God himself has intentionally killed people

I remind the judges that this is the final round and it is impossible for me to respond to Con's argument. If Con brings up any new arguments, you must ignore them. ---Con extends their arguments. They create two criteria for a killing to be "wrong":1: God isn't at fault if people bring punishment upon themselves.2: God isn't at fault because he always holds out mercy to those who want to repent. Let's see if those two criteria hold up to the six examples I've provided:EXAMPLE 1: The Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-9:17)God killed all the world's population to cleanse the Earth of sin.1: Justified: Millions of babies, young children, unborn people, and congenitally paralyzed people who were incapable of intentionally commiting sin were killed. These killings were NOT justified.2: Merciful: Con asserts that Noah was told to tell everybody that the flood was coming and to allow them to repent, but not a single person did. This [1] ignores the fact that, as noted above, many of the people killed were babies, children, unborn, or congenitally paralyzed; and [2] it would be impossible for Noah to tell *5 billion people* that the flood is coming. This killing was NOT merciful. As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God. EXAMPLE 2: All the Firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)God killed all Egypt's firstborn to make a point to the Pharaoh.1: Justified: All Egypt's firstborn included many babies and young children who were incapable of intentionally commiting sin. These killings were NOT justified.2: Merciful: God decided to kill all the firstborn because of the actions of the Pharaoh -- rather than the firstborn themselves. The firstborn couldn't have repented if they wanted to, because only the Pharaoh mattered. This killing was NOT merciful. As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God. EXAMPLE 3: Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7)God killed Uzzah because Uzzah tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling to the groun.1: Justified: Uzzah was trying to preserve God's earthly presence via the Ark. This killing was NOT justified.2: Merciful: Uzzah was IMMEDIATELY killed and had no chance to repent. This killing was NOT merciful. As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God. EXAMPLE 4: David and Uriah's baby (2 Samuel 12:14-18)God killed David's baby to make a point to David.1: Justified: David's baby was a baby and was incapable of intentionally commiting sin. This killing was NOT justified.2: Merciful: God failed to give David's baby any chance to repent -- and how could a baby repent, anyway? God also failed to give David any chance to repent. (David, in fact, repented -- and his baby was killed anyway. ) This killing was NOT merciful. As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God. EXAMPLE 5: Jeroboam's baby (1 Kings 14:10-18)God killed Jeroboam's baby to make a point to Jeroboam.1: Justified: Jeroboam's baby was a baby and was incapable of intentionally commiting sin. This killing was NOT justified.2: Merciful: God failed to give Jeroboam's baby any chance to repent -- and how could a baby repent, anyway? God also failed to give Jeroboam any chance to repent. This killing was NOT merciful. As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God. EXAMPLE 6: Ezekiel's wife (Ezekiel 24:1-24)God killed Ezekiel's wife to make a point to Ezekiel.1: Justified: Con asserts that Ezekiel's wife was guilty of adultery. Finally, someone who's actually guilty of their crimes!2: Merciful: God failed to give Ezekiel's wife any chance to repent. God also failed to give Ezekiel any chance to repent. This killing was NOT merciful. As such, this killing was NOT merciful. This is proof against God. SUMMARYI've cited scripture six times over. Con hasn't cited scripture once. I've provided five examples which pass both of Con's criteria: the people killed were innocent & god gave them no chance to repent. I've provided one example that passes Con's second criteria: god gave the people killed no chance to repent. Moreover: this debate is only about whether God has intentionally killed people. It doesn't matter whether God was justified! The question is only whether God intentionally killed people. Con doesn't contest this whatsoever. It is obvious from my six examples that God intentionally killed people. It is also obvious from my six examples that God intentionally and mercilessly killed people who were innocent. As such: whether you think Con's arguments make sense or not, you MUST vote Pro. ---I remind the judges that this is the final round and it is impossible for me to respond to Con's argument.