Ishmael was the real child of promise, not Isaac

Thank you for your speedy response. My opponent says that "this is NOT about the truth of the Bible, nor is it about the truth of the Koran; rather, this debate is about which of Abraham's sons was the promised child."If the very source from which we draw our conclusions cannot be questioned for validity, where then do we draw our information about Ishmael and Isaac? My opponent then goes forward and quotes the very source that he says should not be examined for errors. This is a curious way to argue a point.I reject his argument that the Bible or Qu'ran should not be examined for errors in our pursuit of the truth, unless he can offer other sources concerning these individuals.I thank my opponent for using the Hebrew to further clarify my point. He quotes the Torah as saying; "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love..." He goes further and says that "Isaac was the only son that Abraham loved. Indeed, Abraham had 2 biological children, but loved only Isaac and did NOT love Ishmael." I have several arguments about this point;1. My opponent proves the errors in the text by first quoting the phrase "your only son", which Isaac never was, no matter how much he may have loved him, and admitting that "Indeed, Abraham had 2 biological children." The only son that could ever claim to be Abraham's only son was Ishmael. 2. Whether or not Abraham loved Isaac and not Ishmael (a horrible charge to level at any parent, especially the Patriarch of three major religions) is immaterial to the fact that Ishmael was the firstborn and must be honored as such according to Deuteronomy 21:15-17. DEAD SEA SCROLLSMy opponent makes reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and states that they say Isaac as well. Without knowing it he has advanced my argument that the Torah is a corrupted source. how else to explain the statement "only son" in reference to Isaac when we know that it is factually incorrect?ANSWERING THE CHARGE OF CORRUPTION IN THE HAGAR STORYIn my initial argument I showed how the story of Hagar being thrown out of Abraham's house was flawed, but my opponent chose to dismiss the error by saying that the truth of the Bible should not be in question during this debate. This is a self serving statement that has no logical foundation. I contend that the very source from which he draws his conclusion about Isaac being the child of promise is flawed in several areas, to which he has not answered.PROMISES THAT WENT UNFULFILLED IN ISAAC BUT WERE FULFILLED IN ISHMAEL.In the Torah God is made to say; "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" (Genesis 22:17). If God did promise Isaac that his descendants would be in number as the dust of the Earth, as the stars in the sky, and as the sand in the seashore, this was a false promise which has not been fulfilled. Another promise that was not fulfilled, if indeed it was made, was the promise to give Isaac all of the Land of Canaan. The Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, have occupied Canaan from that day to this. Canaan is the valley on the right and left banks of the Jordan River. Today, the Right Bank is controlled entirely by Arabs. More than 90% of the population of the Left Bank is Arab as well. The Jews only recently re-arrived as rulers of part of that area after an absence of nearly 3,000 years.For these reason Isaac is not the child of promise, it was Ishmael.