The Instigator
SuburbiaSurvivor
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Maikuru
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Maikuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,316 times Debate No: 24254
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (71)
Votes (10)

 

SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

This debate will be about whether direct intervention from God is worse then rape. This debate was inspired by a debate Maikuru and I had in the comment section of popculturepooka's debate here: http://www.debate.org...

Within context of this debate, "Direct Intervention" will be specifically defined as a situation in which God overrides a person's free will and causes that person to choose Him. According to Christian Theology, by choosing Him [Jesus], said person will experience an afterlife of eternal bliss. The act of choosing Jesus involves believing and therefore accepting him as your Lord and Savior. In context, "Direct Intervention" will not mean situations in which God facilitates a free-willed choice, because in this case a person will still have the opportunity to choose for themself. Once again, in context of this debate, "Direct Intervention" will refer specifically to a situation in which God overrides a person's free will and causes them to choose Him.

As requested by Con, we will be presupposing the correctness of the Bible and Christianity.

The definition of rape, as requested by Con, will be defined as:

1.
The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. [1]

To provide further clarification, I will provide a similar definition:

2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. [1]

The burden of proof will be shared. Therefore whoever gives a better argument for their position will win this debate. It should be understood that it is unreasonable to expect either myself or my opponent to fully fullfill their burden of proof.

Finally, I urge voters to consider the debate for its merits, to vote unbiasedly, and to give detailed RFD's explaining their decision. As a theist, I specifically extend this request to theist voters. Please weigh both arguments honestly and fairly. If I win because of a votebomb, this debate will be deleted.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Maikuru

Con

I thank SS for this interesting debate opportunity. This will be my first debate concerning religion, so I am very excited.

I accept Pro's terms and conditions. Once again, my opponent will be affirming the resolution that if God were to "convert" an individual such that they are admitted into heaven rather than hell, he has committed an act worse than rape. I stand in firm negation of this resolution.

A brief note to readers. Pro is an avid theist and yet here will argue that there is an instance in which God could act heinously. I, a non-theist, will be in defense of God and his actions. We've both left our comfort zones and invite you to do the same. Please use this as an opportunity to judge a unique discussion on its merits rather than pre-existing preferences. As Pro indicated, votebombs are pointless as they will lead to a deleted debate.

With that, I await Pro's opening volley.
Debate Round No. 1
SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

First of all, I'd like to thank Con for accepting this debate! It is my honor to be the first member on DDO to debate Con on a religious topic. I also congratulate my opponent not only on his perfect win record, but on this being his 35th debate, a goal that Con has apparently had ever since joining DDO. In this debate I hope to give a run or his money.

Introduction

One of the most controversial topics of the Christian religion is the doctrine of Hell. Christianity teaches that all of mankind is doomed to Hell because of their sin nature, but that all of mankind also has the opportunity to believe in Jesus (the son of God), and consequently become redeemed into eternal bliss in Heaven. Now, the issue with this is that not all are going to be saved, because inevitably not all are going to choose God. To remedy this, there are those who argue that God should make all of mankind choose him, that is, he should override the free will of those who reject him and cause them to choose him. I am vehemently opposed to this view, as I consider it an action worse then rape. In this debate, I hope to substantiate my position with philosophical and biblical argumentation. Once again, I would like to reiterate that I am arguing against a situation in which God specifically overrides a person's free will and causes them to choose Him.

So Why Is Rape Wrong?

Before we can determine why Direct Intervention is relatable to rape, we must first understand why rape is wrong. Now, we all intuitively know that rape is morally wrong, and the Bible specifically teaches against it. But what is the real reason for why rape is wrong? Perhaps one could argue that it is because rape causes personal harm to a person. But why is it exactly that causing personal harm to someone is bad? After all, we know that causing harm in of itself isn't objectively wrong. For example, causing harm to soldiers in a war is not necessarily objectively wrong, and we certainly know that causing harm to animals is not objectively wrong. Therefore, why should the mere act of causing harm be objectively wrong? This is why I maintain that rape is morally wrong because it is something done to a person without their consent, that is, against their will, not because it causes harm. Of course, in the case of rape, that is a sexual act done towards a person not only without their consent, but against their will.

Imagine, for the sake of example, a sexually promiscuous person who is also a masochist named, for the sake of example, Jill. Jill's sole obsession in life is to achieve orgasm while being physically and emotionally tortured. One day, Jill is raped by someone she did not wish to be with. So then, was it wrong for her to be raped? I argue that yes, even in this situation, it was still wrong. Because even though she desired the torture and the sexual pleasure, she did not desire it from the person who gave it to her. The sexual act was forced upon her without her consent, and was consequently wrong. Therefore, it is morally wrong to rape someone because you are doing so without their consent, not because.

Now, one may argue that if this is true, is keeping someone from committing suicide wrong? It would appear that the answer is yes. However, this is not necessarily the case. Suicide causes emotional harm to those around you, either by them directly experiencing your suicide, or by having your contributions to society robbed from them. Therefore while keeping someone from committing suicide is morally wrong, there is a morally sufficient reason for preventing suicide.

Indeed, the most detestable aspect of rape is the fact that it is forced onto a person, not that it causes harm. A person's sexual purity and privacy is one of their most precious rights. To violate that and force a person to engage in sexual acts they do not wish to partake in is absolutely repulsive. As human beings we intuitively understand that our right to choose whatever path we want in life is one of our most precious rights.

In conclusion, rape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and against their wishes, not necessarily because it causes personal harm. While causing personal harm is wrong, it is wrong because it is against a person's desires, not because causing harm is objectively wrong.

