The Instigator
wmpeebles
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

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...
gizmo1650
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,726 times Debate No: 12724
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

wmpeebles

Con

Lets just say, I murdered 12 people.. but with my favorite aluminum bat, never got caught and went on killing at least 40 more people before I died of a heart attack.

I will not go to hell when I die because hell is not real.

When I refer to hell, I refer it to the place where people think they go and get punished in the afterlife, not that town in Mexico.
gizmo1650

Pro

your statements are "I [you] will not go to hell" and "hell is not real" these are positive statements therefore you have the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
wmpeebles

Con

Thank you for accepting this argument.

If I will go to hell, we need to know if hell is real. I have never seen hell, nor has anyone proven to me that it does exist. There is not any evidence that proves it does exist.

How do you go to hell? Your body dies, but has anyone ever proved that you have a "spirit" or a "soul"? If your spirit or soul supposedly goes to hell while you leave your dead body behind, then I will not go to hell because there is not any evidence that proves you have a soul or spirit.

Please explain to me why I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people, when there is not any evidence that shows I will.
gizmo1650

Pro

Con seems to have ignored my previous post where i demonstrated that he has the burden to prove that hell is not real.
While i agree that we are not justified in believing it due to lack of evidence, con's statement, "hell is not real", is a positive statement and it therefore is his burden to prove that hell is not real. if is statement had been something like 'i am not justified in believing hell is real' than he would be correct.
Debate Round No. 2
wmpeebles

Con

Sorry, I must have ignored your previous post. Thank you for pointing that out. Please excuse my occasional ignorance.

Definitions:
Hell - (Christianity) the abode of Satan and the forces of evil; where sinners suffer eternal punishment
- a nether world in which the dead continue to exist
- the nether realm of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment
Abode - the place where one abides
Nether - situated or believed to be situated beneath the earth's surface
Realm - a primary marine or terrestrial bio-geographic division of the earth's surface
Sin - transgression of the law of God

By using these definitions, we can say that hell is a place of Satan where people who violate the law of God go to suffer eternal punishment beneath the earth's surface.

By using the definition of realm, we can say that hell is a physical feature on Earth since the definition states it is a bio-geographical division of the earth's surface. Since it is physical (having material existence, perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature), then we must be able to find out where Hell is and be able to see it with our own eyes, or through other senses to know for sure that Hell does exist.

Definitions:
Satan - the angel who in Jewish belief is commanded by God to tempt humans to sin, to accuse the sinners, and to carry out God's punishment
- the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of God and lord of evil
Angel - an attendant spirit or guardian
Spirit - a supernatural being or essence
Supernatural - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
Visible - capable of being seen
- capable of being discovered or perceived
Perceive - to become aware of through the senses

From these definitions, we can say that Satan is not visible since he is supernatural. Since he is not visible, he is not capable of being discovered or perceived. Thus, his abode, Hell, is not capable of being discovered or perceived either. Thus, it is impossible to know if Hell is real since we will never be able to discover it. However, this contradicts the statement that Hell is a physical place, since something that is physical has to be perceptible to the senses, when now we know that Hell is indeed not capable of being perceived since we can't become aware of it through the senses.

Definitions:
Real - existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard

Hell is not physical, so it does not exist as a physical entity, even though Hell exists in the minds of the people, it is just simply not real.

If somehow I wanted to, I cannot go to Hell even if I murdered 12 people simply because Hell is not real.

Good luck Pro.
gizmo1650

Pro

I disagree with your definition of hell as under earths surface. It is simply a place where sinners' souls go to suffer everlasting punishment. It might be under earths surface, or it might be outside of the natural universe (like god).
Also, accepting your definition, you would still need to prove that hell does not exist within earth, this would mean you need to check every-location at every depth at the same time (it might move to trick us). we have not yet penetrated the earth's crust, the outer most layer, so we cannot say, with absolute certanty, that it does not exist within the earth, therefore you have yet to meet your burden of proof.
I also object to your definition of real. How about simply existing. something does not need to be a physical entity to be real. for example logical absolutes are real, the laws of physics are real, the number 2 is real. I don't understand what you meant in the last part of your definition " having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard", but i think we can agree that if something exists, it is real.
Debate Round No. 3
wmpeebles

Con

Does it really matter where Hell might be?

