There's too much hate in God

Parameters of the Debate:A metric is something that measures another thing. I'll make it easy for you: http://lmgtfy.com...My opponent is only now disputing the metrics and scope of the debate. If you recall, I gave my opponent 72 hours (the length we have to post an argument) in order to write a clear metric for how we were to determine whether there was too much hate in God. My opponent dismissed it entirely, so I wrote the metric. I made it very clear that in order to make this debate productive, we needed to choose one, so if he didn't then I would. I did choose one, and my opponent by not choosing to clearly define his debate, has conceded to my parameters whether he likes it or not.He wouldn't like his new parameters anyway. Here's why:If God Does not Exist, I Win this Debate:Something that does not exist cannot hate or possess hate. It's logically impossible. So if God does not exist, then my opponent is not correct in saying that God is hateful. If my opponent wished to debate the existence of God, he should've made a debate centered around that. Instead, he chose a topic that necessitated that we speak about God as if he exists whether it's proven or not.But if my opponent wants to say for the purpose of this debate that God does not exist, I'm fine with that. Vote for me.Without the Christian Principles, I Win:My opponent's arguments come entirely from the Bible. So if the Christian God has nothing to do with this debate, then my opponent's arguments up until this point in the round are completely null. As such, we have no way of determining if God is hateful, because we don't even know who he is. Again, I advise my opponent to attempt being reasonable, but if he wants to argue that we're not talking in any way about the Christian God, I probably don't even need to do my next round. Just vote for me.Why This is not just Whining:Naturally, it may sound to some like I'm just whining, but I put a lot of effort into trying to make this debate usable. I even avoided noob sniping him by saying that he chose the wrong side of the debate so he needed to argue for that side. I excused that. And I attempted to lay down parameters where my opponent did not. My attempts at making this debate workable have fallen, however.I'll attempt to respond to some of the other points, though I don't really need to.Can Children Sin?Yep. People are born sinful. If you really need me to tell you the verses on that, I can in the next round. If you want me to show you the real world evidence, I can do that next round too.Specific Verses:All of these are in round two. Sorry, I've been too busy attempting to establish the scope of this debate and more important points to address them.Ezekiel 9 is only part of a command that refers specifically to killing people who are in direct combat against God. It says that they're to mark anyone who's grieving at the violence and corruption caused by the pagans, and then kill anyone who was actively participating in it.Addressing Hosea 13:16. Earlier in that chapter it says "I will ransom them from the power of Sheol.I will redeem them from Death.O Death, where are your plagues?O Sheol, where is your sting?"This is why we read more than one verse. This is a prophecy that's contrasting the options the Israelites have (again, implying there's a choice). The Israelites can either continue rebelling against God and continue their excessive violence, or they can repent and return to God where they will not find anymore death.Leviticus 26:30. The thing my opponent quoted is not what it says. It says, "30 I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your funeral offerings on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I shall abhor you." [1] It just says someone is going to destroy the idols.Isaiah 13:15-18 is literally speaking about the end times. Obviously, at the end of the world, those who are not followers of God don't get out of it alive. Read the whole thing, don't just post the parts that talk about death.Leviticus 20:9 says more in Hebrew than it does in English. This verse doesn't mean that if your child throws a hissy fit then you should kill them. What it actually says is that if your child uses God's name to curse you (a name they weren't allowed to say anyway), then you were to be put to death [2]. Why? Because that's blasphemy, which is among the worst crimes one can commit (again my opponent hasn't actually refuted my claims regarding the sins one commits against God outside of saying "nuh-uh").Matthew 10:37 is best understood with the rest of the Bible for understanding. The Bible tells us that if we don't love the people around us, then we don't love God [3]. That means it's impossible to love God unless we also love our family. God just wants to remind us that ultimately, he's the most important thing. Not that we should treat our families with any less love than all the love we have to give.Hosea 9:11-16 is not talking about actual children or even specific people. The children of Ephraim are a tribe of Israelites [4], and at this point, they were all about to be taken over by Assyria [5].Exodus 12:29-30 describes a punishment for Egypt's longtime and constant abuse of their slaves: the Hebrews. God didn't just kill people for fun. He gave them like a hundred years to stop being an abusive nation, specifically toward his chosen people.Free Will:Glad I still have enough characters to address this.My opponent completely ignores that my analysis of God's existence is more logically sound that his. The problem of infinite regression is that we are unable to determine for how long something went on. For example, God was alone for an eternity, so why didn't he create earth then? The fact that my opponent chooses to ignore my more logical analysis shows desperation to prove me wrong.My analysis of the nature of God does not conflict with the Bible or the nature of reality. My opponent's does. Thus my opponent's analysis is inferior to mine. And also, I believe evolution and such did happen over a course of several million years according to the literal translation of the Genesis 1, but that's completely outside of this debate.Now onto Biblical commands. My opponent has a contradiction on his side. P1: If God can make anyone do anything, then he does not need to command it. P2: God commands us to do things. C: God doesn't give us a choice.Do you see how that doesn't flow? God could make us little robots that do whatever he wants us to do. God does want us to do things, and he gives us commands to make it clear. He just doesn't force us to do anything, because we must freely choose it.My side makes sense, and his side does not. My analysis of free will stands.On death threats: this is a small point, but in the cases where God threatens death, he normally means that you're going to die by natural means but without the benefits of eternal life. Because if you're given eternal life then you don't die. This makes sense, because Adam and Eve were told they would die if they eat from the tree. They ate from the tree. They lived long and happy lives then they died (in this case it was just physical death, because it's reasonable to assume that Adam and Eve did die still following God, and before the sin they did not experience physical death).Summary: Anyway, when we take a logical look at both sides, my side is the only one that holds up. Honestly, if nothing else, my opponent's parameters lose him the debate.Thank you.Sources:[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...[2] http://biblehub.com...[3] http://biblehub.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.bible-history.com...