the biblical god knowingly hates children

It's quite entertaining actually, because when you look at the insults themselves, most of them are not geared towards me at all, but rather my opponent's preconceived notions of what a Christian is. It should also be noted that, given that this is a formal debate, the ideas presented on my side are not necessarily ones that I hold true, but merely ones I choose to argue. Therefore, all personal remarks and assumptions are not only to be held as untrue, but not weighed at all in debate. With that in mind, let me move on to make my secondary arguments and refute my opponent's argument at its core. While my opponent brings forth more citations very well and provides evidence for previous points that were made, they do nothing to actually refute my arguments and go against the concepts I presented in my first argument - which are a chaotic world and free will. A thorough read-through of what was written by the affirmation will reveal this. Therefore, although they continue to build up points that they had previously made, and in a couple places they present new ones, they have yet to actually refute what I have put forward to prove my arguments wrong. Therefore, seeing as those arguments are still assumed to be true, evidence my opponent presents makes no real point until they have destroyed my former argument first. To add to debate, I will use a few points my opponent resurfaces in his arguments to further prove the ideals that I argue, along with address some new points that were brought up in citations. > "Free will you stupid self righteous ***** in which a 4 year old child has none, not one single ounce to get away and SCREAM AT THE TOP OF HER FRICKEN LUNGS while daddy is (doing things to her that would inappropriate for me to quote in this round). So DO NOT talk to me about free will. You don"t respect anything BECAUSE YOUR GOD, if you are stupid enough to believe in that thing KNOWINGLY CREATED HER and CREATES MILLIONS OF CHILDREN LIKE THEM PER----YEAR. " As I stated before in my opening argument, God is not, as my opponent states, accountable for the actions her father (as is given in this example) performs upon her. God knowingly created this child, yes. God creates millions of children like her every year --- also yes. I see nothing wrong with creating children and bringing them into an imperfect world. This was explained in my first argument when I said everyone, even children, can be expected to experience pain. However, the type of pain used as an example in this argument is not a natural pain; it is something unnatural and unholy and something that is ONLY brought into the world by humans and their decision to make evil and despicable choices which are only accountable to them - never to their creator - as I again, stated in my first argument. I hate to sound repetitive, but there really is nothing else for me to do as my opponent does nothing to break down what I presented, only the ideas that they brought into round with them that I have already taken the opportunity to justify. And I hate to say this, but I suspect this will only become more apparent as the round progresses. Further, most every quote my opponent excerpts from the Bible is taken largely out of context and doesn't really add to debate. I was going to address all of them but quite frankly there is way too much to reasonably address in this rebuttal, so I will be refuting the first few that come in order. * For the first quote (Judges 11:30-40), not only is this purposefully taken to paint God in a bad light, it is also in no place or translation words that were spoken in the Bible. This "excerpt" is quite literally one person's bad summary of the events, a conglomeration of words that were in no place previously written down. Judges 11:30-40 (NIV) - 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord"s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. " 32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. 34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break. " 36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry. " 38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite tradition 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. Upon actual reading of the passage, my opponent's summary wholly falls apart without me even having to explain it. This was not a brutal murdering of an innocent, helpless child; this was consented by her in honor of a bond, no attempt was made to renegotiate with the Lord even though there was ample opportunity, and the girl in the story was revered and remembered. This is quite obviously a story about bittersweet commitment and not a cruel-hearted slaughter. * Psalms 137:8-9. This song, contextually, is words of David the King of Israel singing about the destruction of Babylon, a nation Israel was at war with for many generations. David hopes for the destruction of this nation and that their bloodlines do not continue. And yes, while we do today find his word choice distasteful, killing their infants was at the time not considered to be any different than taking an adult life, and given that newborns are indicative of new life and the spreading of a bloodline, it makes sense that David would put it this way. And practically, do you expect Israel to wait for the children to grow up and kill the Babylonians then? Not only is letting your enemy live in order to kill them later a liability, it's also arguably more cruel than the alternative. * 2 Kings 6:28-29 isn't even spoken by Israelites altogether. This is a dialogue between two rulers of evil nations which Israel sought to destroy. In fact, in this example the Jewish God is quite definitively against what transpired; it just happens to be on record in the Bible, which was taken in this example to make it look bad. Quite frankly, my opponent didn't even try with this one. While I won't go over anymore of these points, it's evident upon reading that most of them are either poorly argued or curses against Israel's enemies. I believe the points I have given here should be ample enough to address these arguments, while the points in my first argument still stand.