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

"as portrayed in"My opponent really seems to be grasping at semantic straws here. He says that, because the proposition says "as portrayed in the Bible", we must assume everything in the good book is completely true, even though I've already refuted this in my last round.We don't have to assume all of the subjective truths are necessarily true (and indeed, we shouldn't) in order to form an opinion on the character of someone "as portrayed in" something for ourselves."But wait," I can already hear phantom typing, "The proposition says God is unworthy of worship according to the Bible, not according to ourselves."No, this is a strawman. Take my fictional testimony for example once more: "Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. It was a noble and heroic act. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it.""According to" this testimony, yes, the man should be found not guilty and be set free. But "as portrayed in" this testimony, we can derive (from the objective truths) that this man clearly committed a crime and should be sent to prison for it.Now it may seem like I'm the one playing semantics, but I'm not; I'm merely refuting my opponent's own semantical argument. It should be patently obvious to everyone that this was the original intended meaning of the proposition. Of all the terms I saw necessary to define in my introduction "as portrayed in" was not one of them (last time I'll be making that mistake, else risk wasting more time debating the propositions' words rather than God's character).Now let's look at my opponent's examples. He says that no matter how much we disagree with this statement...2+2=5...two plus two DOES equal five "as portrayed in" the statement. This is, by all accounts, a perfectly valid argument. How it was meant to advance my opponent's position in this debate, however, I am unsure. 2+2=5 is an objective truth (an incorrect objective truth, but an objective truth nonetheless since mathematics are not opinion-oriented) and I've already said we must take these literally. If the proposition had been "Phantom's math, as portrayed in the statement 2+2=5, is worthy of being taught in classrooms" then we would consider the objective truth (2+2=5) and form an opinion on whether or not it is worthy of being taught in math class (hint: it's not).Similarly, we must consider the objective truths in the Bible that portray God's character (punishing Adam and Eve, killing the first-born males in Egypt) and form an opinion on whether or not He is worthy of being worshiped (hint: He's not).Further, my opponent lists four statements about himself to illustrate a point:"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."He says that in order to form an opinion on his character "as portrayed in" these statements, we must assume they are all in harmony with each other (meaning that they are all, somehow, true).If you don't know how I'm going to refute this, then you haven't been paying attention so far.The first, second, and forth statements are all objective truths while the third is a subjective truth and might as well be tossed in the garbage for the purposes of us forming an opinion on his character. As portrayed in those statements, my opponent is an old-lady-tripping arson who enjoys torturing little kids. Therefore, he is a morally-bankrupt lunatic, despite what the third statement has to say on the matter.Of course, 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.Refuting more refutationsI hardly feel these refutations are necessary, considering the heart of my opponent's arguments were semantical, but I shall do them anyway.Adam and Eve and the Plagues of EgyptAgain my opponent references his 2+2=5 statement, which I've already addressed. We must consider the objective truths (such as God punished Adam and Eve and God killed the first-born males in Egypt) and form an opinion of God's character from them (murderous, heinous, unjust, etc).Tower of BabelMy opponent defends God's actions here by saying the construction of the tower was an immoral act, as it would have allowed for "man to be able to just come into heaven when they please". I must say, I'm surprised my opponent shares the belief of those people that you can actually build a tower so tall that it would reach heaven. We know, of course, this is not true.Bedbugs and Praying MantisesMy opponent accuses me of strawmaning him. Perhaps I technically did, but only because he committed a red herring first. Evolution is not the topic of debate here. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so even if He did only create the creatures that bedbugs and praying mantises evolved from, He did so knowing what the result would be.Hell/OblivionMy opponent says that God is justified in destroying the souls of those who are not "His people" for "God's kingdom is for His people". What "His people" means has yet to be revealed. I feel as though my opponent is offering only a tiny iota of an argument per round, forcing me to press him on the issue until the last round when he finally reveals all (giving me no opportunity to respond).If "His people" means "people who God, for one reason or another, wants to keep in His kingdom", then this does nothing to promote God's alleged morality. God's reasons for favoring one individual over another could be unjust (as most likely is as I've explained in my "Salvation by belief, not action" sub-point).Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not actionMy opponent has never addressed either of these points, so there has never been anything for me to refute. My two points stand unchallenged (unless he decides to finally challenge them in the last round when I would have no chance to refute him).Con's burden fulfilled?My opponent claims this verse proves God is worthy of worship:"I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised, And I am saved from my enemies."2 Samuel 22:4However, this is (must I say it?) a subjective truth. If my opponent really wishes to fulfill his burden, he must convince the audience why this verse should be taken seriously in light of all of the objective verses depicting God's character through His immoral actions.In ConclusionI have proven, despite any semantic or subjective truth, that God is unworthy of worship. I urge the viewers to take both of our arguments into consideration and to vote accordingly.Thank you, phantom, for debating this interesting topic with me.