So Why Is Direct Intervention Wrong?

Keep in mind that we've already established that rape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent, against their personal wishes. While Jill desired tortured sexual pleasure, she did not desire it from her rapist. Now, how does this relate to Direct Intervention? If God forces you to choose him and consequently be saved, this is being done without your consent. In that situation God would be forcing his will for your future into you.

It is important to note here why exactly this is against a person's consent. Everyone has a desire for pleasure, and it is certainly likely that everyone has a desire for eternal bliss. However, remember Jill: she had a desire for tortured sexual pleasure. However, she did not wish for it from her rapist. Similarly, while every human being may have a desire for eternal bliss in Heaven, they may not necessarily desire that eternal bliss via believing in Jesus Christ. In fact, it is inexplicable why the greatest desire of all men is eternal bliss, yet men consistently jeopardize their eternal bliss by doubting and rejecting belief. After all, if everyone wants to go to Heaven, why do so many endanger their possibility of attaining eternal bliss by embracing emotional or rational arguments against the existence of Heaven? Indeed, this speaks of another greater desire, one that overrides one's desire for eternal bliss, that is, a desire for control.

An illustration of this would come from Satan, the first deceiver. While he was the worship leader in heaven [1] and already in eternal bliss, as a free will being, he chose a desire for God's throne over his desire to remain in eternal bliss:

"How you have fallen from heaven,morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart,“I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throneabove the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."-Isaiah 14: 12-15 [2]

So if an angelic being who headed the worship leading in Heaven choose pride over living in eternal bliss, why then should human beings not be capable of such a feat?

Therefore we see that Direct Intervention goes contrary to a person's greatest desire.

An Illustration From Romance

Now, reader, I would like you to imagine your first love. Whether a small crush or a life-long relationship, imagine the first stage in which you entered into a relationship with that person. Before that relationship could commence, there had to be a point in which you both chose each other. However that happened, there was a point in which you both communicated to each other that you had chosen each other. No matter how smitten you were with your crush, you wouldn't dream of forcing her to choose you. After all, the idea is absurd! If you forced her to choose you, well, she didn't really choose you, now did she? You chose you. Indeed, such an act would be the very antithesis of love.

Why is Direct Intervention Worse?

It's simple. The effects of rape against a person's will are temporal, whereas the effects of Direct Intervention against a person's will are eternal. Direct Intervention is eternally worse, because the effects last eternally longer. Therefore, Direct Intervention is worse then rape.

[1] Ezekiel 28, http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...

Maikuru

Con

I thank Pro for his opening arguments. Since we have two rounds to go and we share the BOP, I will use this time to state my case. Rebuttals will come next round.

A Case for Conversion

At the beginning of the debate, I described myself as a non-theist. As such, I hold no faith in Christianity or its teachings. Believe it or not, this is not because I desire eternal torture or I think myself too good for faith. Instead, my beliefs are based in the same reasoning that everyone uses when making a claim: I have weighed the options and not been convinced otherwise. People hold true that which they think are true, and when one’s beliefs are challenged with sufficient evidence to the contrary, their beliefs change.

So, what happens if I’m wrong and Christian elements such as God, heaven, and hell exist? Then my view on spirituality is utterly false, I am working from a perspective of complete ignorance, and after death I will experience the worst of all possible worlds. Not a pleasant result and one any informed individual would actively avoid. However, I am not currently informed to the extent that my beliefs have been sufficiently challenged, and thus am doomed to eternal torment. That is, unless my false beliefs are corrected.

God has the capacity to change my mind and in doing so, save me from myself. Is granting such a gift worth overriding a free will choice not to believe? Of course! Seriously, is there any question? If God exists, the beliefs of those such as myself would be worse than meaningless, they’d be extremely detrimental to our well-being without us even knowing it. This isn’t a situation in which the individuality of the choice holds merit regardless of its correctness. This is a right or wrong scenario and given the eternal consequences of one’s decision, there is no virtue in clinging to an incorrect choice.

By now, you might be asking, “Well, what if someone doesn’t want to go to heaven? What if they’d prefer hell?” To that I say, “That is a nonsense question and shame on you for asking it. Shame!” Each of us acts in accordance with that which affords us satisfaction, so if an all-perfect God offers with certainty an opportunity for eternal bliss, it would necessarily be one’s highest desire. It is logically impossible to want more than the greatest possible satisfaction, regardless of how one derived satisfaction on Earth. Similarly, experiencing hell is equivalent to the greatest possible suffering and equally repulsive to all, regardless of how one defines suffering. A true understanding of these elements and the nature of God, as would be granted by this conversion, would therefore be a benefit to all and nothing short of the utmost gift.

Conversion vs Rape

To believe God’s direct intervention is worse than rape is to believe that it causes more harm, on balance, than rape. If that seems absurd to you, that’s because it is. Three elements of both acts - intent, impact, and outcome - outline this fact clearly.

Rape is selfishness, bred from an attacker’s desire for sexual gratification, psychological superiority, physical dominance, or some social or emotional frustration. They either have no insight into the victim’s desires, specifically the universal certainty that one does not wish to be violently and traumatically victimized, or pay them no heed. Instead, their thoughts are only for themselves and their own immediate needs. Compare this to conversion, in which God literally owns us, has every insight into our desires, acts to infinitely improve our satisfaction, and is saving us from unimaginable torment.

