The God of the Bible is mostly evil

Good luck to you. "You are taking words in my mouth. "I'm not taking words out of your mouth I'm simply agreeing with that particular attribute as I stated in my second contention that God, by definition, is the very definition of good. "If morality CHANGES from one society to another, we should have allowed the different genocides and should not be involved in Lybia or be involved with trying to humanize the barbarians. Therefore, you must also state that Hitler was right in the fact that he killed millions of Jews. "No, we should not have allowed the Holocaust to happen because from an objective moral stance, what Hitler did was evil. My opponent can't really say what is evil and what is good because he has nothing to base it upon except society. I have no idea what so ever, how my opponent jumping from my claim that he has subjective morality, to saying that I should therefore support Hitler would like to see how he got from the first point to another unrelated point. "Well, there are some "Morals" and "Family values" that are in the Bible that Christians would be appalled to keep. If you need some examples, I shall bring forth them in my next round. " My opponent makes no attack on my claim that he cannot determine what is evil or moral. He continually tries to bring up verses that, in his own subjective opinion, are evil. "You have ADMITED that the law of the Lord is PERFECT. Since it is PERFECT it cannot change. " Yes I admit and follow the Law of the Lord, I say and believe it is perfect and it does not change. My opponent reaffirms my initial position in this debate thinking of it as a victory? My opponent then goes on to say how slavery was allowed in the Bible, yet he does not even attack my defense of the reasons why slavery was permitted in the Bible. My opponent is simply copying and pasting his arguments. So here is the Biblical stance on slavery once again, this time please attack it or agree. Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46). The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20). The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11). The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14). The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11). The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17). The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14). The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My opponent in his first round presented several verses. I examined those verse and showed how my opponent had either taken the verse out of context, used an incorrect translation, etc. And he did not defend his position on any of those verse. He did bring back the verse he had previously brought up on the subject of slavery yet he still failed to attack my arguments for that as well. He disregards my second and third contentions completely! If this was a formal debate I could claim victory right now due to my opponent not attacking the majority of my case. However, for the sake of the debate I will pursue. My opponent took verses out of context in the first round, and then my arguments in the second. I expect him to do so again, but I stand by my first contention. So I want the last question in this round to be what basis do you have to say anything is wrong? Good luck in your next round