God is not pro life

RFV Part 1

Description, I think it was a mistake not to include your definition of Pro Life in the description.

Owen_T Round 1
I think Pros definition of Pro life would be better focused on one definition of Pro Life, allowing multiple definitions allows opponent to focus in on just one, to achieve victory condition. As in God is Pro Life in 'this aspect.

For instance, one could argue that God wants life to 'exist on Earth, life has a lot of death involved in it. Cycle of life.
Though maybe some would argue God 'wants “The wolf will live with the lamb; the leopard will lie down with the young goat. The calf and the lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them.
But that man's Original Sin broke that reality for a time, (Since one is taking all of the Bible as true)

Well, people also talk about in Genisis how wicked those people were,
5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
I suppose people don't find the execution of murderers very Pro Life, though it might save victims lives. But some people believe in a life after death, but then such a concept wonders why God would say don't kill if death was not death. Then again he says don't kill, he doesn't say don't die, I think. The act of murder can be bad for the murderer.

Bible claims the people God said to slay were wicked, I imagine, claims they sacrificed babies or something. And
Course the Israelites were told to kill the enemies babies.

I think the baby killing and pregnant woman killing is stronger part of Pros Round 1

YouFound_Lxam Round 1
I 'wouldn't have gone for the Pro Life baby argument.

Con makes arguments of how God might value babies, according to them being human life, knitting them from their earliest beginnings in the womb, being against murder.

'Could be a problem for Con, as I vaguely recall something about the Bible saying something about a breathe of life/soul once born.
As well as it only being a fine, not a life for life, if someone causes the death of an unborn. While killing the pregnant mother was a life for life.
But eh, Bible says a lot of things, maybe it says more for the Pro Life definition Con is taking.
(Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
. . . But still, would make God Pro Life by Cons definition.

Con argues afterlife and God above human standards.
I suppose that's an argument that could develop.

I consider the argument that God is not being literal with kill them all, weak. Unless Con produces translations or interpretations of the Bible to back up claim, or different parts in the Bible where God speaks non literally (Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)

Argument about killing the specific injustice people, better.

Argument about children going to Heaven, not 'bad, maybe not 'great though.
God allowed jurisdiction can be seen as God taking the responsibility for this 'specific action, or any specific actions that God orders, and not encouraging or wanting murder.

Con Round 1, okay, but not 'great. Currently I think Pro arguments stronger.
Though I still think Pro arguments have flaws.

Owen_T Round 2
Pro makes strong effort to hit Con with Cons own definition.

Pro gives example of Gods language being followed.

I still lean towards voting Pro

YouFound_Lxam Round 2
Con reminds all of the Commandments and Thou shall not murder,

But it's 'still a problem that Pro is leaning into Cons definition of Pro Life,
But Con 'does try to walk it back a bit, one could view it as people keeping a wolf sanctuary and being Pro Life, but the wolves got to eat.
Some people think there's 'something about existence that humans 'need to experience. Apparent Free Will, for example.

Con pushes against his by arguing, regardless of what God allows causes, he can still consider Abortion bad/be against it.
If Con had continued debate, they 'might have been able to gain traction here, as Pro seemed willing to accept Cons definition of Pro Life.

Con does 'very well in playing into Pros description of the debate, that assumes the Bible is totally accurate, if the Bible 'says that God is something or other, then it will be true regardless of any actions to the contrary that God may take.
'However, I don't remember Con citing the Bible explicitly saying that God is Pro life or Anti Abortion.

I still lean Pro for vote.

RFV Part 2

Owen_T Round 3
I am not convinced that actions speak louder than words.
Hundreds isn't that many people.
Maybe the deaths were necessary to some ends.
Life after death.
Exceptions.

Still, this is the end,
I think Cons Pro Life definition angle was a mistake, not that one couldn't argue God is Anti Abortion, but many of Cons arguments for such were broad, lacking specificality to Abortion.
A bit like Con tried to narrow the goal of the debate (Fair because of Pro definitions in description and round 1)
But then that Con argued the point broadly, instead of focusing on the goal.
Con could have further developed the concept of God being exempt from human standards and expectations.
Missing rounds 3 and 4 really hurt Con.

Pro manages to make arguments and consistently rebut Con's frequently,
But does Pro make good case of God to be Pro Death, or Pro Neutral?
Though I think arguments can be made against Pro, Con missed half the debate, and didn't dig in as deep as Pro for the time that Con 'was there.
. . . On another hand, Con 'does give many examples of God valuing Life, which as I read debate a second time, I don't 'think Pro addresses well,
Pro 'does have the problem of "assume that the bible is completely accurate"

Hm, God 'says live Pro Life, but 'does say to kill some specific people, and sends natural disasters at some points. But Con argues such are exceptions.

I suppose I'll go with a tie but Conduct to Pro,
If I 'had to choose a side for who won, I would have chosen Pro I think, but tie is an option in this voting system.
. . . My vote is a 'bit unfair in adding my own arguments, but I don't think that's a fault. I subtract my arguments from the person I argue against Pro, I don't 'add them to the person who didn't argue them Con.

Arguments Tie
Sources Tie both used the Bible,
If Con had used sources that for instances argued certain translations effecting understood meaning, could have helped Con.
Legibility equal.
Conduct to Pro, people can miss rounds, but without excuse/reason given in debate or comments, it qualifies as a hit.

You didn't specify descriptions in the description.
And in your first argument you allowed me to challenge the definition.

So that gave me the opportunity to provide my definition for abortion and establish it.

As for other words, you're going to have to establish them if you want to.

We probably should have established this earlier.

Should we agree to use all definitions of the Oxford Languages Dictionary?

He is obviously not pro all life.

According to the scripture, God is not pro life , HE'S eternal life.