Rape is also agony, with physical, mental, and psychological injuries guaranteed. Victims often experience cuts, bruises, genital tearing, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and chronic injuries, assuming they survive the attack. Feelings of fear, helplessness, and confinement abound throughout the attack, and disorders such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies are common afterward [1]. Direct conversion, on the other hand, actually improves one’s psychological well-being. Their faulty beliefs have been expunged harmlessly, their future happiness has been assured, and they now experience a loving relationship with the one true lord.

Following a rape, the victim and all who love them suffer. They will forever have the knowledge and memory of victimization, and all of their pain, shame, and scars will have continuing personal and social repercussions. There is no upside to this act; it is pure maliciousness that harms everyone around it. Direct intervention from God could not be more different in its outcome. While on Earth, the individual has the opportunity to bask in their new found spiritual perfection and share the means of certain salvation with others. In the afterlife, they enjoy impossible joys and avoid tortures that put rape to shame.

So Which is Worse?

This section would be harder to write if I could fathom any negatives to direct conversion from God. As I said, there is no virtue in being wrong, especially when one is so vastly ignorant of the truth and its unending consequences that their choice is more a product of their lack of appropriate knowledge than their individuality. Removal of false beliefs by God in this case is not an attack, an insult, or even inappropriate. It’s an acknowledgment of the differences in information and perspective between the divine and the mortal, as well as the obviousness with which one prefers happiness to sadness. Rape, of course, is just harm through and through.

I believe the choice is clear. Indeed, it is intuitive; rape is an assault on every aspect of an individual without a single redeeming quality, whereas conversion so that one may enter heaven and avoid hell is tantamount to a divine favor. Sign me up, in fact.

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

Once again, I'd like to thank Pro for debating this topic. Since this is not a topic originating from scholarly argument, but rather from an off-handed discourse, this exchange is sure to be original and invigorating.

Con's Opening Argument

First of all, all of the points brought up by Con have already been addressed in my opening argument. So rather then bring up new points, I will instead further expound on my previous contentions with respect to what has been said by Con. Now Con advances the following arguments:

    1. The greatest desire of all human beings is to go to Heaven, and it is impossible to have a greater desire.
    2. God should remove all false beliefs from a person's mind so that they will choose Heaven.
    3. Rape is wrong because it is done with malicious intent and causes harm, not because it is done without a person's consent.

However, while Con argues in this order, I will actually be offering rebuttals to these points backwards. This is because 3) is an incoherent view of morality that leads to absurd conclusions, and the falseness of 2) and 1) can only be established once 3) has been properly refuted.

Why Is Rape Wrong?

Con would have us believe that rape is wrong merely because it is done with selfish intent and causes physical harm. While I agree that causing harm in this situation is certainly wrong, the rationale behind this view is flawed and leads to morally acceptable situations being immoral, and immoral situations being acceptable. Con forgets that the whole reason causing harm with selfish intent is immoral is because it is done without a person's consent or against a person's personal wishes. It is a violation of a person's privacy to the utmost extreme. The moral wrongness of causing harm to a person is not derived from the mere fact that one has caused harm, but from the fact that one has caused harm to a person without their consent. This view of morality fits reality much better then Con's view of morality.

To illustrate, let's examine Con's first criteria for why rape is wrong, that is, because it is done with selfish intent. Here Con shoots himself in the foot. You see, if God forces a person to choose Him, he is making that person do what HE wants that person to do. He is completely ignoring a person's overriding desire and is imposing his desires on that person. He does not have a person's best interest in mind, because he does not have that person's interests in mind at all. He doesn't care about what a person truly wants, but rather what he thinks a person should want. If God forces a person into heaven, he is doing so with selfish intent.

However, let us assume that somehow God has a selfless reason for Direct Intervention, this does not necessarily render what he's done moral. In fact, I think one can have selfless intentions and yet still commit an immoral act. Consider the rapist who instead of raping a girl because he wants sexual pleasure, rapes a girl with the sole purpose of causing her to experience sexual pleasure. Is this still wrong? Of course it is. Therefore selfish or selfless intent is irrelevant.

"Ah yes!", you might reply, "But is not rape wrong because of the harm it causes?" And of course, at face value it would appear that this is indeed true. But upon further examination one can only conclude that this view of morality is incoherent. Consider a situation in which a man drugs a girl at a party with a non-harmful anesthetic. He continues to rape her, but does so in such a way as to not harm her body. Because she is unconscious, she does not remember the event, and therefore suffers no psychological harm. Now, is this immoral? According to Con, it couldn't be! But wait, the girl was raped! Is some rape immoral, but other rape moral? How absurd to think that if no harm is done, no wrong has been done!

It doesn't end here of course, you see, if causing a person harm is the sole reason for why something is immoral, then all sorts of morally neutral situations are immoral! For example, imagine a guy named Joe who pays for a skydiving trip and gives full written consent to his skydiving assistant and the skydiving company. In the plane, the skydiving assistant has to jump first, thus causing Joe to fall with him. On the way down, there are complications and a strong gust of wind pushes Joe and his assistant into a building, causing Joe injury. Now, according to Con's rationale, it was morally wrong for the skydiving assistant to cause Joe to fall with him because it caused Joe injury. But this is absurd, Joe gave full written consent to being pushed into the air! He also gave full written consent to possibly being injured. Indeed, Con's view of morality leads to many absurd conclusions.

In conclusion, it is absurd to think that rape is wrong merely because it causes physical harm. Rape is truly wrong because is a sexual act forced onto a person without their consent.

