The Bible encourages debate

Thank you for your rebuttal. You've made some excellent points, however, I still believe there is a strong case for debate in the Bible.I want to start by acknowledging the point my opponent made after argument #2, namely that counter-examples alone do not constitute proof since they can be used to justify sin. This is a valid observation, therefore, I shall do my best in any examples to show that the Bible does indicate that the example is not sin.On to the arguments!Argument #1My opponent claims that the contentions that Abraham and Moses had with God were not "debates" but rather "bargainings." The claim is that a "debate" implies disagreement and argument which are not present during these contentions.I would contend that Abraham and Moses did indeed debate with God--that they disagreed with God's decision and argued with Him. In the example of Abraham, we see that Abraham brings up the subject of justice and argues that what God is planning to do is unjust: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?"The example of Moses is even more clear. God makes a decision to destroy Israel and Moses expresses disagreement: "O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people." Mose then proceeds to make his case, his argument against God's decision calling the misinterpretation of the Egyptians and the memory of the Patriarchs to his side. Moses also explicitly calls on God to relent from His anger. These are all the signs of a clear debate. Both disagreement and argument (as my opponent called for in the definition of debate) are clearly represented.My opponent asked the question as to whether Moses and Abraham would have continued to mock God's judgment had He not relented "as debate tactics are usually used to imply." However, I would contend that this question does not address the question of whether or not it was a debate, but rather who the winner of the debate would be. A debate has three possible outcomes:Side A comes to agree with side BSide B comes to agree with side ABoth sides agree to disagreeIn the Biblical narratives I have presented, we see that God concedes to men. If the men conceded to God, it would be no less a debate. In fact, we have such an example in the Bible--namely, the story of Job. We find in Job speaking in Job 13:15 "Though he slay me, I will hope in him, yet I will argue my ways to his face." Here, Job states himself that he is arguing with God, even to the point of placing his own life at risk. At the end of this debate, Job concedes to God's argument. We also find that in all of this Job did not sin but spoke what is right (Job 42:7). Rather it was Job's friends who tried to oppose Job's argument who were in need of a sin offering (Job 42:8-9). So, we have yet another example of debate with God being condoned in Scripture, only this time where God wins the debate.My opponent also cites the example of Jacob's wrestling in Genesis 32 as an example of why we should not contend with God. However, he omits the fact that Jacob was also blessed through his struggle. In fact, the angel said to Jacob, "You have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed" (Gen. 32:28). Clearly, contending with the Almighty does not come without its risks, but neither is it without potential reward.*I have shown now four examples of men contending with God and in every example it is clear that debate was looked favorably upon (whether God or man "won" the debate).Rebuttal of opponent's argument for a more submissive attitude towards others: My opponent cites Romans 12 as evidence that the Bible opposes debate. We see that the verse clearly calls for peace among men, but I would ask my opponent: Are peace and debate mutually exclusive? Are we not debating peacefully now? In refraining from calling each other names or letting emotion get the better of us, we are contending with each other over an issue peacefully; and when we are done we will exchange a virtual handshake as a sign of that peace. Even if we end up agreeing to disagree.Similarly, my opponent's other Bible references are about harmful violence (physical or otherwise). Again, does debate imply harmful violence? Rather than eliminating debate altogether, I would suggest that these verses place limits on how a debate should be conducted (much like this website has rules of conduct).Argument #2My opponent has rightly stated that examples are not evidence enough when it is not clear the the example was not in sin. I will concede on this point as I do not believe I can adequately prove that the Acts 15 example in condoned by Scripture.My opponent asked for clear Scriptural commands as evidence. I will provide the following:"...always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," (1 Peter 3:15) This example not only shows a command to be ready to argue for the faith, but also places limits on how it is to be done, bringing the verses that my opponent brought into clearer context.Argument #3My opponent has pointed out my poor word choice with the word "contradiction." However, even if we call them "paradoxes", I maintain my point. The paradoxes need to be reconciled in order to make sense of them. As my opponent stated, these are truths "which only seem to contradict each other, but actually lead to a higher truth." But what is that higher truth and how do we come to know it? These higher truths are not clearly stated and therefore require study and debate to bring them out.Thank you again for taking the time to engage in this debate. I have enjoyed the challenge. With that said, the last word is yours. I look forward to your reply.