The God of the Holy Bible endorses slavery today

My adversary claims; "I have shown that people have been taken against their will, that the Bible allows the beating of slaves, the selling of daughters. This follows the definition of the CON'S points on slavery that the CON " thinks" of in their first argument.I have shown you one example in my opening statement of a man named Jefferson Davis who advocated for slavery according to the Holy Bible during the Civil war era.I have shown that slavery was not always voluntary."If I can prove these three contentions to be false, than it's reasonable to say that I have met my burden of proof. Thus, proving premise one false.Contention A"I have shown that people have been taken against their will, that the Bible allows the beating of slaves, the selling of daughters. This follows the definition of the CON'S points on slavery"This would be all well and good, except this is not at all endorsed by the god of the Bible. It is infact, punishable by death to kidnap someone and keep them as slave. My adversary points to a story in the Bible and uses that as evidence of God's acceptance of slavery. Notice in Judges 21:10-12, the story refers to "he" as the person saying these things. No where in this story, is it God giving commands to his people. This is a story of a tribe in Israel called Benjemin, it has nothing o do with slavery, thus rendering my adversaries argument irrelevant.I would like to take a moment to counter my opponents argument, by reminding him of the Bible verse I layed out earlier which is directly contradictory to his first contention, and only five verses away from the set of rules for slaves he set up earlier."He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16This, unlike the story my opponent gave, is the direct word of God according to the Bible.Contention B"I have shown you one example in my opening statement of a man named Jefferson Davis who advocated for slavery according to the Holy Bible during the Civil war era."I really don't see what this has to do with what the Bible says. This is simply an examble of someone willfully misinterpreting the Bible for a political agenda. Until Jefferson Davis walks on water or turns water to whine, I don't think we should be using his opinion/political agenda alone as evidence of God's instructions. We need to dig deeper into the text of the Bible, not a politician from the civil war era, rendering this point invalid.Contention C"I have shown that slavery was not always voluntary."Contention C goes back to Contetion A. To start, there was no kidnapping and stealing of another person to take as your own property as I alluded to in Exodus 21:16 "Slavery" WAS voulantary. Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants)Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay. Voluntary permanent slavesIf indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut.. 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom. Thief or criminal making restitutionA thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution. Pagans could be permanent slaves Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another." http://www.wallbuilders.com... My adversary claims that being a slave, you can't just get up and walk away. I encourage everyone to read over Deuteronomy 23:15-16 before accepting this as fact. Deuteronomy lays out that slaves were permitted to run away if neccessary. "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him."Slaves weren't to be treated like cattle, by any stretch of the imagination. According to modern interpretation, the God of the Bible knew that there will be people who do not have the means to live independantly. Thus, he laid out a way of life to ensure that his children wouldn't starve to death in the streets, and could provide for their family. I see a similarity between the slavery of the Bible and modern day welfare. If someone just doesn't have the means to pay their bills, there needs to be another way for them to get by. And servitude was the answer given in the Bible, which especially makes scense considering that ancient cultures didn't have a welfare system. Now I have wrapped up my argument with the three contentions my adversary has provided.I have proved kidnapping was explicitly forbidden in the Bible.I have shown the Jefferson Davis is irrelevant to this debate.And I have shown that slavery was indeed voulentary. My opponent leaves me with two other points which I must refute.1. Slaves were abused2. The Bible establishes a difference between a servant and a slave1. Slaves were abusedI can't deny physical force was used as punishment. However, that was the way of the times. They didn't have the psychological insights we do today. Even with this in mind though, people were still told to treat their slaves justly. In response to Exodus 21:20, I would like to direct everyone's attention to Exodus 21:26-27 (just 6 verses away from the verse my adversary lays out), "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27"And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.…"These rules, along with Deut: 23:16-17, ensures protection of the slave from physical abuse. And to finish up with point 1, the Bible does outline adultery to be sinful. I ask my adversary to prove that Exodus 21:7-11 permits sexual abuse of slaves. I think it's more reasonable to believe that the word "please" was used to mean satisfy. As in, "My boss is satisfied with my work performance." 2. Slaves vs ServantsI would like to point out that I never said servant was a perfect word to define servitude at the time. Only more accurate. The distinction between the two is far less perceptible as the two words are in the modern English language. I have refuted my opponents contentions, as well as the other two lingering points. Thank you for reading. I await my opponents response.