Greatest Desire Vs. Overriding Desire

Con argues that the greatest desire of all human beings is for eternal bliss. However, the evidence simply does not support Con's view. As I have previously stated, the fact that anyone would choose emotional or rational objections over the possibility of achieving eternal bliss is solid evidence that the greatest desire of all human beings is not necessarily eternal bliss. After all, if that was your greatest desire, the one thing you wanted, why on earth would you endanger your chances? Now, this does not necessarily commit one to the view that there are people who do not desire eternal bliss at all. As Con has previously stated, it is logically impossible to desire something greater then heaven, since nothing is greater. Now, while it may be true that one can not desire anything greater then heaven, this has no bearing on whether one can have a "greater desire". Desire is measured in how much one desires something, not how great that something is. Indeed, desire is far too subjective for it to be objectively matched to specific items. It may be true that everyone desires eternal bliss, but it doesn't follow that they consequently desire that eternal bliss as much as they desire something else, for example, power or control, having heaven on one's terms.

Therefore, one can have an overriding desire that is greater then one's desire for eternal bliss, which is what causes a person to reject God.

Should God Make Us Desire Him?

Here Con advances some rather bizarre arguments. For example, that God should correct "wrong views", that is, Con is suggesting that God should change a person's mind, without their consent. Right off the bat we can see the problem with this view. Con argues that God should essentially reprogram people so that they will choose him. But would this really be their choice? After all, they certainly wouldn't be choosing him of their own free will, in fact, it'd just be the opposite, it'd be God choosing himself. Also, how could this be love? How could one truly reciprocate love when one's reciprocation isn't even the result of choice, but rather of programming? In the end it can not be moral to remove or add beliefs without a person's consent.

Also, there is nothing immoral about going to Hell, or moral about going to Heaven. You go to hell if you sin, but you don't sin because you go to Hell. Consequently, Heaven is where the sinless go, but it is not necessarily moral to go to Heaven. Both places are merely destinations. Just like you go to jail because you broke the law, but going to jail itself isn't necessarily against the law.

Finally, what of the idea that one can have a wrong view? Should not God change these views? The fact of the matter is that beliefs are largely irrelevant. Beliefs are chosen. You may choose a wrong belief but there's nothing wrong with choosing a wrong belief. To alter these choices, is to alter one's desire. To go against a person's overriding desires, without a person's consent, and therefore, immoral.

The resolution is affirmed.
Maikuru

Con

Having read my opponent’s opening round and rebuttals, I must say that I remain unconvinced of his position. Indeed, his entire last round consists of only one long straw man and a false claim. I will address these in a moment. For now, allow me to point out the critical flaws in his opening arguments.


My Opponent’s Arguments

1. “[R]ape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and against their wishes, not necessarily because it causes personal harm.”

Even if we used Pro’s faulty reasoning here, he’d still lose. Remember, one paragraph prior, he explained that we have a moral obligation to stop suicide. Is that because it lacks consent? No, that’s because it “causes emotional harm to those around you.” Well, so does rape! As I explained last round, rape causes deep and lasting emotional and social scars. Direct conversion, on the other hand, causes nothing of the sort. Pro’s own definitions prove that rape is worse! Boom. Myth busted.

In addition, the fact that Pro acknowledges harm at all when considering the appropriateness of an act dismantles his entire argument. He isn’t saying that the removal of consent immediately constitutes wrong doing, he’s saying that removal of consent indicates the point at which we begin calculating the extent to which one is harmed. Not only is he conceding that harm itself is a valid factor by which to determine morality, he’s explaining that the very presence of harm in an act allows us to act to a greater extent to prevent it! This is obvious, as our society already uses degrees of harm to determine the appropriate punishment for crimes.

I’d also be remiss not to point out that his attempt to base the morality of violence using soldiers and animals doesn't work here. Most people do believe that harm for the sake of harm is objectively wrong, regardless of the target. Pro’s implied and undefended exceptions, such as national defense or levels of consciousness, obviously do not apply to the harm caused to an innocent, helpless rape victim.

2. God’s intervention is done without consent and violates one’s greatest desire: control.

So what if God doesn’t have consent? He’s God! He made us, owns us, knows what we want, and knows why we believe what we do. In addition, God knows what information we lack and how decisions based on our incomplete knowledge will impact us in the future, and thus would be acting on our behalf. Does a parent need a baby’s consent to give it a vaccination? Does a good samaritan need a pedestrian's consent to push them out of the way of a bus? Not only can God act without our formal consent because he has full dominion over us, but also because he is protecting us from eminent and extreme danger we are not aware of.

When it comes to man’s greatest desire, Pro uses the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim that anyone who really wanted eternal bliss would be Christian. I’m sure he’d also agree that anyone who really wanted to quench their thirst would drink Fanta (that’s actually true). Sorry but this argument is insulting. By this logic, everyone should believe everything, lest they deny themselves the opportunity to desire some embedded claim therein. Doubting the validity of a school of thought does not immediately imply rejection of all positive attributes associated with belief, especially when the attribute is something as universal as wanting happiness. It is perfectly understandable to want eternal life and yet not be convinced of arguments for Christianity. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Using Satan as an example here is a non-starter. First of all, Pro agreed last round that it is logically impossible to want more than what heaven provides. Second, we’re discussing ignorant mortals who need God to avoid hell, not divinely powerful angels who lived during a time before hell existed. Third, this entire argument focuses on man’s desire for happiness (i.e. heaven) and completely ignores the equally, if not more, powerful urge to avoid pain (i.e. hell).

