The Instigator
JustAnAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Hell does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 67358
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (6)

 

JustAnAtheist

Pro

Hell is not a real place. It's a made up concept by religious people.
dsjpk5

Con

As my opponent is the instigator and has taken the Pro position, he/she has the full burden of proof. My opponent must show that Hell definitely doesn't exist. Unfortunately for my opponent, it's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist. This is a foregone debate. Having said that, I look forward to reading what my opponent offers.
Debate Round No. 1
JustAnAtheist

Pro

"As my opponent is the instigator and has taken the Pro position, he/she has the full burden of proof."
This assumption is wrong. To say that hell does not exist is a conclusion based on the fact, that there is literally no proof what so ever, that a place like hell exists. To say it doesn't exist, does therefore not require a burden of proof.
Anything that does not exist cannot be proved wrong, but it cannot be proved right either, so the burden of proof is totally irrelevant.

Since there is no known evidence that a place like hell exists, it is logical to say that there is no hell.
The same argumentation is used every day for all kinds of things. If you friend tells you that you will fall in a pot of soda after you die, is the burden of proof on you, and since you cannot disprove it, is has to be true?

The concept of hell is a very contradicting idea too. If there is a god (which I do not believe), who guides everything and created everything, knowing what will happen in the future, he already predetermined, that people will do things that will lead them to hell. Can a person change what is predetermined? No, since that is not possible.
Would an all loving God create a place in which people are tortured for all eternity? I think not.
Would an all righteous God create a place where people go, who did something insignificant as having sex with the same gender, but no people who commit murder but repent to the lord? I think not.

And because the concept of hell is cruel, contradicting to an all loving and righteous God and has no evidence at all, the conclusion that hell is not a real place is just logical.
dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for offering his/her thoughts.

All capitalization is for emphasis only.

BURDEN OF PROOF

My opponent tries to make the claim that he/she doesn't have the burden of proof. Well, according to this website, he/she DOES have the burdenof proof:

From the Debate.org tutorial:

"The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim,
must provide evidence that the claim is true" As a result, often it is
much more difficult to argue as PRO then it is to argue as CON. Unless
explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is
false, just that there is not enough evidence to prove that the
resolution is true." [1]

So as anyone cam see, my opponent has the full burden of proof. It was not specifically stated that I have to prove the resolution false, and its too late to add new rules now. I don't have to provide my own evidence, I just have to show that Pro's claims COULD be wrong. I have offered an unbiased source supporting this idea, while my opponent has only offered an opinion without warrant.

My opponent COULD have crafted a resolution where the burden of proof was shared by both of us. "Does Hell exist?"would be one example. Or, my opponent COULD have made a resolution where I had the burden of proof. For example, "Hell exists." My opponent COULD have taken the Con position on that one, and in that case, the burden of proof would've been on me. HOWEVER, Pro specifically chose "Hell doesn't exist.", and took the burden of proof by doing so.

LOGICAL FALLACY

Most of my opponent's arguments are based on a logical fallacy, and as such, should be disregarded. Specifically, Pro has engaged in what philosophers call the "argument from silence":

" Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) " where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence" [2]

In short, abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So basically, Pro hasn't offered any valid evidence to support his/her position.

MAYBE GOD IS BAD

Pro tries to argue that a good God wouldn't create a Hell. Even IF this were true, it wouldn't mean that Hell doesn't exist. Maybe a bad god created Hell.

Now that I have fully negated my opponent's claims, I turn this debate back over to Pro. I look forward to reading what else my opponent has to say.

Sources:
1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JustAnAtheist

Pro

For the start of this round I'd like to quote one of the commenters, since he already said what I wanted to say
"pro is actually making the negative claim, hence the "not." Con is making a positive claim by arguing that Hell does exist, so he has the BoP."
Since a positive claim needs to have prove to be believed, and not the negative claim, the burden of proof lies on your side. Even inn a law court, if a person makes a claim, he has to proof it, not the one that is accused, that he did not do it.
My opponent did not make an own point and just tried to refute my points.

"In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (-Opponent)
That is true, but "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (-C. Hitchens)
Therefore, if you do not back up your positive claim (that hell does exist) with evidence, there is no reason to believe you.
If you continue with your "burden of proof" argument that I have refuted two times by now, you have made no real argument.
And the "MAYBE GOD IS BAD" (-Opponent) -argument is also not a real argument either, since god is just as proved as hell, which is not proved at all.

And as your yourself said: "The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim,
must provide evidence that the claim is true".
dsjpk5

Con

Thank you Pro for the interesting comments.

Last round, my opponent inexplicably made two outrageous claims:

1. Pro claimed that I (CON) made a positive claim that Hell does exist.
2. My opponent claimed I was the instigator!

As for claim number one, I challenge my opponent to show where I ever made the positive claim that Hell exists. I didn't, and I don't have to, I am Con. All I have to do is negate Pro's claims, and I win. But dint take my word for it. Let's remember what Debate.org said about the matter:

"Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the
resolution is false, just that there is not enough evidence to prove
that the resolution is true." [1]

It's easy to see who is making the positive statement.
It's the person with the word "PRO" next to their name. CON negates
(which comes from the word "negative").

Now for the silly claim that I am the instigator of this debate.
Debate.org tells you who the instigator is... the person with the word
"instigator" next to their name at the top of the debate.

My guess is that Pro realizes his/her mistake. My opponent has only
participated in three debates, and may not be familiar with such things
as burden of proof. So, now tat my opponent realizes that they made a
mistake in crafting the resolution, he/she is trying to shift the
burden of proof. Also, since Pro thought it would be a good idea to quote from the debate comments, let me return the favor. Actually, I will quote from two of the commentators:

1. "You are claiming that a hell doesn't exist.

