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

First of all, my opponent doesn't seem to provide evidence really well. In the first paragraph, all he is doing is taking someone else's claim and making it his evidence. Secondly, my opponent seems to like using the "ad nauseam" logical fallacy (argument to the point of disgust, such as by repetition). He has stated repeatedly that he feels God has killed people for no reason, without offering any support for his reasoning. He assumes that by repeating this position over and over again, he will prove his point to me. He is purely using his emotions as support rather than giving actual reasoning. My opponent has stated: "Your god is immoral and thus needs to be removed from his supposed immortal high holiness throbbing throne toilet office NOW." It seems so far that the only reasoning he has provided is that he has killed people "for no reason." Clearly my opponent has not read the Bible. God is not a person who would embrace killing innocent humans for no reason, especially since he loves everyone. My opponent apparently fails to understand each of the stories in their context. Here is one of the biggest components of my opponent's arguments. He is embracing the "ad hominem" logical fallacy. This is an argument that is directed at the person instead of the idea. Here is one great example of this: "Due to the fact that you are still in high school and several pay grades below me, your maturity level isn"t quite there now is it?" First of all, he has no information to base this off of, as he has no idea what my grades are or how I am performing in school. He is simply using emotions. Secondly, this is an attack on me instead of my arguments. In a way, he is trying to show that because he feels I'm not up to par with his definitions of maturity, I have no right or reason to disagree with him. This is not true. He is trying to deviate from combating my arguments by attacking me instead. It is now in the second round of this debate he has begun to offer any evidence whatsoever. He cites some versus from the Bible. However, he fails to understand the context in which they were given. Instead, he is taking the verses at face value rather than reading the rest of the context. This is not the way to read the Bible. After reading the WHOLE chapter of 2 Chronicles 15, it has become clear to me that my opponent did not consider some vital information given before the verses he cited. In verse 8 of this chapter, we read: "And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord." This shows that the city was not full of innocent people, as my opponent is speculating. They were in great crime and wickedness, as it states that they were worshiping idols instead of the Lord. This death that was being talked about was not directed at those who simply chose to not follow him. It was directed towards those who were living in wickedness, saying that if they continued, they would be punished. Continuing on, he continues the "ad hominem" fallacies. He thinks that he can determine who is educated, and who is not, just so he can harass them. Again, this is avoiding the argument at hand. If he wants to call me "swine flu, roach meat, etc." that's fine. I don't care, he is an American and has a 1st Amendment right to express himself. All he is doing is putting me down without making much effort to argue his claims. I can tell he is very passionate about this topic, so I think his time would be better spent on the topic, not me. As he builds his "arguments", he attempts to throw a "red herring" fallacy, or a distraction at me. He makes a claim that text is one of the worst forms of communication. This is an opinion, not a fact, that has no relation to the point he is trying to make. In his next citation of the Bible, he takes it out of context. In Deuteronomy 13, God is warning his people not to fall for false prophets that would lead his people away. He tells them that if they find such a prophet, to put him to death. This shows again that the death God ordered was not derived from pleasure, but from wickedness of the people themselves. "So you either believe in your god or you die. Its that simple." Well, no it's not. These chapters he cites show time and time again that wickedness of people led to their deaths, not God wanting to kill for pleasure. Now he proceeds to make oversimplifications from faulty premises. He somehow thinks that because God punished wickedness by death, it is our obligation to do so. Not only is this not true, it's a ridiculous oversimplification. One of the 10 Commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill". (I can already sense that an opposition to this will be something like, "if he tells you to not kill people, why does he do it himself?) Because it is his job to judge people, not ours. He has the right to deal with us in any way he sees fit. So to say that I have an obligation to murder my opponent is absurd, as this is not anywhere near what God wants us to do. Here is another example of his attempts to distract me from the topic. My opponent then attempts to define all the killings done by God as "genocide". While I can see how he may feel this way, he seems to forget God's thoughts in the whole thing. Genocide, as he has stated, is "100% pure hate and evil". God, however, as I established earlier, loves everyone. He doesn't have to love their actions in order to love them. If they make mistakes, there are consequences to those mistakes. But these deaths were NEVER done from hate. Therefore, from my opponent's own definition of genocide, these deaths in the Bible were not genocide. Moving on to the topic of The Great Flood, my opponent, again, refuses to look at the entire picture. Those who were living at the time, with the exception of Noah, his family and a few others, were doing so in extreme wickedness. God sent Noah to try to get the people to get their act together. He tried many times. Warnings came; they were told they would be destroyed if they did not stop their wrongdoings. They did not listen to him. So God sent the flood to wipe them out, but before he did, he warned Noah and all others who were righteous to build a boat so they wouldn't drown. This seems just to me. Only the wicked were killed, and the innocent were spared. I don't see how that is evil in any way. As far as the animals go, it does seem unusual that they were able to explode in population at the rate that they did. But God made it work. How? I don't know. It doesn't matter how. The fact of the matter is he did it. Also, legends of similar stories have nothing to do with influencing his decisions, nor with what we are discussing. Now I will give references that show that God loves everyone. Proverbs 3:12 "For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 13:34 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Mark 10:13-16 "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." I would like my opponent to, after reading these references, articulate where he got the idea that God hates children. Now my opponent tries to show that God hates women. There are footnotes in the verses he has cited which elaborate on the meaning of them. These verses tell women to be humble (this is the implicit meaning of "silent") and not attempt to be dominant over the man. This does not imply that the man is above the woman. They are equal. He then proceeds to tell me that I have not read the Bible, yet refuses to do so himself. In conclusion, my opponent does not go about debating this topic in a good way. These include actions such as: *Using many different types of logical fallacies and faulty thinking as a main argument strategy *Bringing attacks on his opponent rather than the ideas in the debate *Refusing to look at any context whatsoever in which the verses he cited were used in *Oversimplifying actions he has seen and applying them to today *Overall immature conduct that shows he is more interested in harassing people for disagreeing with him rather than productively defending his position Furthermore, he makes no connections as to WHY he feels God should be removed from power. All he is trying to do is prove that God is evil. As for my final statement on the prompt itself: God is in no way evil, hateful, or corrupt towards his people, and therefore even thinking about removing him from power is sickening. I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses, and I hope that he begins making logical connections in his arguments.