god is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate

I had the understanding that this was going to be a debate. I have read over Pro"s R2 and R3 a few times and I am under the impression that Pro has completely deviated from the parameters of the debate Pro instigated. I say this because there is no structure to Pro"s case/argument/stance. I will attempt to decipher Pro"s response to my arguments and rebuttals, plus (and I am only doing this because I have a personal notation I want Pro to have a very clear understanding about) outline and argue Pro"s drastic points of deviation from this debate. Two facts to be understood " and Pro, these are without refutation as YOU are the one who proposed this entire debate and its format. 1.Never is there any mention in your (Topic), (Q1-Q4), (Arg1&2), or even in your (Job) you place in bold and underlined text is there ANY mention of "proving God exists." It is a non-relevant issue in the parameters of this debate. Every single refutation Pro makes in defense of "God not being proved to exist" is invalid to this debate and should be dismissed in any voting decisions. Con is never challenged in this Instigation or Pro"s R1 ANYWHERE to "prove God exists" so I will not entertain this blatant misdirection and intentional deviation. 2.Pro, you Instigated this debate. You created the topic to be debated and even are responsible for your R1 challenge you posted. I will provide verbatim the first twenty words YOU posted for this debate to be accepted. These are your words and are the parameters of the debate"s core concept. "God is categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil and is filled with hate. The god of the bible has freely admitted"" I take the stance as Con and use the bible for evidence against your claim because YOU created the outline of the debate that you SPECIFICALLY state "the god of the bible" and it is your intention to prove "the god of the bible" is "categorically, unconditionally and undeniably evil"" I am not a Christian, and you are an embarrassment to Atheists. You are filled with the same blind passion and you defend science as your religion. Omissions and Acceptances Pro has completed all 3 rounds of this debate and I would like to indicate key arguments that Pro avoided to refute, thus Pro has displayed and agreement with Con on these issues. 1.Pro agrees to Con"s argument of the (Topic) that God is NOT evil and filled with hate. 2.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Arg1) that Man, not God, is 100% responsible for all war, genocide, rape, mass violence. Also, Pro agrees under this argument that God does not have human emotions due to the anatomical differences and how emotions actually work. 3.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Arg2) that Pro misunderstands the structure of God to Man and that it is a paradox for Man to ousts God from power. Pro also agrees that God has equally given man love, peace, kindness as opposed to strictly things that can only be categorized as evil/hate. 4.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Q1-Q4) and also that the tangible/symbolic practices of worship are not from God, but from Man. Also, that God did not physically write any portion of the bible, Man did. 5.Pro agrees to Con"s argument on (Evi1) that Pro"s identity of God is incomplete and agrees that God provides Hope, which is outlined as a good thing, thus defeating the notion that God is wholly evil and only gives Man the worst traits. It"s an even distribution that Man, with free will, chooses. 6.Pro agrees to Con"s 1st point counter to Pro: Relative perception. By default, Pro has agreed to this key point to Con"s case. 7.Pro agrees to Con"s 2nd point counter to pro: Trinity. By default, Pro has agreed that the identity of God (from the bible) as a "triune entity." Points Refuted by Pro R2 "Definitions. Con would like to refute Pro"s arguments against R1 definitions introduced as each amended definition (from Pro) did not come with a citation. Pro"s arguments of semantics are not relevant as there are no alternative definitions provided. To debate, the meaning of key words must be agreed upon to have a structure to argue around. The words offered by Pro with the dictionary.com and the World English Dictionary are accepted by Con. However, the arguments within the definitions are unsubstantiated and not valid to the debate as such action introduces new parameters of the debate long after such action is acceptable. Pro"s R2 I was only able to identify a small number of argument points Pro makes in their R2 that are open for Con to refute with previous arguments that were accepted by Pro. "Richard Dawkins (Quote1) "God communicating through text (Arg3) "Pro"s (Sum)mary Points Refuted by Pro R3 "Con"s argument for Duality "Con"s argument for the bibles account of Creation Pro"s R3 "Human emotions of God "God is a servant to Man Con"s R3 Action Pro begins their R3 with a barrage of personal claims against myself through the wording of my introduction. Pro"s arguments of "we" vs "you" are misguided as the word "we" was used to describe the collective whole of Man " not as 2 individuals in this debate. The word "we" stands valid and does not pertain to you and me, but that of all Mankind. I will surrender the evidence of my exaggerated math formula to attempt to create a scale with Pro surrendering their statistic of "80% do not read the bible." With no citation/evidence, this is as equal to Con"s math formula. In the words of Pro, "where did you get that made up statistic from?" Pro also makes a claim of nonrelevant value of that of "if there is any doubt"you are an atheist." This statement pertains to nothing in this debate. Pro indicates that the omission of "days 2-5" from creation are that of deliberate avoidance. That is untrue as Con was simply using the story found in genesis to apply the bible"s account of God. This debate specifically states that the God figure to be debated is the God from the bible. Pro uses a (Quote1) from the highly accomplished Richard Dawkins to describe God, yet due to Pro agreeing to my point of using only the Old Testament to define God is incomplete this quote is not valid. Richard Dawkins illustrates the already agreed upon fact that by limiting the Old Testament as the absolute identifier of God is incomplete " the New Testament must be applied to create the Trinity (another point agreed to by Pro). For Pro"s (Sum)mary I would like to apply the argument Pro refused to argue against in that it is a paradox for Man to live without God, more importantly for Man to "remove" God. So no, Man cannot do just fine without God " it is lunacy to argue that one can exist without the other in the bible. Pro accuses God of many atrocities that should disqualify him from being any "good" however Pro has agreed that all action against Man is 100% the fault of Man, not God. Every example of evil provided by Pro is categorized as further action of Man, not God. As for God communicating through text I would like to indicate Pro"s agreement for Con"s statement of God having nothing to do with the writing of the bible, it was Man. Pro also concedes (Arg4) due to the previous agreement that God cannot possess human emotions due to the anatomical differences. Human emotions are for humans to experience. Pro"s claim against Duality that "good can most certainly exist without evil and it is proven" is laughably false. The moral concept of good and evil only exists in the principles of Duality. No matter how thin you slice it, there are 2 sides to it. There can be no yin without the yang, no wave can have a crest and no trough"ipso facto, good CANNOT exist without evil. For a different interpretation, there must be contrast. Good existing without evil is the exact same statement as light can exist without dark. Closing For the vote " Please take notice of the numerous omissions and default agreements Pro makes to my case. I have identified and argued every point from Pr