The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

My opponent believes that since god did order instances of rape, murder, and slavery he must be evil or at least mostly evil. However this argument is a very clear contradiction of terms. It is like saying that a circle is actually a square because it knows a square even when it has already been agreed that it is a circle.We all know that slavery, rape and murder is evil. Let's do us all a favour and release the rapist, murderes and other evil men since there is no difference from God doing it than a person doing it. I do not get your logic. Of course a circle isn't a square! The same goes with god. My opponent and I defined god as and agreed that god was "omni-benevolent". God is also the ultimate creator of morality and so what he does is thus automatically moral. Even without this fact that my opponent must accept I will refute his arguments in another way. Let me copy and pace our definition of God that we have agreed upon. God: The name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions(and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1] This bolded part is our definition God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere),omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), apersonal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and MuslimRemember. This debate is the God of the Bible and is referring to the Christian God. This italicised part is just added on characteristics people claims that God has. No where in my definition do I claim that God is omni-benevolent. I just simply point out that it is one of his characteristics. Notice I say, "God has also been conceived" instead of "God has been defined"You have no ground to stand on with that argument.Your argument "if God by definition is good, then everything he ordains is good" is actually an argument against God being "omnibenevolent," since we all "know" that genocide is evil. The point is that such a God contradicts our innate sense of what good is. No one should accept a God who violates our own sense of good and evil. My opponent here does not understand the nature of morality that we are to assume in the event that we assume God exists. If we assume God exists as we have defined him then yes, anything he does is automatically good. There is no "even if it's evil" because it logically cannot be evil. However this is not even my main defense. I will ask my opponent and voters to refer to my above point. Again, where in my difinition do I say God is omni-belevolent? I just simply point out it is a characteristic many people claim he has. As for the strawman arguments, I agree those are strawmen arguments. I was pointint out those strawmen arguments before you made them.I feel my work here is done.