Well...
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
No, for the context was that of child discipline, which the atheists, in large with other liberals, utterly rejected physical means of so doing, despite the clear support from Scripture.
The above case pertains to what happens after correction sees no change*, akin to the "cursed children" of Heb. 6, and what the atheist asserted what that Scripture stated (not even just taught) that a child could be beaten to death. His text?
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. (Exodus 21:20-21)
In the first case the punishment is understood by some to mean death, as Gill (who often quotes Jewish commentary) reports was the opinion of the medieval French rabbi Jarchi (Shlomo Yitzchaki)
Thus mortally wounding a slave could make the owner subject to capital punishment, unless he uses slow poison or equivalent, as a non-incapacitating injury saw no penalty (the owner actually hurting himself by harming his help), yet as the chapter soon adds, even the loss of a tooth meant the slave could go free, while Jewish law also stated,
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped ["nâtsal," which usually means "delivered"] from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)
And consistent with the history of jurisprudence, the above laws indicates an intent to prevent mistreatment of slaves, even if not forbidding the well- established institution so integral to the ANE economy, and the principle behind the loss of a tooth could allow for other serious injuries warranting release.
However, despite being shown the above texts and intent, the atheist doubled down in his assertion that this text states that a child may be beaten to death, which besides meaning an extrapolated interpretation means actually "states," and which would be inconsistent with the intent of preventing incapacitating injuries and death, then it must be reasoned (not a problem for a committed atheist) that the owner is given freedom to kill his servant if he can do so without inflicting an incapacitating injury that takes place within a day or so, yet serious enough that the mistreated slave cannot escape. The mod finally locked the thread after another ad hominem attack by liberals faced with no valid argument from Scripture for their anti-corporal discipline stand.
Similar to this, i once argued with a former Orthodox Cath. turned angry atheist that the OT sanctioned father-daughter incest, since it was not explicitly forbidden, and as it was common then thus it was allowed(!). Somehow forbidding uncovering the nakedness of any near flesh did cover it, or a daughter being stoned for not being a virgin on her wedding night, and the loss of dowry.
However, despite atheistic trumpeting of reasoning as the basis for determining right and wrong, without even a transcendent supreme standard for what even is sound reasoning and what is moral, the conclusions of such atheistic reasoning is apparently determined by a need to denigrate Scripture in order to justify themselves as morally superior.
We also must try to objectively weigh the merits of arguments, even if it does not mean we automatically surrender our convictions at the time. Better to hold a conclusion in suspension while awaiting more light if need be, then forcing an argument.
*Gill comments on Dt. 21:18: which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother; is disobedient to the commands of either of them; see Pro_30:17 and, when they have chastened him, will not hearken to them; when they have reproved him by words, and corrected him with blows; the Jews understand this of scourging or beating by the order of the sanhedrim, after admonition given; it is said (x),"they admonish him before three (a court of judicature consisting of three judges), and they beat him; but it seems rather to respect private corrections of their own by words and stripes, which having no effect, they were to proceed as follows .
w) Moses Kotensis Mitzvot Torah, pr. affirm. 122. Kimchi in 2 Sam. 3. 3. (x) Misn. Sandedrin, c. 8. sect. 4.