"It is simply a place where sinners' souls go to suffer everlasting punishment."

You have to prove that souls physically exist... which they do not. Souls do not exist of matter, so they do not physically exist, which would mean people do not have souls and then would not go to heaven or hell. Unless you can prove that souls have matter, I win this debate. You must have forgotten that you also have the burden of proof as well. More importantly, you have not tried to negate me when I said that Hell also does not physically exist.

"we have not yet penetrated the earth's crust, the outer most layer, so we cannot say, with absolute certanty, that it does not exist within the earth, therefore you have yet to meet your burden of proof."

Really? If nobody has penetrated Earth's crust, then that means nobody knows where hell is. Then, how would we know if it exists if nobody knows where it is? Surely if someone saw Hell, then we would know where it is... OH! But wait, Hell doesn't physically exist anyway.

"I also object to your definition of real. How about simply existing."

Sorry, but those two terms are not interchangeable. The statement was, "I will not go to hell when I die because hell is not real." I agree that hell exists, but it is not real. You got a better definition of real?

"something does not need to be a physical entity to be real. for example logical absolutes are real, the laws of physics are real, the number 2 is real."

So? Your point? Find me a definition that says Hell is real. Here's a starting point: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"I don't understand what you meant in the last part of your definition ' having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard'"

It doesn't matter since Hell is not a physical entity.

"but i think we can agree that if something exists, it is real."

Okay, prove it. Like I said, exist & real are not the same words.

How can I go to hell if I do not have a physical soul and Hell does not physically exist? Because of this, it also means that Hell is simply imaginary, and people do not go to Hell or Heaven because they just don't physically exist.

When you die, you die. You don't go to Heaven, you don't go to Hell.
Your brain is dead, all your thoughts and memories are gone.

Thus, I will not go to hell if I murder people, because Hell does not physically exist.

Unless my Opponent can prove that sinner's souls physically exist, he cannot make a case for himself.
gizmo1650

Pro

"Does it really matter where Hell might be?" no, but your definition clearly put it withing the earth, which it is not necessarily.

"You have to prove that souls physically exist" i don't have to proof anything, you made the positive claim "hell is not real" i did not make the positive claim 'hell is real' i merely rejected your claim that it is. Also even if i did make the positive claim i would just need to prove their existence, not the physical nature of it.

"Souls do not exist of matter, so they do not physically exist" why do you need a qualifier before exist? if something exists it is real whether or not it exists physically, conceptual, or through an unknown mechanism. So whether or not they are matter is irrelevant you still have to prove they do not exist in any form.

pro:"we have not yet penetrated the earth's crust, the outer most layer, so we cannot say, with absolute certanty, that it does not exist within the earth, therefore you have yet to meet your burden of proof."

con: "If nobody has penetrated Earth's crust, then that means nobody knows where hell is. Then, how would we know if it exists if nobody knows where it is? Surely if someone saw Hell, then we would know where it is."

I never said hell exists, i am rejecting your claim that it does not. In order to prove that it does not exist on earth you would have to looked everywhere, because we obviusly have not you cannot claim with absolute certainty that hell does not exist within earth.

pro:"I also object to your definition of real. How about simply existing."

con:" those two terms are not interchangeable. The statement was, 'I will not go to hell when I die because hell is not real.' I agree that hell exists, but it is not real. You got a better definition of real?"

i think what you meant to say was that you agree that a concept of hell exists. With the understanding that a concept of a thing and that thing are not the same, do you still reject real=existing, if so explain why.

pro: "something does not need to be a physical entity to be real. for example logical absolutes are real, the laws of physics are real, the number 2 is real."

