"This" clause is perfect and revelationary.

Alrighty. My opponent perhaps insinuated in the comments that he wanted to attack me based on the principal of my "miss-use" or poor execution of the term "blackmail" but I think he was actually in full honesty hoping to attack this portion of the debate, "here is the kicker: God doesn't listen to people who don't hate what he hates & love what he loves. He hates people that think they're so damned smart that they can argue with logical wisdom and practical advice because they don't trust the source. Don't worry about the source*. Listen to the wisdom. God's judging you on your arrogance, not your ignorance." which factually is not a portion of the Clause. However, should we assume that this was not clear to my opponent let us instead evaluate it, shall we: 1.) In all religions of every ethnic group, No God, is ever described to be an entity that will ever reach out to his adversary and offer him any enlightenment, but would instead announce him Condemned by one whom upholds and exalts righteous behaviour, or by the overbearing calamity of his actions, which God does not sympathize with him for. There is no exempt example of God's behaviour in any known scriptures. ~ And we know, that if God was read, he would have scriptures. Therefor we could know, that this is a trait of God. 2.) Every scripture teaches that God - and he must have scriptures to be God - Hate numerous amounts of things, and everyone who participates in them, even if only as temporarily as their continued attempt to vindicate those actions. He offers them no salvation, or herald, or guidance. He says, that it is not that he does not listen, but that their mouths are dumb with the attempts of their rejection of his Ways. 3.) God says that, wisdom is clear, and that folly is equally as evident, in his religions, and says this is justification for condemnation, and that this is the reason he is not obligated to speak to them. For If God said to a woman, "do not enable a womanizer." should she ask why, God would simply say, "he is a womanizer, and it promotes the status quo of inequality and disrespect for women everywhere." But this is not enlightening, this is the very first clause he stated, she would say, "but why?" or "how?" or "why is that bad?" and God would not be appreciable enough of her insolence to respond. So he is silent in the first. <> 4.) You have no right ever, to even for an instance, deny one iota of wisdom in any presented idea or clause, Nor do you have any right whatsoever to accept one iota of folly as wisdom in any situation - to do so is not ignorance but is insolence, arrogance or impudence - meaning you are knowingly guilty - Because, it is obvious to everyone, and affluenza does not excuse your disregard for the negativity of something whether you care or not. You cannot under any circumstance suggest that you have enough wisdom at all to test God, doubt his ways or guidance, ask him to change, doubt his wisdom, be skeptical of his intentions, or expect him to produce knew information contrary to the Very presentable and available truths he has already provided - as perpetual elements of reality. ~ To do so, would suggest "that not even thousands of years of social sciences, indicating that 'his word' is entirely based on human enlightenment and hard learned lessons" is a less superior knowledge to your own personal undeveloped Opinions. That would be lunacy. Blackmailing God is a clear indicator you are not Prophet material, and no such person can expect his response, Nor can they expect any form of exaltation, Nor hope to find enlightenment through that course of evaluating his Person, actions, wisdom, or this world as a whole. so where was the flaw you aimed at tackling, so that we can really, distinguish your side of this debate as false. Even if you choose to forfeit, please explain what you had intended to provide, and indicate whether or not you still stand behind your accusations.