"If someone claimed that hell exists, they have the burden of proof. The negation of that claim is not that hell does not exist. The negation of the claim is that hell does not necessarily exist.

Likewise, to say that hell does not exist is a truth claim that needs to be backed up. You've made it your job to convince us that hell does not exist. Con just needs to show that you haven't sufficiently justified that claim. The BoP is on whoever is making the claim, and right now, that is you."

2. "you are pro, so its up to you to back up your claim, sure usually its the guy claiming that should prove his claim, and in this case, you need to prove your claim is true, that hell dosnt exist"

Pro went on to say:

"In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (-Opponent)
That is true, but "what can be asserted without evidence can also be
dismissed without evidence" (-C. Hitchens)"

MY RESPONSE:

You are the one making the assertion that "Hell doesn't exist", so
that's why I am able to dismiss your claim without evidence..
Christopher Hitchens never participated in a debate where the
resolution was something "doesn't exist", so his quote isn't relevant
here.

WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING

We're not debating if God exists. Pro was the first one to bring up
the subject of God in this debate. I simply responded to Pro's claim
that a good God wouldn't create Hell. Now Pro is asking for proof that
God exists, but we're not debating if God exists. Also, for the
purpose of this debate, it doesn't matter if God exists. Even if God
doesn't exist, Hell could still exist. Therefore, arguing that God
doesn't exist is not a valid argument that Hell doesn't exist.

There, I've negated all of Pro's arguments, so the resolution is
negated.

Please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I know we both learned something from it.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Anyone taking odds on me getting vote bombed later today?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I'm impressed that a debate on page five has eight votes in less than two days. Quite surprising!
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Well, can I assume that RFD satisfies the moderator?
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Off topic by both sides 0 POINTS.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
We weren't debating " hell probably does not exist" . we were debating "hell does not exist "
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@1Credo
If not trying to fluff con, please explain your awarding of conduct, S&G, and sources? Even for arguments, you have not said any reason why BoP was not met, therefore you have not met your own BoP as a voter to prove you read the debate.

@WillRiley
Please explain the huge gap in conduct you claim exists? Also please expand your RFD to include evidence that you read the debate.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Reading R2, reminded me of this https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by JustAnAtheist 2 years ago
JustAnAtheist
haha well, alright then
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Of course not.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
JustAnAtheistdsjpk5Tied
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 does indeed have the burden of proof. Pro also fails to fulfill this BoP and therefore loses the debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
JustAnAtheistdsjpk5Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets sources since he was the only to use them. This debate turned into one of those BOP and technicallitly debates which is something I'm not much of a fan of. Pro doesn't state the rules of the debate in Round 1 so it is only justified that Con sets the outlines in Round 1. Pro does not meet BOP and Con's arguments stand thus negating the resolution. I would love to see this debate done again, but actually be that of a topical debate.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
JustAnAtheistdsjpk5Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct/S&G are ties. Con gets arguments as he presented arguments to support his position that hell exists, while Pro did not present comparable arguments to think that hell does not exist. Furthermore, the responsibility for the burden of proof in this debate was on Pro, as he was the one making an assertion ("hell does not exist"). Pro failed to provide sound justification for this claim. Con used two sources whereas Pro did not give any, so sources go to Con as well.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
JustAnAtheistdsjpk5Tied
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: Conduct is about tied, so I'm leaving that. S/G goes to Con, since pro has more spelling errors. He used "proof" instead of "prove" and "inn" instead of "in." Maybe picky, but yes, Con's S/G were better. Since Pro has started the debate, and is making a positive assertion, he does indeed have the BoP. Pro gives arguments as to why we shouldn't believe in hell, but doesn't provide any arguments for why there *is* no hell. In other words, he is arguing against whether or not we should *believe* in hell, not whether or not hell actually exists. He's confusing epistemology with metaphysics. Con points out that these aren't actually arguments to believe hell does not exist. Finally, Con was the only one to use sources, so those points go to him.
Vote Placed by Oliark 2 years ago
Oliark
JustAnAtheistdsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT (to PRO) : Con tried to avoid the subject by debating form over substance. He quoted DDO rules to claim that Pro had full BoP and that because nobody can prove something does not exists he had to win the debate. In doing so he misinterpreted completely what Pro defined in R1 as being the theme of the debate. Con failed to acknowledge his misinterpretation and continued playing on semantics for the entire debate. ARGUMENTS (to PRO): Con arguments invoking DDO rules were only based on his ad hoc interpretation of the rules and were completely irrelevant. In fact Pro defined his position in R1 by stating Hell "is only a made up concept by religious people". Con failed to provide any arguments proving that Hell could be something else than a made up concept.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
JustAnAtheistdsjpk5Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all in R1 it was clarified to be the religious hell "made up concept by religious people," thus talk of religious standards for going there and God are valid (as much as I agree that one is not dependent on the other). CONDUCT (tied): There is no reason to award this, neither side lowered themselves to Ad Hominem attacks instead of arguments, or skipped rounds, or committed plagiarism. S&G (tied): Duh. ARGUMENTS (pro): While a strong claim, it was not an absolute claim, therefore to me strong likelihood is enough. Con's counter claims depend on "MAYBE GOD IS BAD" which was an assertion to which he decided not to offer support, suggesting an argument could be false, is not the same as absolutely refuting it (which is needed when trying to win on just BoP, instead of arguments). SOURCES (tied): A single Wikipedia page which includes information against his own case ("Argument from ignorance"), plus DDO rules everyone should have read, is not enough of a lead on this.