con:"So? Your point? Find me a definition that says Hell is real. "
i will take this to mean you agree that something does not nead to be physical in order to be real. I bring this up because you keep using qualifiers like physically for example:
"Hell doesn't physically exist"
"existing as a physical entity"
"prove that souls physically exist"
"Hell doesn't physically exist anyway."
"I do not have a physical soul"
"Hell does not physically exist"
given that you agreed these that being physical is irrelevant, could you stop using these qualifiers (and to the gallery, try re-reading the debate ignoring the qualifiers).

the first place we need to remove this qualifier is in the much disputed defintion of real, taking it from- "Real - existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard"
to -"Real - existing as a entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard"

pro: "I don't understand what you meant in the last part of your definition [of real] ' having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard'"

con "It doesn't matter since Hell is not a physical entity."
again with the qualifier, but since you agree the second part of your definition is irrelevant lets get rid of the second part leaving us with
"Real - existing as a entity"
the 'as an entity part' seams extraneous, anything that exists is by definition an entity, but i agree that hell is an entity, so i won't fight over this.

"When you die, you die. You don't go to Heaven, you don't go to Hell.
Your brain is dead, all your thoughts and memories are gone."

your soul is separate from your brain.

"Thus, I will not go to hell if I murder people, because Hell does not physically exist."
again, why the qualifier. do you agree that hell exists non-physical?

Con is the one making the claim that hell does not exist therefore it is his burden to prove this the same way it would be mine if i was making the claim that it did.
Debate Round No. 4
wmpeebles

Con

I am sorry I cannot finish the debate. I have become very sick. Please forgive me.
gizmo1650

Pro

Not a problem.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NorthernShooter 7 years ago
NorthernShooter
You would go to jail lmao XD
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
I recently read a book that is on the market right now called 23 minutes in hell by Bill Weise. This is an example of someone who claims he was been to hell.

IMO, Pro gets the nod on this one, CON cited the only source.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
@hanass: it can be considered 'dominated' by atheist in that atheist are the most frequent users. their may be more Christians with accounts hear, but most of those are unused. if you spend any time in the forums you pick up quickly that most of those who ever post are atheist.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Scripture says that people who have not accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior will go to the Lake of Fire, John 3:18 The number of murders committed is irrelevant. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Romans 3: 23 According to scripture people are born into sin.

If the Christians, or theists, voted biasedly it may o rmay not make a difference, but that is not the intent. The intent is weigh the criteria and determine who presented the better case, regardless of bias or personal feelings. Many people do not vote at all, while. Maybe there are unbelievers who vote biasedly, but many vote using debate criteria. Many believers rely on scripture which is not accepted by nonbelievers. A large part of debate is using multiple sources that are valued in the debate world.

If a person chose to visit DDO, they should expect to have to follow the norms of DDO, I doubt that people here will accept faith based arguments as debate depends more on logic and proofs. I agree that there are too many religious debates that duplicate themselves. It's like rehash in student congress.:o)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
BOP debates suck.
Posted by jimmylovestoshimmy 7 years ago
jimmylovestoshimmy
not sure if there is a hell, but on the merit of this awful debate topic i would say that yes, you will visit.
Posted by hanass 7 years ago
hanass
Half of the users here who have indicated their religion are Christian, so how can the site be "dominated" by aheists?

The only reason you have that impression is that there are a lot"Does God exist?" debates going on, instigated by atheists (although I have seen quite a few that were started by theists), and most of them end up being won by the atheist. That's just because the debaters are stupid and can't give any rational argument. It has nothing to do with "teh biassss" because that would make the Christian win 100% of the time.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
///Grape, maybe so, but most of the active members are atheist.///

Ya, that data counts everyone that's made an account and filled out their information. Someday I'm sure that someone will comprise data on the 50-75 people who actually count.
Posted by CaptainFadora 7 years ago
CaptainFadora
regardless, the term "get used to it" doesn't fly with me
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
I'm not even atheist though. xD
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NorthernShooter 7 years ago
NorthernShooter
wmpeeblesgizmo1650Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
wmpeeblesgizmo1650Tied
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 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
wmpeeblesgizmo1650Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
wmpeeblesgizmo1650Tied
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:04