God is guilty of collusion to sacrifice a child in the case of Jepthah

My opponent has demonstrated that he is not actually interested in debate, only in berating people he disagrees with. As such, I shall keep my closing comments brief.My opponent presents a passage in which he substitutes the Trickster and Allah into the text in place of Yahweh. He urges you to believe that I would not afford these characters the same analysis I do for the LORD. However, there is no evidence to the contrary, and as such he has wasted several hundred characters. I can assure you that were we referring to Allah or the Trickster I would analyze all the evidence given to me regarding their past behavior, known character traits, etc, and make a decision regarding the situation. My opponent has not provided any evidence to the contrary and since I am a legitimate expert on myself and my own behavior... I urge you to take my word in this manner.I never implied that Yahweh didn't or may not have known about it, rather I said that we have no indication from the text one way or another. There are entire schools of theological thought in which Yahweh does not know the future because the future is not existent to be known (Commonly called Open Theism). In such a schema God may not have known what would walk through the door of Jepthah's house. Regardless, my opponent seek to insult me and assumes I am not aware of the omniscience passages in the Bible. Irrespective of if Yahweh does or does not know the circumstances, this does not change the fact that no where in the text are we told that Yahweh endorsed or approved of this deal, nor do we see any indication that he is pleased by the sacrifice or would be displeased if it had not occurred.Furthermore, my opponent fails to realize that in a court of law, character testimony is only valid in the presence of hard irrefutable evidence. The so-called evidence that my opponent has presented is circumstantial at best. I would also like to point out that my opponent appeals to the rules and conduct of a court of law, as it suits him. Rather than place this debate fully in the scenario of a court of law and argue regarding shadow of doubt, he only invokes the court scenario as is convenient. My opponent is fond of addressing the audience with rhetorical questions. Let me ask this question, if YOU were Yahweh would you accept a guilty verdict based on such faulty logic and circumstantial evidence? Would you allow yourself to be convicted for a crime that all the evidence points to you being absent. Let me remind my audience that no where in the book of Judges, nor anywhere else in the Bible, nor anywhere else in extra-biblical literature (Mishna, Talmud, Rabbinical Teachings) does anyone state or imply that Yahweh was pleased with this sacrifice or demanded it. There is zero actual evidence that Yahweh is guilty of collusion in this case.Next, my opponent seeks to bolster his analogy by claiming that the analogy is false. However, everywhere in the book of Judges that the Spirit of the LORD is with a judge, God has already determined to deliver Israel from her enemies. So in the crude analogy my opponent has constructed, the woman had already decided to have sex with the man with no prior conditions. Just because the man thought he had to pay the woman does not make it prostitution, it simply makes a foolish man.Finally, my opponent proves his true colors. He created this debate on the premise that he sought to have open and honest debate. His ad hominem attacks regarding battered women syndrom, his sarcastic comments regarding "good ole' Yah", and his general demeanor prove that he is a debater of the lowest caliber in both skill and character. This is the first time I have ever urged the reader to vote in a specific way in the conduct portion, however anything other than a point against my opponent in the area of conduct is irresponsible.In closing, I would like to outline my defense of Yahweh.1) There is no indication in the text that Yahweh acknowledged, endorsed, approved of, or accepted the sacrifice of Jepthah's daughter. Since we do not even see Yahweh at the scene, we have no evidence with which to convict him.2) My opponent's analogy is faulty and should not be used as evidence, for, as shown by his previous action in the book of Judges, Yahweh already intended to deliver the ammonites into the hand of Jepthah (as indicated by the fact that the Spirit of the LORD was upon him) PRIOR to the misguided vow. The fact that Yahweh intended to deliver prior to the vow has not been refuted by my opponent.3) My opponent has not satisfied the burden of proof for this debate. In a formal debate, Pro has the burden of proof to irrefutably show that the resolution is true. In this case, I have not only shown him not to have fulfilled this burden, but I have shown that there is not enough evidence to convict a person of the crime that Yahweh is accused of.4) My opponent has shown that his intent in this debate was not to engage in friendly debate, rather it was to use this website as a platform to insult, degrade, and mock religious perspectives other than his own. He has made a mockery of this site and I urge your conduct vote to reflect that.Finally, I would like to both thank the readers, but also apologize. Thank you for reading this debate and voting according to your judgement, I appreciate the time and energy it takes to read and analyze a debate like this. I would also like to apologize, this debate is a spill over from a hostile discussion in the comments of another debate. I took this hoping Pro would prove me wrong in my assessment of his character, and he did not. I'm sorry that you all had to participate in his debacle.