Which is more moral? Man or YOUR god of the bible or torah? Take a morality test to find out its man

Lets make a note for the voters: Backwardseden's childish fumbling of insults and ad hominems, as well as wild accusation of personal immorality contrasted by a complete lack of understanding of the Bible clearly demonstrate the weakness of his arguments. Additionally, his poor organization should be an indicator of his scattered thought process. I have clearly won round one. With that in mind, let's look the arguments. 1) My opponent has stated that my framework: "An individual may possess objective morals through his or her religion, while society cannot hold objective moral truths." Is a hypocritical contradiction due to it preventing one from following their own God. This shows me that he mistakes the beliefs of an individual with the ability to tolerate the beliefs of his or her neighbor. To that end, it is perfectly reasonable to be a Christian and accept everyone else is free to follow whatever religion they chose. And that truth means that inevitably, everyone in society has a slightly different set of moral codes. This is a basic concept. 2) My opponent claims that I have redefined the rules of the debate. I have not, but in fact humored the archaic format that he has presented. I say archaic because his argument is less of an argument than a ridiculously narrow-minded word salad of assertions that runs into a conclusion based on a total lack of knowledge of the Bible. I should add that since the resolution is whether or not man or God is more moral, his arguments related to the ethics of those morals are irrelevant, and not much more than the ravings of someone who doesn't understand their own arguments. 3) My opponent asks for proof that the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and meaning that man is no longer beholden to the law for salvation. To this I simply point to the verse ROMANS 6:14: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace". Which supports in entirety my claim. My opponent then sites several verses explaining the sanctity of Gods word, which does nothing to prove that the old and new testament contradict each other in any way, but rather point out that God simply speaks the truth. The Old and New Testament are like the signing and fulfilling of a contract. The old testament gives the law, and the new testament fulfills it with the distinction that man broke the law, and Christ took the penalty. My opponent states that since Gods word is perfect, why would he change it? The simple answer is that he didn't; he gave man a covenant, and when man broke the covenant, God fulfilled it in man's place. 4) Backwardseden then goes on a tirade about God turning on his decisions which again, is a misunderstanding. That God had wrath against those who disobeyed in the Old Testament, doesn't prove a lack of morality, unless Backwardseden can prove that people are completely blameless. He also blocks the validity of Christ taking on flesh, which whether you believe it or not, is irrelevant to this debate. I should note that my opponents arguments are so full of rabbit trails and non-sequiturs, not to mention ad hominems that I can hardly follow it. Let the vote reflect this. 5) On the arguments that the calling of Christians to give away their possessions to follow Christ is in someway immoral, would suggest that man should have no higher calling than to pursue wealth and comfort. 6) On the misinterpretation of Matthew 19.28: This verse states that putting anything above God, even family, is a form of idolatry. My opponent reads it in a way that suggests that God is against the concept of family when in reality family is one of the most important parts of being a Christian. It is even widely held that marriage is a Christian institution. 7) On the misinterpretation of Luke 12.51: This verse explains that Christs death would cause division and persecution (a prophecy) as a result of people's unwillingness to accept it. He says "division not peace" because people thought that Christ was coming as a warrior to free them from the Romans, when in fact he was here for a higher purpose. My opponent reads a cherry-picked part of the prophecy and plays it off as the words of a villain. 8) My opponent lists several other verses without a word of explanation - most likely copy and pasted in haphazardly. I cannot touch on all of these without writing a book, so I will simply note that the lack of any argument offers no support to his assertions. 9) On the claim that any dis-belief at all is a trip to Hell: This is a non-sequitur. None of my opponents claims even remotely reach this conclusion. Additionally, it is not true. For Christians, doctrine comes second to salvation. It may seem odd, but even a murderer can get to heaven by uttering one sentence ("I accept Crist as my Lord and Savior"), having never believed a word of the Bible. 10) On the claim that Gods morals are somehow immoral. The entire framework of this debate is that morals cannot be agreed upon by everyone on earth, so this assertion is based on a personal opinion, which is irrelevant to this debate. 11) On moral bankruptcy. Calling me immoral achieves nothing. 12) My opponents conclusion is not even a conclusion but rather an insult toward me, and in no way constitutes a coherent argument. Conclusion) Not only have I addressed and crushed every single point made by Backwardseden, but he dropped half of my arguments from round one, and then filled round two with a word salad of non-sequiturs and wild accusations that equate to total gibberish. I have already won this debate. To link it all together, my opponent bases his ideas of morality on whatever opinion comforts his delicate sense of moral superiority. Never mind whether Christianity is legitimate or not, this fact could extend to any religion. Backwardseden makes wild claims of God's evil doing based on misread cherry-picked sentences from the Bible - a classic technique. I on the other hand have proven that society cannot be more moral than God based on the fact that for a society: morals are relative, while for God: morals are founded on the fulfillment of the Old and New Testament. Because of this you must vote for the Con side of the resolution. By the way, the insults at the beginning like "seasons beatings" and "how are you drooling" are hilariously bad. Work on your material friend.