There's too much hate in God

Hopefully this debate ends up being intellectual from both sides. Anyway, I'm going to basically address everything from my opponent's side and present some extra stuff that'll help me build constructive arguments on my side once we get a clearer direction of the debate. Sound good?The Resolution:"There's too much hate in God." I believe what my opponent is trying to say is that God is too hateful. Without a proper metric for hate, I'm not sure how this topic can be judged or even debated effectively. If my opponent can in the next round present a metric that would be fantastic. To be clear, I'm asking for a way to measure the claim.The Positions:If you're confused about the positions, you definitely should be. I'm technically con to this resolution, and my opponent is technically pro. However, my opponent ignored everyone in the comments who tried to tell him this, preferring the "insult all who disagree with me" path. So I could end the round right here and say "now he has to support God, because he's con." But that wouldn't actually lead to anything, and while members who know how a debate works might vote for me, that's not really why we're here. We're here to have a productive discussion (I hope that's why we're both here anyway).BOP:The burden of proof is on my opponent. He is making the claim, which means he must back it up. I must only cast enough doubt on the claim for you a voter to question the validity of the claim. That's not to say I won't bring forth my own arguments. I will give myself some BOP because I have statements to prove throughout the debate.I just want you to be aware that even if he managed to shut down extraneous arguments of mine, the thing that really matters is that the claims supporting the resolution have remained true. The resolution is the thing that really matters in the end, which is why I'm asking that my opponent attempts to measure it.Ignorance:In this case, I simply mean to ignore. As in, my opponent has selected things from the Bible but failed to perform an exegesis on them. This is the result of looking for something wrong with Bible as opposed to studying it to find out what it actually means. My opponent is not a scholar of the Bible. Fortunately, I happen to enjoy studying proper exegesis and hermeneutics.Let me define those, because I don't expect everyone to know what those mean.Exegesis: "An explanation or critical interpretation of a text." [1]Hermeneutics: "The science of interpretation, especially of the scriptures." [2]Now, let's get to the good stuff. One of the first rules of hermeneutics is that you can't interpret the Bible based on a few sentences. That's why I tend to read a chapter at a time, because you can actually derive meaning from that. It's like catching the tail end of a conversation and assuming what the rest of it was about and what all the parties were thinking despite not having been there for any of the rest of the discussion.So if we read the rest of 2 Chronicles 15, it says that Judah was filled with civil war and violent crime because the people had strayed away from the Lord, who would prefer for none of that to happen. Instead, they were worshipping idols. The story is actually about a King named Asa who took charge of the situation. He essentially issued a death sentence for the people who were living a life of violence and hate.Keep in mind, the people who were sentenced to death were not simply choosing a passive atheism or agnosticism. They were actively choosing a life of violence and idolatry, as evidenced by the time before Asa became king. So these people sentenced to death were actually doing something very wrong.Whether this was the right move or not is up for debate, but keep in mind this was the action of a man, not the action of God. However, you may argue it was definitely guided by God, because after that, Judah was war free for 35 years. Don't believe me? I linked you at the bottom [3]Here's the summary, my opponent took the tail end of a conversation and based his distaste on that. However, the rest of the chapter clears it up quite nicely, and we can see that when you put in the effort to understand, it's really not that hard. This was a fairly easy verse to explain.Whose Fault is it?Here's the other problem. My opponent is taking the side that everything is God's fault (I don't know if he said that in the debate, but he said it in the comments. I'm just assuming it'll be the same in the next round, so I'm addressing it). Because God has the ability to stop evil, he must right? That's the typical POE argument.Unfortunately, it relies on an underlying assertion that's not true: "A benevolent God who has the ability to stop evil would stop evil given that he knows about it."In fact, it's the opposite. In order for God to be a loving God, he must allow evil to exist. Contrast the two options: you can have a partner who loves you and obeys you no matter what because they have no choice or you have a partner who loves you and obeys you no matter what even when given the choice to do something else.One of them sounds like actual love, and the other is essentially slavery of the mind. In order for God to love us and for us to love him, there must be a choice to do horrid, evil things that are completely against the desires of God. Without that choice, there is no loving relationship. So God allows evil to exist because he loves us, and it is because of that, that humans are to blame for the evil things that humans do.Summary:My opponent presented a very emotionally charged first round with tons of loaded statements and things of the sort. I've attempted to sort them out and explain reasonably why my side is correct. I hope my opponent does the same thing successfully in the next round. Keep in mind that the debate is incredibly vague, and we're waiting on my opponent to bring forth a metric. If he fails to do so, I will attempt to bring a metric in the second round. If I bring a metric, my opponent agrees to it, because I am giving him 72 hours to at least come up with a proper way to measure this debate. If he doesn't, we'll assume he doesn't care what I choose as a metric.We also are awaiting evidence and a proper interpretation of the scriptures brought forth. Burden of proof is on him, and until he proves something in this debate, he is not winning.Good luck in the next round.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...