The Bible encourages debate

Argument #1 Rebuttal: My opponent brings up that Moses and Abraham had righteously debated with God, yet are known as righteous men in biblical history - however, I refute this statement. Clearly in these verses, Abraham and Moses were not "debating" with God, and were in fact "bargaining" with God. Bargaining: a) To negotiate the terms of an agreement. b) To arrive at an agreement. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) To bargain in this case implies seeing the opponent as correct, yet trying to ease their "decisionmaking" in the bargainer's favor - however, a "debate" implies disagreement and argument. If Abraham and Moses were in fact arguing with God, then this clearly would have been a sinful action according to the Bible, as the Bible clearly calls christians to "be at peace with everyone". More specifically, I would like to make a direct quotation of Romans 12:17-19, which states, "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "vengeance is mine; I will repay" says the Lord". Clearly, if Moses and Abraham were righteous men, they would have recognized God's authoritative stance on his ability to take vengeance upon sodom and gomorrah, as well as Isreal, and that Moses and Abraham would have been submissive to whatever decision God would have made at the time. I challenge my opponent to answer, if God refused their offers, would righteous men such as Moses and Abraham have continued to mock God's judgement by calling him out as being wrong, as debate tactics are usually used to imply? Something like this happened before in the Bible in Genesis 32:24-25, and it did not end will for the arguer (his arm was dislocated at the joint as a result). I propose that the Bible calls for a more submissive attitude toward others, as it is implied in: - Luke 6:29-30 - Matthew 5:38-40 - Matthew 26:51-52 - Luke 6:37 - And chapter 31 of Isaiah. *Therefore, according to the Bible, it is the work of God to fight, to argue, to deem an ideology incorrect; not His humble servants, the christians. Argument #2 Rebuttal: I would like to bring up that, although it is true that they may have been in debate with the pharisees, such a counter example does not justify debate. Therefore, it must be true that if they were in debate with the pharisees, then it was an act of sin on their part. There are many examples in the Bible when a person committed a sin and received no due penalty for the sin. (i.e. Genesis 38:24 in due relationship to John 8:10-11). I challenge my opponent to argue his/her position using direct "commandments" from the Bible, not "counter-examples". Counter-examples can be subjective, and are often used to justify practices in the Bible such as polygamy, murder, and deception - all of which are hateful to God. *Therefore, I propose that it would be more fruitful to interpret the morals of the Bible by direct commandments given from the Bible, rather than using counter-examples. Argument #3 Rebuttal. During the times, these "contradictions" may have been necessary for the time and place of those involved. If we are to accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God, then there cannot be contradictions in the Bible, only "paradoxes" - truths which only seem to contradict each other, but actually lead to a higher truth. Therefore, these "contradictions" were not contradictory at all in their time and place, and they thereby do not require debate. I challenge my opponent to prove me otherwise. *I propose that no debate is required with the Bible, which is interpreted by many to be the infallible word of God, and because it is the infallible word of God, it cannot have contradictions, but paradoxes, for "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33). I look forward to your rebuttal.