The Bible encourages debate

"Are we not debating peacefully now? "It is with this observation that I concede to having committed an act of sin by actively debating, and it is at this point that I want it to be publicly known that I will be attending church very soon to beg forgiveness from the Lord our Savior - but first I simply must finish this discussion, because I must point out that my opponent is wrong, wrong, wrong. Argument #1 Rebuttal:On a more serious note, I want to critique my opponent's understanding of debate and bargaining in relationship to God in the examples of Moses and Abraham. I want to point out that my opponent stated that, in the Biblical narratives he/she had presented, "we see that God concedes to men. " However, I want to make it clear that this is simply not the case. To imply that a man of finite human knowledge could effectively enter a debate with an omniscient, omnipotent God, and have that omniscient, omnipotent God concede that a finite human being was correct all along is blasphemous to the Christian faith, as it implies that mankind has the potential to have an intellectual capacity which is greater than their Creator. This is a flaw that, I believe, even an Atheist could recognize. It is with great remorse that I point out that what my opponent has brought up is an example of Open Theism - a heretical belief that God is not an infinite power, but merely a superior yet vulnerable power. Of course, I do not want to stray too off topic here. .. Again, my opponent has used a counter-example when he/she used this quote:"In the example of Abraham, we see that Abraham brings up the subject of justice and argues that what God is planning to do is unjust: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? ""My greatest concern of all here is not so much that my opponent failed to use direct commandments from the Bible alone rather than to use counter-examples from scripture, but moreso what my opponent seems to be implying. If we are to assume that God is the judge of the Earth, then we must also assume that it is God who decides what is just and what is unjust - not Abraham. It is not the place of the Christian nor the Jew to tell God how to act. So again, I want to point out that these counter-examples are indeed subjective and may be used to justify incorrect courses of action or belief. Besides, This is not to mention that God is unchanging (psalm 102:25-27), and therefore could not have changed His mind on what He was going to do in either situation, because an omniscient God would have known exactly what He was going to accomplish through these scenarios. Again, an unchanging God could not lose a debate, lest He concede and change his mind - which would be a direct violation of His unchanging nature. Returning to my opponents example, if Abraham and Moses were indeed righteous men as the Bible claims, then they must have not been arguing with God in these cases, but rather, they must have been attempting to come to an agreement with God; and in so doing, they must have been bargaining with God, not debating, for an omniscient God could not possibly lose a debate with a finite human being. As per the account of Jacob, God would have known beforehand that Jacob would refuse His command, and had punished Jacob as a result by dislodging his shoulder - however, God may have seen that Jacob did deserve this blessing anyhow (as God had promised this blessing to Jacob earlier) and so Jacob did receive the said blessing. As per the account of Job, I fear my opponent is misled. In Job 40:1-2, God - manifesting Himself in a fearsom storm - demands His accuser to speak, and Job responds directly afterwards. For the rest of the chapter, God intensely questions Job; clearly this was to humble him. Argument #2 Rebuttal:My opponent does not seem to have truly defended debate with this verse, as this verse cleary seems to state that it is good to make a defense for your beliefs, but not necessarily to attack another's, as is usually accomplished in a debate. In this case, I would like to point out 2 Timothy 2:16 "But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness," as well as 2 Timothy 2:23-25, which states "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. " Furthermore, I would also like to point out Philippians 2:14-16, which states "Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. "These verses clearly show that debate leads to argument, and arguments leads to the corruption of the spirit, and because of this, debate is unpleasing to the God of the Bible. Argument #3 Rebuttal:My opponent challenged my to answer what this "higher truth" derived from paradoxes actually is, and how we come to know them. My answer is simple; it would behoove the readers of the Bible to read and compare the verses of the Bible together to discover their meaning. Again, if the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and God is not the author of confusion, then this certainly can be done. No debate is necessary.