The Biblical God cannot be shown immoral

Has Pro successfully shown that God could not demonstrably be shown immoral? I do not believe so, for the failure of my attempt to conclusively show God immoral would not entail that every such attempt likewise fails. And beyond engaging my, very particular, argument against God's moral character Pro has not seemed to give a general enough argument to apply to all attempts. Still, while he may not have established that no argument whatsoever against God's moral character conclusively succeeds, he may still have defended this thesis by warding my particular argument off. Has he done this? Recall that my argument was as follows:1. If we have no overriding reason to think someone who intentionally killed an innocent child was justified in doing so, then we should regard them as immoral.2. We have no overriding reason to think God was justified in intentionally killing David's son. 3. Therefore, we should regard God as immoral. The argument is logically valid meaning if its two premises are true, the conclusion must be true. All that matters, therefore, in evaluating whether the conclusion is true is how plausible the premises are. If they're plausibly true beyond reasonable doubt they ought to be accepted. While I have numerous defenses of premise (1) it would not only be unfair of me to give them here, but unnecessary since Pro has not seemed to reject the content of the first premise. I will simply say that if your conscience can stomach rejecting (1), I invite you to vote for Pro as there is probably very little I can say to convince you God is immoral. Pro seems to have conceded premise (2) as well, by saying that the Biblical texts are too uninformative for us to say what God's moral reasoning was. This entails that we have no overriding reason for thinking God was justified in intentionally killing David's son, which is just to say it entails premise (2). It seems to me then that both premises are plausibly true beyond reasonable doubt and ought to be accepted. Still, the rules of logic dictate that this argument is logically valid only on the condition that (2) is a genuine 'for instance' of the more general state of affairs described in (1)'s antecedent (or the 'If' part of the 'If, then' statement), and Pro has questioned whether it is. In order for (2) to be a genuine instance or example of (1), David's child needs to have been innocent. As my opponent has stated numerous times though, people ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and I've just not seen any proof that the child wasn't innocent. Not only does the suggestion militate against our commonsense, but rests upon question-begging texts. It strikes me as rather clear then that not only are both premises true, but the argument is logically valid. Given these conditions, the argument would provide conclusive grounds for believing the Biblical God is immoral for it'd be a sound deductive argument to that effect. At the very least, I don't see how the resolution was established. But, given my argument, I rest content to say the resolution has been defeated. Thanks again to Pro for the debate, and to you the reader for hearing us out.