God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unworthy of worship.

My opponent is entirely correct when he says my main argument is drawn on semantics. I saw a loop-hole and wanted to exploit it. On my end it seems he does not like the fact that I am not arguing what the original meaning of the debate was supposed to be. I have seen my opponent do the very exact same thing however, with one of the voters even saying "Con's semantic-fu was VERY strong", and another, "The semantic is strong in this one".[1] Thus any objections my opponent may have, I do not feel are justified. Besides this, exploiting loop-holes are a big part of debate. Subjective truths vs. Objective truths? My opponent has had one main contention against my arguments, and that is that he believes I am using subjective truths while he is using objective truths. This argument does not apply. All it can possibly do is prove that God is not worthy of worship. This does nothing to prove what the Biblical authors portray God as. It is extremely clear that the authors of the bible portray God as worthy of worship. It's undeniable. If one verse says God is worthy of worship than that verse portrays Him as worthy of worship and thus the Bible portrays Him as worthy of worship. The Bible flat out says He is worthy of worship, thus undeniably portrays Him as worthy of worship. This is something my opponent does not have. It matters nil whether the authors are right or wrong. That is not what we're arguing. Like I said before you can be a strong militant atheist and still agree with my side. 2+2=5 My opponent has established that the assumed God is not worthy of worship. What my opponent has not established is that the Bible does not portray Him as worthy of worship. Apply this too my analogy. I easily can prove that 2+2 does not = 5. What I cannot prove is that the statement does not portray 2+2 as equal to 5. The statement clearly portrays 2+2 as equal to 5 even though that is false, just as the Bible clearly portrays God as worthy of worship, even though you may bring up sound arguments that God is not worthy of worship. The statement 2+2=4 is an objective truth. The statement "2+2=5 as portrayed in the analogy" is an objective truth. The statement, "God is worthy of being worshiped", is a subjective truth. The statement, "The Bible portrays God as worthy of worship", is an objective truth. Old-lady-tripping arson who enjoys torturing little kids. Here is what we conclude from the analogy again for convenience. "1. Causing helpless old ladies to trip on sidewalks brings myself delight. 2. I enjoy burning people's houses down. 3. I am morally perfect. 4. I torture little kids as a hobby." //my opponent is still free to think he is morally perfect, despite the three objective truths, but he would be carrying a hefty burden in convincing the audience of that.// I can't help but feel that my opponent is continually straw-manning me. I am not trying to convince the audience that I am morally perfect, nor am I trying to convince the audience that God is worthy of worship. The purpose of the analogy was to prove that it portrays me as morally perfect, just as the purpose of my arguments are to prove that the Bible portrays God as worthy of worship. By the way, I do love your expression “morally-bankrupt lunatic". =D Refuting more refutations All this reiterating is getting somewhat tiresome, therefore I won't go into detail. Adam and Eve and the Plagues of Egypt See previous arguments. Tower of Babel My opponent basically drops this point by only bringing up the question of how they could possibly build a tower to get too heaven. This is irrelevant. We assume whether Gods actions are right or wrong based on the story. The story says that God stopped them for that reason. Therefore it doesn't matter if it's possible or not. I, as a matter of fact, don't believe it's possible. This is one of the reasons I don't believe in Bible inerrency. Bedbugs and Praying Mantises My opponent still refrains from fulfilling my request for evidence that God is in direct control of evolution. All he does is assume un-established premises. Such as that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I personally do not believe God is either and I think it necessary for my opponent to provide backing to these statements rather than just assuming them. My opponents accusations that I committed a red hearing are unfounded. Hell/Oblivion Not much need to respond to much here. My main arguments refute this as they do also to the previous arguments. My opponent claims that I am only offering a small iota of an argument per round, thus forcing him to press me. I have not refuted arguments such as this with much depth for the fact that it is not really necessary. My opponent admits this himself that these contentions do not really require much arguing due to my approach to the resolution. I do find pros accusations that it seems I am waiting till the last round to make arguments, giving him no time to refute me, quite distasteful however. Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not action My opponent claims I have not addressed these points and thus they are unchallenged. That is only partially true. As said, my opponent "hardly feels these refutations are necessary"(Referring to the Adam and Eve argument to here). I also share my opponents feelings. This is why in my last round I told the viewers to look too my main contentions as my rebuttal, thus my opponents claims that these points are unchallenged is somewhat false. I do not at all like the fact that pro twice proposes the fact that I might bring up last round arguments. _______ "I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised, And I am saved from my enemies." 2 Samuel 22:4 To say this is a subjective truth, as my opponent does in refuting this, is nothing short of completely irrelevant. This is a subjective truth. The real contention, which my opponent ignores, is that this verse portrays God as worthy of worship. It matters not if He is or not. What matters is that the Bible clearly portrays Him as such. Why I have fulfilled my burden: I have used semantics arguments for my case, however they are completely sound. My opponent may argue all day that God is not worthy of worship and make a good case, but nothing will refute the fact that the Bible directly says God is worthy of worship, and thus portrays Him as such. Whether the opinions of the Bible authors are right or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they portray Him as such. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate as articulate a debater as he. Vote con. [1] http://www.debate.org...