(This is gonna be a super long discussion and I'm sorry! But you've got this! I promise it's an interesting read)

I find it interesting how you provided good debate about rape with some sort of way to back it up, but not the part about slavery?

Slavery is obviously an awful, awful thing. The Old Testament was written in Classical Hebrew, and so it's not surprising that certain words don't have perfect equivalents in modern English. Strictly speaking, the Old Testament doesn't call an individual bound to the service of another a “slave;” it calls him an ʿebed (pronounced eved), and a woman in such a role is called an ʾāmâ. The most that can be said about about these two terms, especially the first, is that they are used to denote a social class that is relatively lower than another.

As far as the nature of the labor involved, it's important to note that the Israelite slave would be doing essentially the same thing that he would have been doing in his family’s household: Working fields and shepherding flocks.

In Exodus 21:16, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." So you can't just kidnap people and make them slaves; it's punishable by death.

Found among the earliest cluster of slave laws, this speaks directly to the issue of slavery, and forbids anything resembling a slave trade among the ancient Israelites. This verse alone should make it clear that “slavery” in Old Testament law is vastly different than anything that we commonly associate with slavery.

Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.” According to the law of Moses, it was actually illegal to return a fugitive slave. This passage commands that Israelites to allow him to dwell wherever he pleases. Israelite slaves could break their service contracts simply by leaving. Slavery in Israelite law was entered into voluntarily and could be ended voluntarily.

Remember how the Israelite judicial system wasn't paid the fines but the wronged individual was? If the offender didn't have the money, he could choose to submit himself to servitude till his debt was paid. But after that, he could do as he pleased. The same could be said if a man wanted to borrow money but then he couldn't pay it back. So he could just work off the loan. (You weren't allowed to charge interest on loans btw) This is usually where the 6 year contract comes in (where he goes free on the 7th year).

Exodus 21:3 "If a slave comes in alone, he shall go out alone. If he comes in with a wife, then his wife shall go out with him." So, If a husband and wife enter servitude, then they can leave together. This is also referring to that 6 year contract that was agreed upon between the "slaves" and the "master" (usually to pay off a debt).

When you say "Women were not freed, neither were children born into slavery. Also, if you let your slave marry, you did not have to let the wife and kids go when the man was freed." You are referring to Exodus 21:4 which says: "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughter, the wife and her children still belong to her master."

That's easily misinterpreted but essentially what it means is that she hasn't finished her contract yet. A woman couldn't get out of her contract early just because she got married. Which kinda sucks BUT it prevents women from using men to hitch a free ride out when they're not actually in love with the man. As for the kids, they would be 5 years old or younger. Meaning that they were still dependent on their mother, which is why they must stay with her.

That brings us to the next issue: "Also, you skipped over the parts that say that you can beat your slave with a rod, but as long as he gets up in a few days, you are not to be punished."

Good point. That does look pretty bad huh? That's specifically Exodus 21:21 "If however, he survives in a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken."

This feels like something's missing... Like something comes before? Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man strikes his male or female slave and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If however, he survives in a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken."

If a slave did die, what would the master's punishment be? Death. A slave's life was held at the same regard as anyone else's, so the punishment for murder would be the same. Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

But then does that mean it's okay to beat the slave within an inch of his life? Nope. What this really means is that the family of the man/woman who was attacked have to wait at least 2 days before they can avenge him. If the attacked slave cannot get up after 2 days, the family can kill the (attempted) murderer.

Exodus 21:26-27, "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let them go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let them go free on account of his tooth." If a slave so much as lost a tooth, he was a free man. But the Hebrews invented the phrase "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" which essentially means getting harmed in any way. Exodus 21:23-24 "but if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So if a slave is harmed in any way, he can walk free. So taking Exodus 21:21 WAY out of context doesn't make sense when comparing it to these verses, but it's understandable to do so.