I honestly believe that there IS life after death... I mean how couldn't there be ?
now many religions believe specific stories on what will actually happen after death but there is no way of confirming that idea. You may also argue that well... there is no evidence of life after death as well then whats the point of us being here? is life limited and does the slang term 'YOLO' really make sense? Well no everything has a purpose.. everything created has a purpose that can potentially do something .. something may be useful or useless, infact i challenge you to find an example where something was created with no purpose or function, impossible right? Now it's up to you how you want to believe what will happen for example if there is heaven,hell,paradise etc. the concept that you should understand and respect is that god created us for a reason.. a purpose because if we were living on this earth for no reason, whats the point? thanks.
The definition of life is, "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change."
With all those religions that believe there is an afterlife, they all agree there is no growing or reproduction. Thus it does not fall under the definition of "life." This resolution must be proved false then.
That's your best attempt at explaining what life is? life is more than just simply "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change." life has meaning and what you may be suggesting from the piece of text that you just gave me is that life has no meaning and is simply that. I think you may even agree that life is more than that and we live for a different purpose.
I would appreciate if you would not insult or mudsling in this debate. This is not ethical. Life was defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary as, " the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks." Seeing how my opponent did not offer a counter-definition of his own, this definition will stand. The resolution states "life after death" so presumably if there is life after death than it must follow the definition of life. Seeing how Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and others alike agree that you do not grow or reproduce in the afterlife, this does not qualify as life. My opponent has not thoroughly refuted my argumentation. He seems to think by unethically insulting me that he can win a debate.
First of all, sorry if i offended you in anyway.. but it seems you have not understood the topic of the subject completely by life after death i mean the concept of being simply being alive after death. The definition that you have provided is decent and i respect it, however it doesn't tie in with the concept that any life after death exists the mere details of what will happen as I said is up to you to decide and is another debate. The topic i have chosen today is life after death and your definitions of life can vary but I believe this one is unsuitable for this specific topic but i didn't understand the point you were trying to make because it was completely misleading and has nothing to do with the topic.
You did not offend me it was just unethical, and in future debates, plz make the response time longer than 15 minutes. I have a life outside of debating, so I can't just sit on here wait for you to post.
Seeing how you brought up no argumentation, I will restate the case. Because of the definition, the commonly accepted form of "life" after death does not include the qualities of life that are demanded by the definition.
Well this is your personal definition of the meaning life that you got from a website, you cant just set a universal definition for the world life and apply it to a debate such as this one, if you cant accept that this is amount of time then you should have maybe settled for a different debate and not accept this one? and obviously i have a life outside of debating but oh wait... it may not agree with the definition of life that you set for the whole universe to follow.
This is not my personal definition. This is a definition from the leading dictionary in the US. Merraim Webster's Dictionary is known to be credible and correct, so this definition stands. You also made a straw man logical fallacy, I did not apply this to the universe, the dictionary did. Again, you did not offer a counter-definition so you are making a claim without presenting your own arguments.
Reasons for voting decision: Pro sets up a negative proof fallacy ("I honestly believe that there IS life after death... I mean how couldn't there be ?"), and it was up to Con to expose it or find another way to expose Pro's serious flaws in logic. Con decided to play semantics, in an acceptable way, considering that Pro failed to define the term "life". Pro, hopefully you've learned that you need to define terms, otherwise people will successfully play semantic games. Con's conduct was shocking, easily the worst I've seen in awhile. You DO NOT accept debates, and then complain about the rules. No one forced you into this debate, and if your opponent takes a lot of time to respond, and you don't like it, then it's YOUR FAULT for agreeing with the rules, you entitled brat.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.