3. Forced conversion is like forcing someone to love you.

Did anyone else catch that Pro’s lovers example actually shows perfectly why rape is so terrible? As with rape, one person forcing another to love them through selfish psychosexual manipulation causes tangible emotional and social suffering. As with rape, the victim would not be experiencing the greatest possible joy and not being saved from the greatest possible suffering. As with rape, the attacker does not have ownership of the victim and does not have unlimited insight into the victim’s desires, knowledge, and future. Pro's argument is a total backfire.

4. Forced conversion is worse because it lasts forever.

What lasts forever? Pro has not established any wrong doing here, so this is not an argument. The only things that last forever are the joy one would feel if God granted this gift or the suffering one would feel if he did not.


My Arguments

1. A Case for Conversion

Last round, I explained that direct conversion is preferable to rape because it provides greater satisfaction, causes less harm, and prevents even greater harm in the future. To this, Pro stated that it is still worse because it is done without consent. But...that’s the whole point. They are both done without consent. We’re discussing which is worse. Like I said, conversion provides immeasurable good and prevents immeasurable harm at the expense of a worthless, wrong belief. Rape provides no good and causes incredible harm at the expense of the well-being of the victim and their loved ones for their entire lifetimes. This comparison is what the whole debate is about and Pro hasn’t even provided an argument yet.

Pro is spending a lot of time talking about morality, sin, and choice but none of that has anything to do with the resolution. If direct conversion is guilty of anything, it is that it lacks formal consent. So does rape! We’ve established that. Now it is Pro’s job to prove that rape is BETTER. Rape, with all its additional physical, emotional, social, and psychological harm that Pro completely concedes, is BETTER. He hasn’t done this because it is literally impossible. He admits that it is impossible to want more than the greatest possible satisfaction, and that is what direct conversation provides. Do you think anyone cares about some pathetic false belief at that point? If so, Pro hasn’t shown it. He hasn’t even argued it.

2. Conversion vs Rape

Pro wastes almost his entire round attacking a straw man. Specifically, my non-existent claim that rape is only wrong because it causes harm. Nope, never said that. Consent is obviously necessary or else it would just be rough sex and I would not have mentioned things like victimization, confinement, and being hopelessly subject to another’s selfish whims. Since both rape and direct intervention are, by definition, done without formal consent, the relevant question becomes what the impact of these acts are and whether, on balance, one is worse than the other. In this regard, Pro offers no defense whatsoever for rape and has ignored what is the most relevant argument in this debate.


Closing

Pro said something really interesting last round: “Christianity teaches that all of mankind is doomed to Hell because of their sin nature.” Think about that for a second. Everyone on Earth is destined for eternal, unimaginable torment and there is only one way out: God. Now, Pro claims that God swooping in and saving someone from this inevitable torment is bad because he’d have to change their mind. He’d have to CHANGE THEIR MIND! It’s almost funny how little anyone would mind that. They'd mind it less than rape, that's for sure. Remember, without him, we are doomed! It’s like pushing the pedestrian out of the way of the bus all over again. We may not know what’s coming, but if we did, you better believe we’d jump ourselves. If not, we’d definitely thank the guy afterward for the shove.
Debate Round No. 3
SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

Once again, a huge thanks to Con for accepting this debate and for his challenging response! However, while emotionally charged, his rebuttal simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Con has misunderstood and misrepresented my position.

My Arguments

Here Con admirably follows my lead, and attempts to show that I've contradicted myself. Indeed, this is a clever debating move, but is simply confused. I argue that harm is a relevant factor, of course, but only because it is done without a person's consent. We have an obligation to stop suicide, yes, but this is because suicide causes harm without consent. After all, the relatives of someone who committed suicide certainly did not give consent to being psychologically damaged as a result of their loved one's death. The same applies to saving a person's life. When someone commits suicide, it causes emotional harm to the people that person knows, however, this emotional harm is not inflicted with that victim's consent. After all, who would consent to being emotionally scarred?

Interestingly, Con ignores the whole reason causing harm is considered so wrong. After all, what is wrong with causing harm to someone? Well, that person doesn't like being harmed, so they don't want anyone harming them. The more harm caused, is more violation of that person's personal wishes. In fact, the more one causes harm, the more one violates another's privacy and consent. This supports the conclusion that causing harm is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and is against their personal wishes, not because causing harm itself is objectively wrong. In fact, I would even go so far as to argue that violating a person's free will is actually a type of harm in of itself. You damage a person's ability to pursue their desires when you force yourself onto them, and therefore cause harm. Thus, even if we accept Con's irrational view, it still leads us to the conclusion that Direct Intervention causes considerably more harm then rape.

In paragraph 3, Con completely misunderstands what I'm arguing. First of all, it's irrelevant whether causing harm for the sake of causing harm is objectively wrong. This is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that causing harm in of itself isn't objectively wrong. Con never gives a reason why causing harm to soldiers in a war isn't morally acceptable, and how the same applies to causing harm to animals. He then asserts that it obviously doesn't apply. To this I'd reply, really? Why not? Sure, an animal may not be able to give consent either way, but consent isn't the only morally relevant factor according to you, now is it? Harm is a morally relevant factor. So then, any and all acts that cause harm are immoral. If not, then Con's position collapses entirely.

Finally, Con completely fails to rebut my analogies of the unconscious rape, and the falling skydiver. I will count this as a concession. Interestingly, these arguments were considerable blows to Con's view that rape is wrong because it causes harm, not because it is done without consent. In fact, in Con's point 2. he argues that rape with consent is just rough sex, and presumably moral. But if so, then what is morally wrong with causing harm in of itself?

