The Christian God was not justified in instrumenting mass-killings in the Old Testament.

"Despite his claims to the contrary, my opponent STILL hasn't offeredany evidence why he thinks the actions described in round one areunjust. Sure, God had other options, but that's not what I asked for.Simply having a second option doesn't make the first.option unjust.My.opponent still hasn't told us WHY he believes God's actions areunjust."God was unjust in sentencing innocent babies to violent deaths because they were innocent. What is so hard to understand about that? God had every other available option that WOULD NOT result in innocent bloodshed. But what did he do? He chose to command thousands of innocent babies and children to die violent deaths when he could have easily avoided it. THAT is what makes this action unjust. There is no good reason that could justify violently killing innocent babies when you could easily do otherwise. God simply had no reason to slaughter babies. Punishing a baby for the sins of the society it was born in is not justified because the baby is innocent of any crime. I hope you finally understand why killing innocent babies is unjust.In round 2, I said: "I challenge Con to answer whether or not he would think that God creating babies to be raped and tortured by him and then having their existences ended immediately after would be justified."Con responded: "I've already made my claim. At this point of the debate, I'm STILLwaiting for my opponent to offer a counter argument as to why my claimsshouldn't be presumed to be correct for.the remainder of the debate."Con has completely ignored the challenge I issued when he was responding to it. So I challenge Con again to answer whether or not he would think that God creating babies to be raped and tortured by him and then having their existences ended immediately after would be justified. I argue that creating babies to be raped, tortured, and then killed only for your sadistic satisfaction is not justified whatsoever because there is no good reason to do it. Do not ignore this again, Con. Answer this challenge, or else everyone will know that you are side-stepping debate.In Round 3, Con said: "As my opponent admits, I sourced the information. Withthis in mind, I was not claiming it was my own original content.So, I don't see why it's an issue. If I sourced it, it's notplagiarized. Nowhere in the rules of this debate does it say copyingand pasting is not allowed. Nowhere in the rules did my opponent eversay I had to use quotation marks. Therefore, I have done nothing wrong.I am going to continue to do so."Your refusal to put quotation marks around sentences quoted from other people is completely immature. This is a simple spelling and grammar rule that you have refused to follow of your own accord, so I hope the voters will judge you accordingly.In Round 3, Con said: "Fist, my claim isn't that God is the most powerful (although He is).My argument is that.He is the supreme AUTHORITY, and as such, His actsare justified based His authority."How does authority justify action? The amount of authority a being possesses and the justification of its actions are two completely separate things.[1] The definition of justified once again: Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.[2] The definition of arbitrary: not planned or chosen for a particular reason; not based on reason or evidence.Keeping the definition of justified in mind, you are saying that God's "good reason" for ordering the violent deaths of babies is because he is the most powerful authority. God being the most powerful authority has absolutely nothing to do with the justification of his actions! If God makes an arbitrary decision to kill babies, and he just so happens to be the most powerful authority, that still doesn't negate the fact that he made an arbitrary decision. God needs a reason to kill those babies other than his authority, or else his actions shall be branded arbitrary and unjustified. Con needs to provide justification for the slaughter of babies other than God's authority because authority does not negate the arbitrary nature of a decision.My opponent continues to say in Round 3: "Next, it seems my opponent isclaiming that there are certain things that God "ought to do", butthat's not accurate. For someone to have thingsthey "ought to do", one has to have a superior he or she answers to.But God doesn't have any authority over Him, so He has no duties. Andif God has no duties, He cannot ever be unjust."I never claimed that God has things he "ought to do." For the purpose of this debate, God needs a good reason to slaughter innocent babies or else his actions will be branded arbitrary. I am not even positing objective morality; I am only saying that God needs a legitimate reason to have his actions consider justified. This is completely in line with the definition of justified. So far, all of your arguments have been trying to prove that God has the right to kill people arbitrarily. But even if God did possess the right to kill humans arbitrarily, that would not negate the fact that those killings are arbitrary. Since arbitrary is the opposite of justified, this would leave the resolution standing that the Christian God was not justified in instrumenting mass killings in the Old Testament. What Con needs to do is prove that God did have a legitimate reason to slaughter innocent babies when he could have easily avoided it by choosing any other more merciful option. But Con hasn't done that; he has only tried to prove that God has the right to kill innocent babies (which is an entirely different matter in itself). So, I challenge Con again to give reason for why God specifically chose to slaughter innocent creatures instead of showing them mercy. If he cannot provide legitimate reason for why it was the best option to kill those innocent creatures above all other options, then we must assume that God's actions are arbitrary and unjustified.Con said:"As long as God makes sure that I receive more happiness thanunhappiness as an innocent then I cannot claim he was being unjust withme, and as long as God compensates the innocent for the sufferings thathave come to them in this life then I do not see the grounds for himbeing fundamentally unjust."Unfortunately, this still says NOTHING about God's reason for making people suffer. The fact that God can give people immense happiness after they suffer in an arbitrary decision still says nothing about God's reason to make them suffer in the first place. If you can choose to give people ultimate happiness, then why would you ever make them suffer in the first place? Con hasn't given a reason throughout this whole debate. And if God decided to arbitrarily order the slaughter of an innocent child, the fact that he gives the child immense happiness after he/she suffers has nothing to do with God's reason for making the child suffer in the first place. If a billionaire decided to rape a small child who lives in poverty, but then subsequently give her millions of dollars afterward so that she is actually extremely happy for the rest of her life, that still wouldn't take away the fact that the billionaire had raped her without offering any reason whatsoever. And such is the case with God. It doesn't matter that he can supposedly compensate us for unjust suffering on Earth, the suffering by definition was arbitrary and unjustified. The ability to give someone infinite happiness after you commit a horrible injustice to them does not take away the fact that it was a horrible and arbitrary decision. Con has not delved into God's reasoning for making people suffer this entire debate; he has only tried to prove that his God didn't commit such a bad crime. Con still needs a reason why God ordered the slaughter of innocents. I refer you to the following Bible passages that specifically include God murdering children:[3] Exodus 12:29. God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh.[4] Joshua 8. God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai.[5] 2 Kings 2:23-24. The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and slaughtered forty-two of the young boys.[6] Lamentations 2:20-22. God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.[7] Joshua 6:20-21. Genocide takes place at Jericho where God again orders innocent children and babies to die.I challenge Con to provide legitimate reason for why God had committed these mass-killings and slaughtered innocent children along with civilians. If Con does not succeed in providing legitimate reason for why genocide and the slaughtering of infants was the best option in all of the mentioned cases, then God's actions shall be named arbitrary, and the resolution shall stand that his actions were not justified or marked by a legitimate reason.Sources:[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] Exodus 12:29- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[4] Joshua 8- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[5] 2 Kings 2:23-24- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[6] Lamentations 2:20-22- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[7] Joshua 6:20-21- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...