CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
14
Complete slavery. It's all good.
Debate Score:22
Arguments:21
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Complete slavery. (8)
 
 It's all good. (10)

Debate Creator

SitaraForJesus(3819) pic



What the bloody Hell is this?!

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he SEIZES HER AND LIES WITH HER, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the woman's father 50 shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all of his days.

Complete slavery.

Side Score: 8
VS.

It's all good.

Side Score: 14

My analysis: this is def about rape. Anyone who knows anything knows that. The part where the man seizes the woman is about rape, even though that Baptist pastor's wife lies and says that it is not. I was so mad when I found this. This is complete victim blaming sexist antiwoman proslavery crap, and it should not be in the Bible. I would not obey this under any situation. I mean how romantic is it (satire) to be raped and then forced to marry the rapist being his or her hostage for the rest of your life and watching the kids get raped too? Not at all, I say. This is slavery. There is no way around that, and I want God to do some explaining.

Side: Complete slavery.
dropigy(230) Disputed
2 points

What if the hoe wants to marry the guy instead of the person her father want stop arranged marriage with and so intentionally fucks the guy so loud that they get caught in order to have to marry him instead?

Side: It's all good.

I am sure that happened. That sounds very disturbing. :'(

Side: It's all good.
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
2 points

This verse speaks about how the man has an obligation to do this and is the punishment if he decides to have a one-night stand with a girl. This verse favors the one night stand with a girl because other verses speak on rape AND SAYS THE WOMAN IS INNOCENT (ironically this comes 3 verse before the noted passage in Deuteronomy 22:25-27). This verse does not say a women can't refuse the marriage. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is very liberating for women compared to many cultures of the day, with value put on their life.

Side: It's all good.
1 point

Mon cher, that verse talks about if he seizes her and lays with her. I was raped, and I can tell you that happens in most rapes.

Side: Complete slavery.
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

I'm not trying to poke fun or trigger anything, mind you, but...

My wife enjoys the rough stuff. Much of our activity could be described as my 'seizing her and lieing with her.' Although truthfully it's rarely lieing down.

Side: Complete slavery.

I am not upset. If your activites are consensual, and you have safe words, go for it. :)

Side: Complete slavery.
Gaytruth(38) Disputed
1 point

My analysis: this is def about rape. Anyone who knows anything knows that. The part where the man seizes the woman is about rape, even though that Baptist pastor's wife lies and says that it is not. I was so mad when I found this. This is complete victim blaming sexist anti woman proslavery crap, and it should not be in the Bible. I would not obey this under any situation. I mean how romantic is it (satire) to be raped and then forced to marry the rapist being his or her hostage for the rest of your life and watching the kids get raped too? Not at all, I say. This is slavery. There is no way around that, and I want God to do some explaining.

He had to pay 50 shackles the bible doesn't just allow the rape.

Side: It's all good.
1 point

Allow me to clear this up for you... Deuteronomy is the ancient book of Hebrew Law and central to the Torah. Women were considered property but what this meant is that if a man raped a woman he had to pay her father the equivalent of about 20 pounds of silver and was forced to marry the woman or be charged with theft. If the man didn't have 20 pounds of silver lying around (which was unlikely assuming he wasn't nobility) then this was considered an act of theft from the woman's father punished by castration and usually the perpetrator was stoned to death soon after. Even if the perpetrator could pay it he was forced to remain with and provide for the woman he raped the rest of his life no matter how much she hated him and if he ever divorced her the original charge of property theft would apply (castration and death by stoning). It served as a convenient way to punish rape without acknowledging women as anything other than property... this was actually probably a big win for women's rights back in the day when they actually had no rights.

Side: Complete slavery.
1 point

You have to be very twisted to see this as anything but a civil rights violation in a prorape culture. The aqmount of circular reasoning in your argument is astounding.

Side: It's all good.
Scoots(33) Disputed
1 point

Can you cite even one example of circular reasoning? I didn't even attempt to use reason, I simply stated why the law existed and provided extremely sound historical background as to why the law would be considered anti-rape by today's standard.

To argue rape as relevant in a culture where women were valued as property is a logical flaw. I think you are missing the point of how little women- or their emotions, etc. actually mattered when this text was written. You are correct in your assertion that this law definitely pertained to rape in the modern sense but incorrect in your assertion that this law was pro-rape, it was one of the few anti-theft laws that actually protected women whom you will often find lumped in with oxen and land if you continue reading. An unmarried girl is the property of her father until she weds and must be purchased with a dowry (the dowry for 'rape' was intentionally set very high to force bankruptcy or death on the offender- even if the man had the money he was forced to give all that money to the girls father and then marry her for life which could still be very short depending on just how much she hated him... think how appealing that would be- losing your money, your honor, and then being forced to provide for someone who wants to see you dead... its actually a very wise and sadistic punishment). I think that culture has evolved a bit over three millennium... but to attack ancient laws from a modern viewpoint you need to first comprehend what this law actually meant and the consequences associated with violating it. I think you're actually missing the point or actively seeking anti-Semitic talking points.

Side: Complete slavery.
No arguments found. Add one!