The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

My opponent wishes to evaluate God's character from the Bible, without accepting the Bible's portrayal of Him. His justification for this is that history is written by the victors, so we don't know how reliable God's portrayal of Himself is. However, the resolution, which is the sole cause of the debate, states, "The God of the Bible is essentially Hitler". If my opponent wished to debate whether God's actions would be justified if He was not the God of the Bible, then I think he should do so. However, that is not this debate. It is crucial we remember what we are debating exactly. Therefore, in order to debate the God of the Bible, we must accept the Bible's portrayal of God, no matter the author. Otherwise, we are not debating the resolution. The Garden of EdenI had already addressed the syllogism. That was my lego analogy. You choose to invite your friend over. Your friend decides to put your lego creation on the floor and stomp on it with his bare foot. (He was always a little odd. .) And no matter where you put the lego creation in your room, he will attempt to stomp on it. This is his nature that he gave himself. If we are to take into account that God is a supernatural, omnipotent being, then we also take into account that He is holy, righteous, and can do no evil. Therefore, either way, the syllogism is negated. My opponent's free will rebuttal has been refuted, whether he is happy with it, or accepts it, is his choice. You simply can not take a supernatural Being and try to apply natural standards to Him. Noah's ArkMy opponent seems to misunderstand my analogy. God's "hiring" of mankind were the standards he gave them. Mankind didn't obey. Noah obeyed. Noah found favor. It's very logical, and it's a bit ludicrous to assume that God, Who is not a respecter of persons, would all of a sudden decide to change His mind because of what a man told Him. (He's still omnisceint, you know. There's nothing He "wouldn't have thought of". )My opponent doesn't seem to understand free will, still. He seeks to put God in a box of mortality and humanity. The God of the Bible is omnipotent. He is fully capable of giving us free will. He instructed Noah to build an ark, and made sure people could see it. He knew, with the free will that the people had, they would ignore the ark. Pro calls this, "God abusing free will" (to paraphrase). However, if God gave us "signs" that automatically pressed some button in our minds that convinced us to do the right thing, we wouldn't have free will, would we? No. My opponent wishes for me to establish that God's motives were pure. Leviticus 11:44 - For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. There you have it. My opponent asked to debate about the God of the Bible, not "A God whose actions replicate those of the God of the Bible". However, since the debate has started he's been constantly trying to weigh God's actions without his character. Yes. Hitler was not accurately described by his propaganda. This is obvious. However, if the debate was "The Hitler represented by Nazi propaganda is essentially Jesus", the fact that the propaganda doesn't line up with real-world events means nothing. We would be debating Hitler, as portrayed by Nazi progaganda. Here, we are debating God, as portrayed by the Bible. And this debate, and the results, must be focused on this. My opponent's gleaming obselisk is quite impressive. It's just too bad that it's in the yard next door. JobMy argument does logically stand up. Again, the God of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient, and yet still Holy. This is the God we are debating, is it not? I'm glad I didn't offend you. That relieves me greatly. Thank you. My opponent tried to attack the crux of the debate here, by saying we can't accept the Bible as accurate in this round. However, I have already explained why we must do exactly this, if we are to debate the resolution that is. We are debating the real Hitler, and the real God, as portrayed in the Bible. Whether my opponent personally accepts that God is his own decision, but the resolution remains. Sodom and GomorrahMy opponent again is trying to debate an unholy god. This is not the resolution. In the Bible, God is omniscient. He knows the hearts and souls of each individual, and did for each person in Sodom and Gomorrah as well. If He can do no wrong, we must assume that everyone who perished was justly punished. If we were to take away the Bible, and its descriptions of God, then we would be judging these actions as if a man, who was not omniscient, and not holy, had committed them. THAT, my good opponent, would be Hitler. In essence, God's conversation with Abraham is not relevant, due to the fact that we already have enough proof that God is holy, simply due to the nature of the debate and the words within the Bible. However, my point here is that we see God took into account that there were righteous beings in the city. (Side note: God was not persuaded here, rather, Abraham was trying to figure out the minimum amount of righteous people required to be saved from the city. Despite only reducing the number to 10, God saved Lot, his wife, and three daughters, 5 people total. )ConclusionThe author of the Bible is irrelevant to this debate. My opponent chose to debate whether the God of the Bible was essentially Adolph Hitler. The God of the Bible, as described by the Bible itself, is Holy, Righteous, Just, Omnisceint, and Omnipotent. He can create free willed beings, know exaclty what they'll do, and be Holy. He knows men's hearts, and can act reightously, despite what someone who doesn't know his character may think. The God of the Bible didn't commit genocide based off race or politics. But in all He did, He was just. This is the God of the Bible. This is defnitely not Adolph Hitler. You simply can not measure the God of the Bible against a man, especially one as devious and twisted as Hitler. If my opponent wishes to debate whether God's actions would be justified if performed by a mortal man, he may do so in another debate. As for this resolution, it is negated. SourcesKJV Cambridge Ed. To my opponent:Thank you for this great and engaging debate. You are, without a doubt, one of the most clever and elegant debaters I've had the pleasure of exchaning words with. I look forward to talking in the future, and perhaps another debate soon. God bless.