God's intervention is done without consent and violates one's greatest desire: control.

Here Con confuses God's omnipotence with his omnibenevolence. No one is arguing that God can't force someone into heaven, I am arguing that God won't, because it is against his nature to do that which is immoral. Con has failed to offer a morally sufficient reason for God violating a person's free will. Indeed, the mother is morally justified in violating her baby's will by giving her baby a vaccination because the baby being sick would cause physical and emotional harm to the mother as she is forced to take care of her child, that is, stress she did not consent too. Also, a baby isn't necessarily capable of giving consent either way. Babies only have one desire, and that overriding desire is to be taken care of.

Next we come to Con's rebuttal to the overriding desire bit of my argument. This is perhaps the most blatant misrepresentation of my argumentation that I have seen yet. I never argued that if a person had an overriding desire for eternal bliss, they would choose Christianity. I argued that if they had an overriding desire for eternal bliss, then it is inexplicable why they would reject the possibility of attaining eternal bliss because of rational or emotional objections. This could mean rejecting Islam, Christianity, or any other possible belief system. Indeed, we certainly have people who reject ALL possible means of attaining eternal bliss because of rational or emotional objections. To illustrate my point, if my overriding desire, my desire that literally overrides any and all other desires (such as the desire to be rational or emotional), was to be abducted by aliens, it is inexplicable why I would refuse to try going into crop circles.

Con seems to but unaware of the fact that Satan's divinely powerful nature not only fails to render him ineffective as an example, but actually strengthens my position further. Indeed, Satan had full and complete access to the pleasure of Heaven. Yet he developed a desire that overrided his desire for eternal bliss that he was already experiencing, in fact, he caused a third of the angels in heaven [1] to develop a similar overriding desire. So then, if such beings can develop such a desire, why not human beings who share the same free will?

Forced Conversion Is Forcing Someone to Love You

Con's rebuttal here is incoherent. Indeed, my analogy was intended to show how both rape and forced conversion were wrong. No backfire here. However, Con's responds with the usual answer of it being wrong because of harm caused. But imagine if you loved a women, and so found a way to reprogram her so that she will love you back. The reprogramming was against her will, but was done without any physical or mental harm. Imagine a situation similar to the premise of the tv series Dollhouse [2]. The object of your affection is imprinted with a desire for you, and has all objections to desiring you removed. How contrary to the very essence of love and romance this is! Con is advocating synthetic love.

Finally, Direct Intervention damages one's ability to pursue one's overriding desire for an eternal amount of time, whereas rape only damages one's ability to pursue one's overriding desire for a temporal amount of time. Direct Intervention is much worse.

A Case For Conversion

I have already explained why the damages of direct intervention against a person's free will and overriding desire far surpass the effects of rape. I have also already explained why causing harm in of itself is not objectively wrong. Con's argument here is mostly an echo of his previous statements.

Conversion Vs. Rape

Strangely, Con concedes that violating a person's free will is immoral. I'd say at this point I've won the debate. If violating a person's free will is immoral, then whichever situation damages one's free will more is more immoral. If causing harm is not objectively wrong, as I have previously demonstrated, then what then remains? Nothing.

Closing

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."-Richard Dawkins [3]

Indeed, imagine God forcing Dawkins into heaven, and in order to keep him from kicking, screaming, and trying to claw his way out, God reprograms Richard's mind so that he will mindlessly accept him. Forever praising God in the most insincere and synthetic way possible, a literal human robot. How absurd.

http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru

Con

A big thank you to SuburbiaSurvivor for this fun and unique debate. It has wound up being one of my favorites! I would also like to thank all the readers who have stuck around this long for their interest and patience in our unusual ramblings. I hope you’ve enjoyed the ride so far!


My Opponent’s Arguments

1. “[R]ape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and against their wishes, not necessarily because it causes personal harm.”

Pro continues to argue that consent is the relevant factor when it comes to morality but that line of reasoning stopped mattering the moment Pro mentioned suicide. Remember, my opponent described suicide as wrong because it causes harm to people other than the victim. Whether that’s bad because of consent or harm makes no difference. What matters is that rape has the same negative impact on others, while conversion does not. By Pro’s own rubric, rape is worse. Please reread Pro’s argument and notice that he does not contest this.

What Pro does try to argue, though, is that conversion causes a worse kind of harm than rape because it impedes a person’s free will. Well, rape does too, so that’s a wash. The difference, which I stated in round 2 and which has never been addressed, is that the changes made by conversion are entirely and incomprehensibly positive: eternal happiness, avoidance of eternal torture, a loving relationship with God, an opportunity to save others, and a perfect morality as gifted by the lord. The changes made by rape, of course, are entirely negative: lasting physical, emotional, psychological, and social scars for the victim, as well as reverberating pain throughout their social circle.

At this point, Pro’s soldiers and animals example is just kind of weirdly out of place. I explained that the harm caused in those cases are a product of implied moral exceptions (i.e. defense of the greater good & varying levels of consciousness, respectively), neither of which he defended and neither of which apply to a rape victim. Thus, any harm caused to a rape victim cannot be so easily justified or dismissed as only subjectively wrong.

As a side note, the fact that Pro believes I conceded his stories about the unconscious rape victim and Joe the skydiver indicate that he did not grasp the crux of my argumentation. No matter how many times he says so, I never stated or even implied that rape was only wrong because of harm. I showed that as both rape and conversion involve a lack of formal consent, other factors - intent, impact, and outcome - must be weighed to determine which act is preferable. This is where Pro’s lack of defense of rape comes into play.

