god knowingly and willfully hates children according to the bible

You say that I should not have accepted this debate because I do not believe in God, however, the motion is that "God knowingly and willfully hates children according to the bible". To debate the Con of this motion does not require one to believe in God. We have established that we are talking about the God of the Bible, though, so i will argue from here on out as if the God of the Bible does exist, as that is in the best spirit of the intended debate.You say there are 30+ verses in the Bible where God shows his hatred and evil towards children. As an atheist, you are hyper-focused on what you interpret to be the bad of the Bible, but you are not looking for the good of the Bible. This leaves you with a very warped idea of what the Bible actually states, and you are taking the worst possible interpretation of a very small minority of the Bible, and you are unfairly turning that into the main message of the Bible. There is a reason that no believer interprets the Bible as you do.I'll touch on some of the previous arguments you mentioned, such as that God is a selfish egotist. Even if that was the case, that does not speak to the motion at all. This seems more to offend than anything else. You have to ask yourself why you want to offend Christians, and if this bias really allows you to interpret the Bible fairly.This greatly unfair interpretation you have of the Bible has caused you to go way too far in a lot of your comments. For instance, you state that nothing is learned from suffering. In fact, it's our suffering that allows to realize our happiness.[1] If one was happy all the time, they would become numb, like an addict. In fact, there is a term that has been coined in psychology called "post-traumatic growth". People who have been through some of the most horrific situations such as war, housefires, serious illnesses, etc. have been found to have personal growth actually spurred by their traumatic event and suffering.[2] You say you are evidence-based, so will you use this new evidence to apply a fair interpretation to the Bible going forward?Lets take a look at Deuteronomy 22:23-29, which is often considered to be a source of rape in the Bible. The verses:"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then only the man that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."This second paragraph of these verses clearly explains that a woman who is the victim of a rape is not to be punished. According to Wikipedia, the NIV interprets the third paragraph to be rape, because the interpretation goes that the woman is being taken from the father. Previously, the texts were not interprted this way, and were interprted to speak about a situation where a man marries his wife but doesn't pay the dowry. The latter explanation makes far more sense, but because of interpretation issues, this text is commonly used to explain something wildly different than the original (and most common among Biblical scholars) interpretations.[3]You make a lot of citations in Round 1 and attribute problematic actions, such as a warrior killing a baby, to God. Just because an event is described in the Bible does not mean that God wants the event to happen or finds it to be moral. To establish that God "knowingly and willfully hates children", you have to establish that He himself did something harmful to children out of his hate for them. Saying Moses did X or a warrior did Y does not establish what is necessary to establish.You go on in Round 1, to explain that bad things happen to children (such as cancer), and that God put them in that position, and because of that, He hates children. This is quite unfair. We don't say that a parent having a child is putting them in position to suffer, and therefore, the parents are evil. Sure, parents aren't all-knowing like God is, but they know that the human condition will create suffering over the course of every person's life at some point. Furthermore, your point is tunnel-visioned on the bad, as I mentioned earlier, and you are completely ignoring all of the good children will go through in their life. You need to look at these situations in a more complex way than just the one variable you are focusing on, and take a more complex approach that considers many variables at the same time.Given what I've previously stated, hopefully you can view these next comments in a different light. You mention that "God knowingly creates children to be raped, beaten, and tortured at the hands of their abusers...", but again, this does not mean God supports the rape, torture, or abuse that they will endure. He creates them in spite of that. Do you really think that children who are to be raped, tortured, or abused in their lifetime shouldn't have the opportunity to live at all? I find it quite amazing that you think giving these children an opportunity to live is what you call evil, and that really gives some context to your motion.Round 2 is a lot of you taking your misinterprtations and coming to extreme conclusions that are completely unfounded through the common fallacy reductio ad absurdum.[4] You take your unfair interpretation of the Bible, and you state that because the Bible has bad things in it, "it's all BS" and that "the printed so-called God shows that there is no believe in peace, harmony, love, care, kindness, etc." Even if the bad of the Bible did exist as you interpret, which you have not established, it would still not follow that belief in these positive terms exist nowhere in the Bible. In fact, as I have referenced previously, you seem to have not even looked for the good in the Bible because you are so hyper-focused on the bad. I will cite a list of peace and love in the Bible borrowing an undeniable example: "Let all that you do be done in love." 1 Corinthians 16:14[5]Sources:[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com...[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] https://www.openbible.info...