for something. If my opponent wanted to argue that the first 5 books in the bible advocate for war, he should have stated so, but instead we are arguing whether the compilation of the 55 books (give or take some depending on religion), advocate for those things. Remember also that he has to prove the bible advocates for these things, not condone, not give permission for, not portray, but advocates for. It is possible for the bible to condone, give permission for and portray slavery without actually advocating for it. Before leaving this section, imagine if I said that my opponent advocates for slavery, and cherry picked a few statements he made in the past that pointed to that. Would that be fair? Or would it be more fair if I zoomed out instead of cherry picking a few things he said. I ask the judges to judge this debate and the bible in the same way. Not only that, my opponent has to prove 6 different things and quite frankly if I forfeited every round, he wouldn't have the space to do so. CONDUCT Typically when one side of a debate forfeits a round they usually win conduct points, but consider a few things, such as Pro's blatant ad hominem attacks on Christians that took place in the opening round, and rude insinuations that were apparent in other places. It would be reasonable for the judges to abandon conduct points altogether and even award them to me. Just a note for the judges, my opponent basically concedes the debate if my interpretation is accepted, and my interpretation absolutely should be accepted. "I accept the possibility that overall the bible is against something that, in places, it appears to be for. However, for my opponent to win the debate on these grounds, the burden of proof is rightly in my opponent's court, so to speak." Also, just a note. The burden of proof is fully on my opponent in this case, not that it matters because of the incredibly large margin I have won this debate by. RAPE My opponent is trying to read between the lines here and in doing so he projects his own biases on a people from 5,000 years ago whose cultures, even anthropologists don't fully understand. I've also shown that taking a wife from an occupied territory in no way implies forcibly nor is forcible sex any where expressly permitted, but in verses in close proximity to the ones my opponent quotes, I actually show verses of the bible that expressly forbid rape. All my arguments about women being basically condemned to a life of extreme poverty (not the first world poverty we're used to seeing but actual poverty), and even death from not being able to support herself and her children. If the bible had forbidden the Jews from marrying the widows of conquered lands, he would have been condemning many women to a horrid existence. Conclusion This is an easy vote. As Con I win. My opponent drops my arguments about women being second class citizens, he drops my arguments about killing and war being forbidden except for in a few specific instances, he drops my arguments that the bible commands the followers of Jesus to obey the laws of the governing authorities which are usually condemning of rape, murder and slavery. This doesn't even mention the fact that my opponent doesn't even make a case for revenge. I won this debate, vote con. Have a good day.