Debate: God loves you.
Side: He died to save you from Hell.

I appreciate the thoroughness of your post and will address each point in turn (so my response will also be of considerable length):Notice how he makes it very clear that they are not to be treated like slaves or ruled over harshly. Why would he need to say that if slaves aren't treated harshly like apologists often claim?Yes. The Israelites had just come out of slavery in Egypt and were subjected to harsh treatment. It would not make sense for God to go to such lengths to bring them out from tyrannical Egyptian rule for them to be subjected to it again simply in a different land. In verses 44-46 god talks about chattel slavery. It applies to non-Israelites and the person is treated as property. These people are slaves for life and cannot buy their freedom. God doesn’t say not to treat these slaves harshly and later on says you can beat them with a rod.Yes He does and No He does not. If somebody was so impoverished as to put themselves up to be bought as a worker (slave) then they would have no other means of buying their freedom. Therefore, they would remain with the hiring household for life. The prohibition of harsh treatment also applies to them: the term ‘alien’ already indicates that they are of foreign heritage, however they were born in Israel.The preceding verses 39-43 apply exclusively to the natives by firstly mentioning that they were rescued from Egypt and secondly that they were not be to be classified as ‘slaves’. Therefore, the succeeding verses you’ve highlighted that describes slaves would pertain to those outside of that. Verses 47-55 describes how if an Israelite falls on hard times and sells themself as a servant to a non-Israelite, the servant has the option of buying their freedom. No such option is available to non-Israelites or women.This would be to do with the Israelites standing with God [elaboration further down]. Deut 24:7 "If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die."This shows us two things about slaves. First, they are kidnapped, it's not voluntary.No, if anything it shows us that slavery is meant to be voluntary because if it were not, then there would be no penalty attached for kidnapping one. Second, treating an Israelite like a slave is such a horrible thing that the penalty is death. Yet as we've already seen, god is okay with slavery as long as it is done to non-Israelites.God had already established a covenant with Abraham which concerned promised land, promised descendants and promised redemption. If anything this is evidence that God does not break His word because by delivering the Israelites from slavery and keeping them from it He was honouring the covenant He made. God knew the plans He had for the world and the Israelites played a huge part in that by being His chosen people; they would not have been able to fulfill their status as a great nation by continuing to be under slavery, hence why He released them from it. Now let’s jump to Exodus 21 where god outlines some rules for keeping servants and tells people how they can exploit a loophole in his rules to force someone into a lifetime of servitude.There are no “loopholes” in the Bible as you call them. Furthermore, if you are saying God outlines methods of exploiting His rules then that is calling Him dishonest which would be a false claim. Such behaviour is at odds with His purity. Exodus 21:1-6 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."So here we have god saying that Hebrew servants are to be set free after 7 years. However, if you give your servant a wife and they have kids, you can hold the wife and kids hostage in order to get the servant to serve for a lifetime. Also note that the women and children are never set free, unlike male servants who can leave after seven years.You’ve misunderstood this greatly. All it is saying is that if a servant declares his love for his family then he should not be separated from them. It is about keeping a loving family together, not about holding the women and children hostage. Secondly two, the master would be entitled to have some right over the servant’s family if he provided them for him in the first place; as the first part of the text says, if the servant already had a wife upon entering the master’s service they were free to leave together. Continuing on to verses 28-32 god says if someone has a bull that frequently gores people and the owner doesn't keep the bull penned up, if the bull kills someone both the bull and the owner are to be put to death. However, if the person that got killed was just a slave the owner only has to pay 30 shekels. Remember, these things are supposedly direct quotes from god, so god clearly doesn't think people are equal.Again no; the verses read that if a bull gores a slave not only must the owner pay 30 shekels but the bull is to be stoned to death just as with anyone else. The owner is not held responsible for the death of a man or a woman unless the bull’s violent behaviour is habitual. The penalty is the same, there is no inequality documented here. The god described in the Bible clearly doesn’t object to slavery. He even defines the rules for it. So as I see it we are left with two possible conclusions.1. God condones slavery and is therefore not benevolent.2. The Bible was written by men who claimed god said those things, but god never really said those things or he just doesn’t exist.Neither of those conclusions stand. Firstly, God allowing the practice of slavery does not equate to non-benevolence. As I had mentioned prior, as human beings had constructed their culture in this way God defined the rules as a means of regulating the practice to ensure the rights of everyone were protected. If human beings abused those rights then that was a reflection on their lack of benevolence, not God’s. Secondly, slavery at this time was not inherently oppressive: it was a purely economic arrangement, not the entire subjugation of a race as the Western world practiced centuries later, whereby people were kidnapped and separated from their families regardless of how devoted they were. The Bible specifically condemns this method of acquirement as your provided verses evidence. The following verses are often cited by apologists as proof that god is against slavery.You mean that God is against slavery as we understand it in modern society. Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”I believe this verse is only referring to the kidnapping of Israelites. Why do I think that?That verse applies to anyone, Israelite or otherwise, ergo I have no idea why you think otherwise. 1. The same rule is restated in Deut 24:7 but this time with added clarification. “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die." If it's wrong to kidnap anyone, why would he add "any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel" to it. There would be no need to include that part.This is in regard to the notion of Israelites being slaves as opposed to sole focus on the kidnapping aspect. As your other verses read, kidnapping was prohibited regardless of who it was. Having been delivered out of slavery under Egyptian hands it was not their portion to return to it. 2. Moses tells god's followers to enslave all the non-Israelites cities in the area. Deuteronomy 20:10-15.Not before peace negotiations are issued. Even then this gives no indication that they will suffer mistreatment, particularly if God’s instructions were heeded. 3. It contradicts many of the verses we talked about earlier, but that contradiction is resolved if this verse only applies to Israelites.The contradiction is not resolved because it was never there in the first instance. Eph 6:9 "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with him."Since god has already stated there is no punishment for beating your slaves with a rod, either Jesus is not god, god changed his mind, or this is only referring to Israelite slaves.A master qualifies to exert certain rights over their slave; physical discipline would come under this. However, physical discipline does not equate to complete maltreatment and this is evidently what this verse is referring to. Therefore, your inference is incorrect. Col 4:1 "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."What is right and fair is to not be a slave!That is what is right and fair, however, as human beings we do not always concern ourselves with that and so this is when God will step in. Deut 23:15-16 “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."That passage is talking about slaves from other nations, not slaves from within their own nation, as indicated by the second verse. Remember, god already said, "you may acquire male and female slaves." So, either god was lying when he said that, or this verse only applies to slaves fleeing foreign nations.Yes, precisely the latter. To flee is to escape. It's also possible that it is talking about Israelite who were enslaved by foreign nations, because there are some indicators throughout the chapter that he is speaking about how Israelites should treat each other, such as "the daughters of Israel", "your countrymen" and "your neighbor." However, that part is not crystal clear.It is referring to the Israelites, yes.