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

1) My purpose in this debate is not to defend free will. There is no indication that Yahweh violated free will in handing over the ammonites into the hands of Jepthah. Rather, it is likely that he, as a superior being, simply battled against them along side Jepthah and his army. My propose in this point was rather to demonstrate that if we wish to see how Yahweh interacts with those who commit child sacrifice, we see when we look at the greater picture of Scripture that actively preventing them is the exception to the rule, not the rule. By and large Yahweh allows pepole to carry out whatever sin they chose to partake in, including child sacrifice. Your "example" of how he would handle a sacrifice he did not approve of is not a valid analogy and your red hearing of attacking "free will" is not a valid argument against this point.2) Again, this situation is not analogous as Christ was in full agreement with his own sacrifice at all points in time. Jepthah's daughter as only in agreement after the vow had been made. Again, when we look at the broader picture that Scripture paints Yahweh is opposed to human sacrifice at all times. The fact that he allows it in certian circumstances does not mean he is in favor of it or not opposed to it.3) My opponent has set this debate up as a legal prosecution. He argues as though he is convicting Yahweh, and in a court of law the evidence he has is circumstantial at best. The facts we have in front of us is that Yahweh neither agreed to this "deal," endorsed it, or showed any satisfaction at the outcome. Yahweh is entierly silent in this issue and my opponent is putting words, motives, and actions in His mouth. Regardless of if Japtheh believed he was involved or not, the text does not indicate that he was. Futhermore, my opponent characterizes the vow as if it was known ahead of time that the sacrifice would be human. This is unlikely, and it is more likely that Jepthah was expecting an animal to greet him.4) My opponent has intentionally set up a faulty analogy in which Yahweh looks guilty. Furthermore, I have shown that paradigmatically when the Spirit of the LORD rests on a judge, Yahweh is already intending to deliver the nation of Israel. So if we must draw an analogy involving sex it wold go like this: A woman at a club sees a man and decides she will take him home and have sex with him. She has no expectation of financial return, nor is she requiring it. The man, assuming she is a prostitute when she approaches him and offers him sex, offers her what he thinks is a fair price. She says nothing but continues to lead him to her car and take him to her appartment. The two have sex and while the woman is using the bathroom he leaves money on the dresser and leaves. We have no account of what the woman did with the money after she discovered it.In this analogy, which is much closer to what is happening in the text, we do not have enough evidence to say the woman accepted money for sex. We don't even have enough evidence to say she accepted money at all. We only have a man who believed he needed to leave money and left it. While somone looking on may assume that the woman accepted money, however that is not what the evidence states. The evidence simply tells us that the man believed they needed to leave money.5) My opponent has not responded, please carry my rebuttal into this round6) "Once it is clear that Yahweh accepted the terms and knew about the terms, which all o our evidence suggess, in any legal circumstance he is obligated to stop it." My opponent has not submitted any actual evidence that Yahweh is obligated to stop anything, nor that Yahweh knew about or accepted the terms. The text does not supply that Yahweh knew about nor accepted the terms.7) My opponent now turns to add further evidence of Yahweh's character. However, this is irrelevant to this debate. The way he punishes sin is irrelevant to this dicussion. It does not speak one way or the other toward his collusion in the death of Jepthah's daughter. Furthermore my opponent resorts to an appeal to emotion which should not be considered in this debate. If Yahweh didor did not kill millions of infants during the flood is irrelevant to if he participated in collusion in the case of Jepthah's daughter.