It is required that god be ousted from power due to his violent, evil and hateful ways and behaviors

My opponent begins by sort of "self-contradicting" himself. He denies that he is taking the verses he previously cited in round two out of context, saying that I would have to prove him wrong. However, this is exactly what I did in the previous round. I gave him information on the whole chapters that he read from, telling him about the context about the entire chapter, and how the verses related to it. He even asked for chapters and verses only, which I gave him. The way he described the verses was, many times, far from the actual meaning. My opponent loves to take these verses rather literally than taking time to understand what they are really saying. Secondly, he doesn't acknowledge any information that I gave him, even after he asked for it himself. After giving him specific references to the Bible, he denies that they have any meaning whatsoever, saying that they don't teach us anything. He only takes time to look into verses deeply that end up benefiting him. He is analyzing for his own convenience, again, not taking into any account the citations I gave him. My opponent then creates another "ad nauseam" logical fallacy, by re-stating, as he has done a number of times which I can't count anymore, that he feels God is unjust and inhumane. He seems to think that by repeating this claim over and over again, its meaning will somehow become more meaningful and effective. This is not what is happening. He is, in fact, wearing his claims out by repeating them so much. I will respond to the references my opponent offers in short answers for each. Every number of the list relates to the corresponding reference. 1. The city of Zion was in great sin and iniquity, which is why conditions were this way. 2. God clearly commanded that we should love him with all of our strength, as seen in Matthew 22:37. The verse my opponent gives is not saying that we shouldn't love our parents. It does say that most of our love should be dedicated towards God. 3. Again, my opponent fails to take into account that great sin and wickedness preceded this. 4. This was commanded by God because they were in great wickedness. 5. God warned them in these verses that if they turned to sinful and wicked ways, these things would happen. Again, it's all related to wickedness. 6. David brought this upon himself. He was the one who committed adultery, which is one of the worst sins in the eyes of God. This was his punishment. 7. My opponent does not consider who the Amalekites were. They were people who attacked God's people. God ordered them to be killed due to their wickedness. 8. Again, the wickedness and sinfulness of the city is the reason for this. 9. Those slain were wicked. 10. This one will take a longer explanation. The Egyptians were holding the Israelites captive, treating them horribly and making them their slaves. God had mercy on his people because they continued to put their faith in him. He sent many warning signs before the smote the firstborn of every Egyptian family, as can be seen in Exodus chapters 7-10. God did not immediately kill the firstborns. He took a more peaceful path at first, as my opponent has stated in the first round that he DIDN'T do. The Egyptians refused to let the Israelites go, so God had to resort to this. That is all I'm going to explain for now. It has become clear that my opponent has not read all of these chapters from which he cites the verses from. He refuses to acknowledge in any way what the actions of the people were who this happened to. In fact, it is possible that my opponent has not even read these references at all, as it is easy to google references in which God killed people, and then copy and paste those into where ever he wants. If he had found these verses through actual study of the Bible, he would have also come across the many times it states WHY God did what he did, and the actions of the people that led him to take that course of action. Furthermore, my opponent cannot claim God to be an evil person just by looking at these references alone, as they do not present any context whatsoever. It would be just like me calling my parents evil human beings after only looking at the punishments they have given me, and not taking any thought into the big picture. My parents are not evil because punishments have much more to them than they seem at face value. In the same way, God cannot be considered evil after just looking at verses where he has killed people. My opponent needs to look at the big picture. With only this information, my opponent proceeds to put the blame on God, saying that all of this death and destruction was his fault, and he is therefore evil. After analysis of the verses he has provided, this is nonsense. It was through the actions of the people in question that brought about their own death and destruction. He seems to think that because of all of this suffering, God has come to delight in suffering. This is also complete nonsense, as he as offered no evidence to support this. Nothing is ever said or implied that shows that God loved the suffering. Next, my opponent proceeds to take about the suffering Jesus went through before his death. He makes the faulty assumption that because the period of suffering was relatively short, he did not suffer much. That is not true. He has not looked into the accounts of Jesus when he was suffering, such as Luke 22:40-45. It states that his suffering was so great, he bled from every pore of his body. He felt every pain, agony, emotion, and sickness of every human being that ever lived on this earth AT ONCE. So my opponent is correct in saying that some people of this earth have suffered for decades, but he doesn't realize that Jesus felt this suffering, in addition to all other kinds, at one time. Now my opponent tries to throw another distraction at me. He begins to try to connect abusiveness to the purposes of children being created by God. He makes a claim that children were created by God to be abused. He gives an example of child abuse, which I will not deny, does in fact happen in our world today. Yet, he makes no connections as to why he feels children were created for this purpose. This is nothing more than oversimplified assumptions driven by emotions. He has no way to show that these were the purposes of children. These aren't even passages from the Bible, which is why it classifies as a distraction. He goes on to use the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy (correlation for causation). He tries to say that because God doesn't stop this suffering, children are made for it and/or God is evil. These arguments are extremely faulty, as he puts two things together that don't go together. He can't say children were made for suffering just because we have children suffering today. I love what my opponent does next. He builds up a straw man fallacy (taking positions that no reasonable person would disagree with as a way to advance your arguments). First, he states that children's voices are never heard in the Bible. While this might be true, he seems to think it was because God "shut them out". This is an unrelated claim. It very well could've been because nothing said by children was significant enough to include. Here comes the straw man. He tries to put me in someone else's shoes by asking how I would feel if I was in situation "X". The situation he presents would obviously be undesirable by any reasonable person. This does not advance his arguments in any way. I hope my opponent has some good rest over the next few days. I would like to let him know that I did in fact look up the references he gave. That's how I was able to provide the context of them. He claims the debate is shifted unfairly towards my side. I would have to disagree. He is the one who is using faulty premises to build his arguments from, as I have established many times. I would like to leave my opponent with one final thought. Why haven't you looked deeper into these verses? Why do you think you can be so judgmental of God without understanding his actions? Why do you feel you have the duty to harass others for their religious beliefs? Why are you analyzing upon your own convenience? I look forward to hearing my opponent's response.