The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
Justinian
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points

Hell, as a place of eternal torment, cannot be justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 52306
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

First round is for acceptance
Justinian

Con

I accept. I take it the burden of proof on me must be that Hell is justifiable. To keep matter's in perspective I doubt we will be debating on the existence of God. Now one more thing; what Hell are we going to debate? The Christian Hell or the the Muslim Hell? I'm sure that many other religions also have a type of Hell.
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

Thanks con.

Hell as a place of eternal torment. It might be the Muslim or Christian interpretation of hell. This is not a hell of varying degree but the worst hell imaginable for everyone going to hell.

1) the punishment for a finite human being with a finite existence is eternal suffering. This isn't justice.

2) reasonable non-believers that preceded Hitler would've been burning in hell before Hitler arrived. This means they've been punished longer. This isn't justice.
Justinian

Con

Thank you for your quick response! My counter argument will begin with rebuttals to your assertions.

Rebuttal Number One: Pro said, "1) the punishment for a finite human being with a finite existence is eternal suffering. This isn't justice."

Response: In this debate we are debating the justifiably of an eternal hell to those condemned to it for all eternity. If this is the case pro can not consciously assert that human beings are finite. If one goes to hell then they must (for the sake of this argument) have an eternal essence and thus not be finite.

Rebuttal Number Two: Pro asserts, " 2) reasonable non-believers that preceded Hitler would've been burning in hell before Hitler arrived. This means they've been punished longer. This isn't justice."

Response: How can Pro be certain that Hitler went to hell with other longer punished reasonable non-believers; when he (Pro) himself does not believe that an eternal hell is justifiable. With doubt on his evidence for point number two this objection is baseless. Further along I disagree to the second part of his point number two: reasonable non-believers that preceded Hitler would've been burning in hell before Hitler arrived. This means they've been punished longer. This isn't justice." Just because those non-believers have been punished more in comparison to Hitler doesn't mean that invalidates justice. If we are arguing whether an eternal hell is justifiable then we must understand that those non-believers have been punished, but they will always continue to be punished the same as Hitler. Before attempting to tackle how long infinity is, the number of "years" in hell would not affect the secession of their punishments.
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

Thanks con.

I don't think con has understood my argument for 1) which states that finite human beings shouldn't be punished for eternal torment. Whether the human soul is eternal or not was not my concern with this argument. My argument states that since human beings ony commit a finite amount of sin since they can only live "X" years until they die, why would a finite time of sin justify an *eternal* fate of torment for a human soul forever?

2) my own doubts about whether an eternal hell exists or not is irrelevant to this debate. You are taking the side arguing that such a hell exists. It's your burden of proof (as you've said), to argue why this eternal place of torment is justifiable. Furthermore, whether or not *Hitler* went to hell doesn't disprove my analogy. Why would somebody extremely evil, who lived in a time period after somebody less evil, be sentenced to eternal torment earlier if the person who was more evil deserves more punishment?
Justinian

Con

Thanks Pro. As again I will provide counter-rebuttals and make assertions of my own in an attempt to justify an eternal torment in hell.

"Whether the human soul is eternal or not was not my concern with this argument. My argument states that since human beings only commit a finite amount of sin since they can only live "X" years until they die, why would a finite time of sin justify an *eternal* fate of torment for a human soul forever?" - Pro

Actually whether or the human soul is eternal is important It is part of my premise of why a hell is as a place of eternal torment is justifiable. As said before since (for the sake of this argument) a damnable person who had an eternal soul went to hell then it would be logical to conclude that their eternal soul would have an eternal punishment. This in turn would be up my second assertion. Sin is not finite. It doesn't matter of how many X years you commit sin, even if you sin once then when you die you go to hell. Sin has eternal consequences and I apologize for my rough use of words, but the belief that sin is finite is a fallacy. If a person sinned their whole life compared to a person who sinned once, then they both (without a savior) would go to an eternal torment in hell. It only makes sense that a crime with eternal consequences deserves an eternal punishment.

2) my own doubts about whether an eternal hell exists or not is irrelevant to this debate. You are taking the side arguing that such a hell exists. It's your burden of proof (as you've said), to argue why this eternal place of torment is justifiable. Furthermore, whether or not *Hitler* went to hell doesn't disprove my analogy. Why would somebody extremely evil, who lived in a time period after somebody less evil, be sentenced to eternal torment earlier if the person who was more evil deserves more punishment? - Pro

I apologize then for my deviation of my burden of proof. It seems to me that in my personal belief that since a hell as a place of eternal torment is justifiable then surely it must exist. Back on topic you said in your opener that, "This is not a hell of varying degree but the worst hell imaginable for everyone going to hell." Wouldn't these lesser and greater offenders go to the same hell with the same punishment for the same amount of time in the context of eternity? Thus justice is in fact fulfilled.

Recap:
1. The human soul is eternal.
2. Everyone has sinned.
3. Sin has eternal consequences.
4. An eternal "offender", must go to an eternal "prison", so that he can be "punished" eternally.

It appears that a hell as a place of eternal torment is perfectly justifiable.
Last assertion: If per say that you theoretically were in the upper room of a hotel. A fire suddenly starts in the lower lobby and your friend warns you about that fire. You don't listen to his advice, because you don't believe him. A while later you smell the smoke yet again you still don't believe that there is a growing fire in the hotel. A little while later your friend comes back and pleads with you to escape from the hotel, but you are prideful and don't listen to his advice. Hours later you perish to the fire.

If someone gave you a warning assuming that their was an eternal hell with eternal torments and you did not heed their warnings, then you alone are responsible for yourself and your eternal torment would be justifiable.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Very nice idea Pro.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
BenshapiroJustinianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G- Con had grammatical errors. Con, although he used some questionable, debatable analogies, he did rebut all of Peo's points. Plus, Pro did not provide sufficient definitions in the beginning of the debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
BenshapiroJustinianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did show that humans are eternal if hell exists, but still does not supply evidence that eternal suffering is justified for the sins of finite time on Earth. As Con accepted the full BOP this was needed, and Pro's analogies while not constructed in the best way (hence S&G points to Con) did show the problems with this line of reasoning. Other points are shared. As a side note Pro, you may want to frame your proposition more carefully with definitions in the future.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
BenshapiroJustinianTied
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: Pro made some very nice points, and none of Con's responses made me like them any less. Easily the most striking point is that someone like Hitler has burned in Hell thousands of years less than someone who may have only been one thousandth as bad as he was. I'm aware that Hell is eternal but it's like 1,000 plus infinity, if you compare it to someone who lives at a later time than you.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
BenshapiroJustinianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Although con used ad hominen against pro, conduct still goes to con because pro committed straw man fallacies. I could spot a few grammar errors in con's argument, so S&G goes to pro. Overall, arguments go to con for addressing every point pro made in his rebuttal.