2. God’s intervention is done without consent and violates one’s greatest desire: control.

I explained that God does not require consent to save someone, as he has dominion over them (e.g. parents vaccinating babies) and is saving them from inevitable harm they are not aware of (e.g. a pedestrian pushing a man away from a speeding bus). Pro counters by saying that such an act would be against God’s nature. First, this is a new last round argument and will not be considered. Second, given that God has used various types of force in the name of goodwill before, Pro would need to offer some argument here other than his blanket assertion. My two examples of action in the absence of consent stand (Pro concedes to one and ignores the other) as instances in which one's desires are met despite the fact that another acted on their behalf. In the meantime, Pro has offered no evidence that there is ever a case of implied consent when it comes to rape.

I went on to explain that it is possible to desire eternal happiness without ascribing to a belief system which promises eternal happiness, meaning that God would not be granting atheists an unwanted gift by getting them into heaven. Pro doesn’t think that’s possible:

“[I]f they had an overriding desire for eternal bliss, then it is inexplicable why they would reject the possibility of attaining eternal bliss because of rational or emotional objections.”

Once again, it’s the same reason not all thirsty people drink Fanta. It may seem inexplicable - Fanta is indeed a delicious, cold beverage - but just because you have a desire does not mean every possible means of obtaining that desire is favorable, convincing, or even true. Surely Pro would like the gift of flight, but that doesn’t mean he’d buy my magical flying elixir. He isn’t convinced. He shouldn’t be. It’s just Fanta.

Pro still doesn’t buy it, though, and thinks Satan is a perfect example of someone who had a greater desire than eternal happiness. But Satan wasn’t directly converted by God. Satan wasn’t being saved from hell. Satan didn’t have to fear mortal death. Satan wasn’t helpless without God. Satan’s desires aren’t knowable to humans. Most importantly, though, regardless of what Satan ever did or wanted, Pro conceded in round 3 that no human could ever want more than heaven.

3. Forced conversion is like forcing someone to love you.

I went into detail showing that Pro’s forced love scenario is flawed because it has all the negatives of rape with none of the positives of direct conversion. In response, my opponent literally repeated the example but just threw in a line about all the problems with this situation being magically erased. Okay, even then, this type of sexual manipulation is still done for selfish reasons, does not provide the victim with heaven-like happiness, and does not save them from hell-like despair. This is still just an example showing how much worse rape is to conversion.

4. Forced conversion is worse because it lasts forever.

As one’s greatest possible satisfaction is being experienced following conversion, and Pro has never once argued how or why an incorrect choice (freely chosen or not) is more valuable to an individual than their greatest possible satisfaction, there is no harm here. Remember, if God exists, disbelief isn't just some incorrect belief that is valuable despite being wrong. It isn't even neutral. It is actively harmful. A pin prick would cause more harm than removing that false belief. Rape happens to be many times worse than a pin prick.


My Arguments

1. A Case for Conversion

I’ve already spent a lot of time talking about all the good things conversion causes and all the bad things it prevents. It should be clear by now that the positives of conversion far outweigh the positives of rape (rape has none) and the negatives of rape are far greater than the negatives of conversion (conversion has none). My pedestrian example, which I described twice and Pro ignored twice, is a great analogy. Any informed individual would protect themselves from harm if they were able to do so and aware that harm awaited them. Saving someone from such harm is permissible without their consent because they lack the necessary awareness and ability. The fact that in this case “saving” also includes admission into heaven means they’re likely to kiss you on the lips afterward.

2. Conversion vs Rape

Pro straw mans me again by saying I conceded that violating one’s free will is immoral. What I said was that both rape and conversion lack formal consent, so we must judge their remaining attributes and outcomes. Note that never once has Pro attempted to defend any aspect of rape. Understandable, as it would be abhorrent to do so. The point, though, is that he has conceded that rape is ALL bad, without a sliver of redemption. Thus, for rape to be the better of these two acts, conversion would either have to be ALL bad in a worse way or so intensely evil that any positives it has would just be washed away. This obviously isn’t the case. Pro’s one complaint - a lack of consent - has been justified and it has a laundry list of wonderful side-effects.

Rape is clearly worse than direct intervention from God. The resolution is negated.

Thanks again to Pro and the readers!
Debate Round No. 4
71 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
PCP, would you mind elucidating why you felt Con won? Specifically analyzing how my arguments failed in light of his arguments.

Even bluesteel, who voted against me, admitted that I gave a solid case that violating a person's free will harms their ability to pursue their overriding desire, and is therefore immoral.

I've accepted defeat. I'm just looking to better my argumentation.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Good debate, though, guys. It's cool to see a different type of religious debate take place on here.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Would any of the voters like to debate me on this topic? I'd like to debate this topic again.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
I think it's no secret which side I was pre-disiposed towards coming into the debate (Con) but I did read the debate twice and think it over. I tried laying aside my biases as much as I could. With that said, I still do think Con won this debate.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Thank you to everyone who has continued to read and vote on this debate.

