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

I will being the final argument of this debate by telling my opponent that I do not in any way make things up. It clearly appears that this is what HE is doing. He claims that he didn't take one of his references out of context, but it is clear that he did. Worship of other gods in the sight of God is a sin. It is worthy of punishment to him. It is not worthy of hatred and evil. Those are two completely different things. Punishment does not imply hatred. He goes on to tell a complete lie that we are obligated to go out and kill atheists. The instructions God gave in that chapter only applied to Moses' people at that time. God has clearly told us today through the Ten Commandments that we should not kill anyone. So by not killing my opponent, I'm actually obeying God's laws. My opponent then tries to apply his own ideas of laws to the Bible, which is another form of faulty thinking. He claims that worshiping idols in biblical times is not a crime just because he feels that way. This is not how it worked. It was a sin in the sight of God. I would agree with him when he says rape is a crime. However, this has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. This qualifies as another distraction he tries to throw at me. He uses another logical fallacy by assuming that since we don't see people dying today from worshiping false gods, God does not exist. I don't know why he chooses not to do this today, that's his business. God works in mysterious ways. But my opponent thinks that just because he doesn't understand it means that it's not true. Here comes that "ad nauseam" fallacy again. He just keeps repeating that God hates everyone, expecting that it will be proven through repetition. The only evidence he has offered were references that showed God punishing people. As I have said many times, punishment does not imply hate. Just because God punishes people doesn't mean he hates them. This is just like saying, "My parents are evil and hateful towards me because they punish me". I will now reply to his thoughts on the Ten Commandments. He calls it a "crime list". Some of these commandments include, "Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not kill; honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God commanded thee, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee". My opponent says these instructions are "crimes". So, killing, committing adultery and stealing are not crimes to him. Those are some disgusting thoughts in my opinion. Also, they do in fact include children as a part of these commandments. God instructs children to obey their parents, and if they do, they will be rewarded with a good, long life. I guess my opponent thinks that obeying your parents is a crime too. He then goes on to say that this contradicts God's actions. This is an understandable way to look at it. However, he fails to recognize that this was within God's right to do so. Just because he has killed people does not in any way mean that he took pleasure in it. My opponent just assumes that he enjoyed it because he did it so much. There is no evidence of this in the Bible. He then goes on to say that I feel all of these killings were justified. He is correct. If the people in question would have repented or posed no threat to God's people, he would not have killed them. I love this part. My opponent asks me, "If God told me to jump in a fiery volcano, would I do it?" Yes! I have not been wicked, so he wouldn't kill me. He would save me. My opponent then tries to distract me again (what a surprise) by telling me that God doesn't exist. While I disagree with him extremely on this topic, this is not what we are debating about. I cannot force him to believe that God exists, that's his business. Not surprisingly, he then takes some of my words out of context AGAIN (it's funny how many times he has done this, and denies it). I was responding to his belief that I had an obligation to go kill him. My words were, "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." He tried to make it seem like I was talking about my family. Wrong again. I did look at the link you sent, and it did absolutely nothing for me. I still firmly believe in God, and you can never change that. But this debate is not about whether or not God exists. We are debating on whether or not he is is hateful and evil. I never said once that my opponent was wrong in calling it "genocide", that's just the way he sees it. I would not consider it that. I don't understand why my opponent makes the claim that I know God better than he knows himself. That is far from the truth, as I never said that. He then goes on to claim that I haven't established anything regarding God's love for everyone. I cited references where God explicitly stated himself, but my opponent denies this. The only way he attempted at proving me wrong was repeating himself over and over again. He offered no evidence supporting his assertions that HATE was a main component, he just assumed that because it involved extreme punishments. This is just like saying (and I'll use the same analogy I have been using throughout this debate) that your parents punish you because they hate you. This is false. Really? No one will agree with me? The millions of Christians around the world who hold the same beliefs I do would not agree with me? That just a bunch of crap. "A genocide is NEVER out of love". So then, my opponent really has no reason to call these killings "genocides". Now he goes on to make faulty connections to cruel dictators throughout history who have murdered many people. He claims that based on my reasoning, that these people would be considered "loving". This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard yet. Many of these people, such as Hitler, explicitly stated that they hated the people they murdered. Hitler flaunted his antisemitism everywhere. THESE were the kinds of things done out of hate. However, it is different with God. He has never come out and said that he hates people, because he doesn't. It's that simple. He HAS said many times that he LOVES everyone. Therefore, this connection my opponent attempts to make is invalid. I will now refute my opponent's summary of this debate. *He claims that I praise the death of children. This is a complete lie. I never said this nor implied it anywhere in the debate. *He claims that I failed to address children in the debate, which is yet another lie. I gave him references where God explicitly stated that he loved children. *He claims that it is easy to prove God hates children. According to what I have shown, the reverse is true. By looking at verses in their context, it becomes clear hate was not involved. It is easy to prove God LOVES children. *He uses a straw man argument in saying that children matter. Well, of course they matter. That's not the point though. *He claims that I think I know more about God than he knows about himself. This is absolute bogus. I never said this or implied anything like it. *He throws a red herring fallacy in his summary by saying that I have no friends or loved ones. The only basis he has is that I disagree with him. This does not prove anything about my personal life, nor relationships with others. Clearly I have many friends and loved ones. This is mainly because I don't go out of my way to harass people like my opponent does. *He continues to say that peaceful solutions could have been found in these situations. This was God's original intention. Do to the people's actions, they brought that punishment on themselves. I will now draw this debate to a close. I will explain reasons why I feel my opponent has not won the debate, and reasons why I feel I have won the debate. Reasons why I feel my opponent has not won the debate: *He showed a significant lack of respect for opposing opinions. *He spent half of this debate trying to insult me rather than supporting his arguments further. *He used many faulty arguments to try to advance his position. *He did not take any time to look at context of verses cited. He just took them at face value. This caused a lot of his faulty reasoning and pure lies. *He drove his arguments mainly by emotion rather than reason. *He repeated his arguments over and over in hopes that it would prove his point. *He did not offer sufficient evidence to prove his point. *He made many efforts to distract me from debating the prompt in question. Reasons why I feel I have won the debate: *I did not harass him once. *I had the best conduct. *I did my best to make sure most of my arguments were not faulty and based off of reasoning. *I have identified several ways my opponent used faulty arguments. *I read the references he provided IN CONTEXT, identifying how they disproved his point rather than supporting it. *I had the best spelling and grammar. *I identified his attempts to use others' opinions as evidence. *I broke his arguments down, analyzed them, and refuted them with evidence, logic, and reason, while he did not. Rather, he refuted mine with insults and emotion rather than logic. In conclusion, my opponent's attempts at proving God is a hateful and evil person failed. He never look at the verses in context, while I did, and refuted his arguments with logic. There are a myriad of examples and evidence that show God is a very kind and loving person. Therefore, the thought of removing him from power is sickening, and should be given no more thought. I have a request for the voters: Please be sure to read this entire debate, as skimming it may not help you make a decision. Please take time to look at my reasons for who should be the winner, and have a great day. God Bless!!!