How to debunk the resurrection?...

[DeistPaladin]

All or nothing. There is no middle ground.

Why, and on who's authority?

How would you propose that there could possibly be a middle ground? Make up any hypothetical scenario you like.

If God sent a little inspiration to the authors, we have no way of knowing what, if any, parts that they wrote are divine and what parts are their own superstitions.

If God dictated to the authors but didn't watch over them closely to be sure they jotted everything down faithfully, we have no way of knowing what, if any, parts they wrote are divine and what parts are their own liberties.

If God monitored the prophets faithfully, to make them good stenographers but didn't watch how the Bible was compiled at Nicaea, than we have no way of knowing what, if any, books are divine and what parts are just mythology.

If God watched over the compilation of the Bible but not the translations, we have no idea what, if any, translations faithfully preserve this original revelation, especially since we have no original manuscripts.

Ditto for the copyists. Did God watch over them too? If not, you get the idea.

Consequently, either you must believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, who dictated and closely supervised the compilation, copying and translation so that the final product you can read faithfully preserves the divine revelation that the prophets themselves received,

-or-

It's just a book, nothing more.

There is no sorta-kinda the Word of God.