If both the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God.
Pro must raise their case in round one.
We must assume that Satan will punish those who served him in this life less severely the more evil they have been and that he does so by giving them privileges and higher ranks in hell but that God gives all who enter heaven equal treatment.
I'd let to set the context for this round since the instigator has not fully done it himself: to assume that God and Satan are real is also to assume that all christian/biblical texts are correct.
Following this logic, we can assume that after God defeats and forces Satan into nonexistence as predicted in Revelations , whatever treatment Satan had previously given to his most prized evildoers will disappear, and they will fall into true hell, not the prized afterlife that Satan used to give them.
After this, the original followers of the Christian God will live forever in his "kingdom" while the "sinners" will remain in hell forever, or disappear into nonexistence. If Satan loved Hitler before he was defeated and spared him pain, Hitler will be thrown down to the petty criminals' level of suffering.
We can also assume something else from this. Since we are following Christian doctrines, God is more powerful than Satan. If this is true, then it is within his power to give his followers a much better afterlife than even Satan's most prized serial killers.
Thank you for the odd topic, and I'd like to end my speech with just over 6650 characters remaining.
The Pro is trying to destroy this debate by making it seem as if Satan were dead or eternally nonexistent.
If Satan has become eternally nonexistent, Satan is not real.
The Judeo-Christian devil is blatantly this one: http://en.wikipedia.org...
I shall quote my source so you understand what it would mean if this entity were real (and not eternally non-existent which is the equivalent of not being real)
"In Christianity the title Satan (Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan), "the opposer", a title of various entities, both human and divine, who challenge the faith of humans in the Jewish Bible, became the name of the personification of evil. Christian tradition and theology changed "Satan" from an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith to God's godlike fallen opponent: "the Devil", "Shaitan" in Arabic (the term used by Arab Christians and Muslims).
Traditionally, Christians have understood the Devil to be the author of lies and promoter of evil'. However, the Devil can go no further than the word of Christ the Logos allows, resulting in the problem of evil'.
Liberal Christianity often views the devil metaphorically. This is true of some Conservative Christian groups too, such as the Christadelphians and the Church of the Blessed Hope. Much of the popular lore of the Devil is not biblical; instead, it is a post-medieval Christian reading of the scriptures influenced by medieval and pre-medieval Christian popular mythology."
I am thoroughly displeased with the accusations made by the hands of con on this issue. I am simply abiding by the resolution which states as follows: "If the Judeo-Christian God and Satan are real, it would be wiser to worship God." I am pro, and I'm stating why.
My opponent has no real argument against my case positions, simply stating that I'm making it seem as if "Stan is dead or eternally nonexistent", however he clearly is misinterpreting my argument.
I'm simply stating that according to the own religious books my opponent advocates, God will EVENTUALLY destroy evil and therefore, render Satan non-existent as according to the book of Revelations [refer back to 1]. That is not to say that if Christianity is right, Satan IS real but will one day be stamped out.
Your opinion of "true hell" with Satan ruling it is ridiculous, true hell would be the worst possible scenario for anyone in the afterlife. Hell under Satan is not the worst position for people like Hitler, which is what you blatantly say in you constructive speech.
Unless my opoponent can come up with concrete arguments against my case points, Aff should win this debate. And please, stop whining that I'm taking advantage of prophetic timelines.
My opponent clings to religious texts and his case revolves around the theory that one day the only person to worship will be God.
I ask my opponent to now explain, without plagiarising from religious texts, how good can exist without evil.
To me good is merely the absence of evil.
My opponent propose that one day it is as if we will have pure cold without heat. How on earth can something be 'good' if there is no 'evil'?
Hell cannot function without a person ensuring the punishment of all, to do such an evil task would conflict with God being omnibenevolent.
Thus God depends on Satan to carry out such brutal tasks.
My opponent is trying to render this entire debate UNDEBATABLE since he said Satan will not exist which is a rather self-destructive argument as then there will be no one to punish the wrong-doers, since if God were to cause eternal suffering he would be evil and hence no omnibenevolent.
I believe I have now countered the corruption and unfair debating method being used by my opponent.
Ah. So now you've posted something that actually clashes with my arguments, in the third round.
To be honest, you haven't countered any "corruption" at all in any of your speeches, nor have you really done anything to counteract anything I've said except slander me.
Lets just point out some major flaws in this.. whatever it is this is.
You made an example about I believe pure cold without heat. I argue this can happen. If heat is nonexistent because every star was destroyed, every sun disappeared, and every last Joule of thermal energy was made into potential, then yes, we would only have cold. This is viable, just like my argument for the Aff. If evil is impossible to grow, or BE THERE, just like life cannot exist in the midst of a hydrogen bomb detonation, then evil is nonexistent.
This topic is undebateable to begin with, due to the silliness of the resolution created by the Con. It so drastically favors the aff to begin with, that it is ridiculous for he/she to say "This is unfair because he's abusing how right he is!" while they made the resolution themselves.
God, according to Christian texts, is all powerful, and can do whatever he wants. This means he has no reliance on Satan for anything. Before the snake was created and Adam met it, there was no problem at all with Good vs Evil. It is the existence of the snake that is the problem and creates evil. If you remove the snake, as it was in the early days of the existence of man, which is entirely possible because it was once the status quo, then there is no evil.
God doesn't depend on anyone. I argue that to be good is not in fact to be absent of evil, but to be good is to be the status quo in a world without Satan. There is no evil, there is only the status quo, which is above all the only way to be. It is not restrained by petty concepts of "good" and "evil", but simply its there, following the greatness of "God", which assumes it is better than good.
I ask that my opponent's final arguments not be something about how abusive I am despite his creation of the resolution, but something that actually relates to case and the round.
Antichrist forfeited this round.
Extend all my arguments.