Which is more moral? Man or YOUR god of the bible or torah? Take a morality test to find out its man

So now Backwardseden has both dropped every single talking point of the last round, but also decided to derail the rest of the debate with 3 pages of nonsense. Incredibly, he has graduated from non-sequiturs to run-on sentences and completely pointless fragments of isolated rhetoric like "sick and disgusting" without any indication as to what he is referring to, or how it even remotely helps his arguments. I will add the Backwardseden says that "(he) runs things here", but he has already lost by his own rules, and has resorted copy-pasting blocks of Bible verse indexes all over the page without a single explanation of how they link to resolution. Additionally, his conclusion is more profanity and anti-semitism than argument. First, let us look at all of Backwardsedens nonsensical, and pointless questions, which I would answer a simple "no" to, if they weren"t completely loaded: 1) "Is it ok for Jesus to hate children?" Where are you getting your information from " Reddit? I can"t imagine why anyone would think that someone who was crucified for his followers could be accused of hating children, but I"ll humor you and address your collage of Bible verses. Deuteronomy 2:34 states that an invading army left no survivors, which doesn"t even fit the context of the contention. In Numbers 31:17 God commands the Israelites to basically completely destroy a city of wicked people. Backwardseden seems to love to point out the fact that God had wrath in the Old Testament making him immoral, but for this to stand Backwardseden must prove that the people of the Old Testament were not wicked. Even if you want to argue having wrath towards a completely moral-less people in the time before Grace and the New Testament was immoral, Backwardseden is too late to the scene to prove the ethics. 2) "Is it ok for Jesus to hate woman?" Once again, Backwardseden provides not a shred of explanation as to why he would believe this, so I can"t even fathom giving him credit for this. Once again let"s look at some of his verses: Lamentations 4:9 is a poem someone in the Bible wrote about being a warrior and not wanting to starve, which is the most unrelated thing imaginable to the contention. Deuteronomy 2:32 is also about battle, and half the other verses he lists are the same type of thing. The fact is, Backwardseden is grabbing at straws. He doesn"t make a single complete argument, or even a complete thought once in the first 30 lines of this round. I could pass up on this round entirely, and my previous argument would still stand. 3) "Is it ok for God to love rape?" Just like the last two, Backwarseden lists 30 verses, without one word supporting this twisted, and frankly disturbing claim. I won"t even recognize it as a complete thought. 4) "Is it ok for God to commit abortions?" Still not backing up a single word of this. Here are some verses Backwardseden lists: HS 15:16. The is one book with an "H" and an "S" which is Hebrews, and it doesn"t even have 15 chapters. Two thirds of the verses listed are like this. Backwardseden hasn"t even read the nonsense that he is copy-pasting all over the page. 5) "Was God Just in his many genocides?" If he is referring to the great flood, then once again the burden falls on him to prove the ethics of this, because I could simply point out that the people of Earth were so wicked, that they did all the things you list above on a daily basis. And if we are counting actions of wickedness here as the bar for morality despite that fact that I have ALREADY PROVEN that humanity"s morals are relative, then I would point out the every day people kill thousands of other people and commit huge atrocities. Would Backwardseden be the one to levy judgment? No, because he can"t even wrap his mind around the resolution of the debate. He then lists verses Exodus 32:27 followed by what I assume are numbers of deaths in wars, some in the thousands. To this, I would simply mention that those were battles and that in this century alone, humanity has made those numbers look like child"s play. To prove that God"s wrath is unjustifiable, Backwardseden should have been debating ethics last round, but he gave up challenging my framework, that the morals he is arguing are relative. 6) On my argument being boring: I"m sorry that you have zero debate skills friend. 7) On the redefinition of debate rules: I have followed Backwardsedens rules and absolutely crushed his arguments. He then tells me to watch a video! This is a debate, not a Ted talk. 8) On Proof that the Old Cov is fulfilled by the New Cov: Whilst not completing a single thought, Backwardseden lets loose a stream of anti-semitism, profanity, and complete nonsense. The proof still stands. 9) On the invention of excuse: This doesn"t even make sense. Conclusion) Backwardseden has filled this debate with unrelated and unfounded rabbit trails and side tangents, stopping every few sentences to make a wild accusation that has no substance. *He didn"t make a SINGLE full contention this entire round, and has made a total of two even remotely complete contentions this entire debate, both of which had nothing to do with his own resolution.* In my arguments, I successfully upheld my framework that any single set of morals must come from a person"s religion and by association God, and that a society"s morals cannot be concrete but that they are relative, and change with the beliefs of its members. Because of this, the resolution has been negated, and my argument that Man cannot be more moral than God stands. Ending statements: I just want to say I'm disappointed that this debate because so brutal. I began by extending cordiality to Backwardseden who received me with insults and profanity. I was hoping to unearth some truth here, but I ended up having to pone a noob.