Scotty, would you mind elaborating on your vote? I must admit that I don't understand it at all.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
RFD- I could not actually put all my thoughts on this debate in the voting section.
I dislike the resolution period and do not think it can be negated properly. Both sides Con did a terrible job at negating and by doing so lost the argument.
Pro showed a well rounded not the subject at hand. He also showed his knowledge in the Bible and its intent. Con showed none.
Con made huge efforts with heart felt convictions that were understanding but has nothing to do with the topic. Pro showed he also has convictions and displayed knowledge in the topic. Both seemed to have took well thought out arguments.
So I gave both conduct.
I gave both grammer and spelling.
I gave sources to Pro because he supplied them.
I gave arguments to Pro because he knew the most about the topic and did a better job negating the resolution.
I will add that I loved to Richard Dawkins example.
Posted by dirkson 4 years ago
dirkson
@Gileandos

Hmm, you may be right - Reading the definitions again, "Direct intervention" is defined vastly more narrowly than I had thought.
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Round 5 Con

Then entire round did not address' Pro's line of reasoning and nothing was of merit to the resolution being argued by Pro. I thought the Dawkins analogy would cause him/her to get it.

Summary:

Arguments to Pro as clearly he met the intellectual and intuitive burden of proof. Con did not understand the line of reasoning. Sources to Pro as he offered relevant sources and Con merely cited wiki source showing side effects of rape.
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Round 3 Con (Cont)
Con closes with another misunderstanding of Pro's line of reasoning. Con is stating that ‘of course we would all choose heaven, once we knew about it' However, as Pro stated this is about a person who would not choose even bliss, but would choose torment.

Round 4 Pro:
Pro rightly points out now that Con does not get it.

Pro rightly continues to show how Con does not get it many times over.
I hope that Con will follow the line of reasoning.

A great restatement here is that control is of more value that not being harmed and Pro positions this a ‘one's greatest desire'

A phenomenal image, that sadly gives me endless amounts of mirth, in Pro's closing statement. Dawkins imagery was fantastic! I can even imagine "You will not love me! Not Not Not Not Not Not!" If this does not clue Con in I do not know what will.
Posted by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
Round 3 Con
Con's opening statement again points out that rape is harmful. Again not relevant to Pro's line of reasoning. Con does not seem yet to understand.

Con continues to assert that Pro's argument is self dismantling. Again showing he does not understand it.

Con then asserts a line of reasoning that God is God so thus he can act without consent. He is special pleading here with question begging. Why can God do this?
He gives warrant to this special pleading that an adult is able of overruling a baby's Will, but does nothing to justify the question begging. I wait for Pro's response here.

Con then gives an accusation of No True Scottsman fallacy. Not relevant as Pro's argument was not one of inherent ‘oughts' that are universally apparent.

Con again address rape is bad. Pro's contention is that God's overruling free will is worse, not that rape is NOT bad. Again Con misunderstands and does not address the resolution.

Con then deflects the eternality of forced conversion, while not addressing the merit it holds as eternal force vs. temporal rape.

Contention 1 from Con then restates his idea he would prefer bliss to be forced upon him rather than choosing eternal torment. Again misunderstanding Pro's position and line of reasoning.
Con asserts that immeasurable good verses immeasurable harm. This does not address Pro's line of reasoning that if I force a concubine to be my ‘mate' for all of eternity, the force is worse than the sexual pleasure she will gain. Even if I can pleasure her like no other.

Con then asserts under point 2 that Pro is attacking a strawman.
He states that Pro is putting words in his mouth and that Con agrees with the fact consent is relevant to rape, but that Pro is missing the harm issue.
Again this does not address the resolution. Pro is not disagreeing with mere harm factor but that the force is worse.
(Cont)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that the morality of rape vs. intervention must take into account the outcome of the act, and Pro deemed it irrelevant. Once Con mentioned it, I needed Pro to convince me why it didn't matter and why I should base it solely on the issue of consent. Moreover, Con argued that God's ownership of his creation puts him in a wholly different position than a rapist, which again had no response. All I heard repeatedly was that forces consent was wrong no matter the outcome. Not enough for me.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It basically boiled down to the comparative thesis: given that there isn't consent in either situation which option has more "moral marks" tallied up against it. I think Con clearly showed that in the case of a forced conversion rape has more moral marks tallied against it -making it "worse" - and thus negating the resolution. The points about direct intervention being done with the agents' well being in mind and it actually increasing the agents' well being whereas rape doesn't win the debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: What caused me to vote for Con was that he stated that even though both direct intervention and rape can be done without consent., direct intervention was done to save someone from torture while rape did not. Con also stated that God had dominion over us and he can do things without our consent, but what he does leads to a more positive outcome. These were not adequately refuted.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con. The pedestrian and vaccine analogies were perfect, and Pro's only refutation was to claim that a mother vaccinates her child for selfish reasons, ignoring the other analogy.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt both had good conduct. Both had good grammer/spelling. I give sources to Pro because he used more and they were reliable. I thought both had really good arguements. The reason I give it to Pro os because after reading 3 times. Con did not know alot on the topic to defend himself from Pro. Good Job both.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 4 years ago
Gileandos
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro as clearly he met the intellectual and intuitive burden of proof. Con did not understand the line of reasoning. Sources to Pro as he offered relevant sources and Con merely cited wiki source showing side effects of rape. RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was based on morality being based off of free will. Con demonstrated why that was not so through using examples like suicide and his point about saving a pedestrian from an oncoming bus. Pro's point about Satan was defeated also since Satan can not be compared to humans.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Reason_Alliance 4 years ago
Reason_Alliance
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
SuburbiaSurvivorMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a number of strawmans and contradicted himself occasionally. I agree with Maikuru that eternal bliss is logically the most desired thing of any human; if Jill feels that being tortured is bliss, then it follows that she will be tortured in heaven. Indeed, "bliss" is subjective, but heaven is an ideal concept. Furthermore, the Pro's contradictions, such as his suicide remark, really took away from his argument, as a whole.