I have seen the opening statements of both. I almost burst out laughing at the poor poor tack taken by Darrel. Firstly, he sets out deconstructing Avalos' epistemology and morality. This is both a red herring and a shifting of the burden of proof. It matters not one jot, because that is not the focus of the debate. The debate is "Is the bible a source of absolute moral rules for today?" I can only see that Darrel should make a defensive stance. Avalos could have come out and said "I derive my morality from squeezing a lemon into my eye and chanting my name backwards four times" and it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

Avalos approaches it perfectly. In Darrel's defence, the wording of the debate title is stacked totally in Avalos' favour, but if Darrel believes in absolute morality, he's a chump.

Darrel's first sentence in his rebuttal is an attack on Avalos' morality again, but I can't see this as relevant to the debate question. 

It should be

1) are the rules in the bible absolutely moral
2) are they then applicable to today

In other words, can morality be at all defined by context (historical or otherwise)?

All you have to do is ask, then "If slavery is absolutely bad, why did he not absolutely and outrightly ban it then, in biblical times?"

The Christian will ALWAYS claim context and being too greater shift in the moral paradigm. Oh dear, bye bye absolutes. The Christian cannot win on moral absolutes, ever. Especially using the bible.