People have an "immortal soul" which continues after death.

Mainstream Christians and those of some other religions hold that every human being has an immortal soul, which exists while the person is alive, and continues on after death.

I am against the notion that an immortal soul exists within us. Sadly, we see people dying all the time, sometimes those close to us. We know they are gone which is why we are sad. They no longer have consciousness and therefore we can't communicate with them.

Apparently I am for the idea that people have an immortal soul. Luckily I am the contender in this scenario.

My opponent feels that people cannot have an immortal soul yet he has absolutely no evidence to back this statement up.

Secondly my opponent offers the idea that,

"We know they are gone which is why we are sad. They no longer have consciousness and therefore we can't communicate with them."

However this in no way proves my opponents statements, let us look to the definition of

soul: the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

Obviously if the soul is distinct from physical life it has every ability to go on living outside of physical life. Want some proof? A historic man dies for three days and then comes back to life, obviously the fact that his body was dead for three days had no consequence on his soul. Another example, many times people die physically and then are brought back to life minutes later by doctors, with no impact on their soul.

So yes, people do cry for lost loved ones but for the simple reason that they no longer get to interact with that person anymore, not for the reason that their soul has died.

I stand open for a rebuttal.

You equate "soul" with life distinct from the body and yet offer no evidence that it is distinct other than a historic figure who died for three days and then came back to life. I assume you are referring to Jesus. The Bible doesn't say Jesus has or had an "immortal soul" but says that he was "resurrected from the dead", which contradicts such a notion.

Also against there being an immortal soul is the fact that someone being knocked out being unconscious. They have no external "soul" which is conscious during this period.

Also, is our "immortal soul" asleep when our body asleep? Is it a "heavy sleeper" or a "light sleeper"?

My opponent begins his second round stating that I have offered no evidence except for Jesus. Sweet, fine by me, my opponent has so far offered 0 evidence compared to my 1 piece of evidence. Thus my opponent so far is conceding to me winning this debate.

He goes on to accept the fact that Jesus was resurrected as the bible says but denies the idea that people have an immortal soul, another biblical idea. This is a direct contradiction in my opponents case.

My opponent also argues that somehow being resurrected from the dead is in direct contradiction of having a soul. I believe my points in round 1 all centered around the idea that someone could be physically dead while still having their immortal soul. Thus when they are no longer physically dead their immortal soul still exists. I challenge my opponent to point out this obvious contradiction.

Finally my opponent asks me a few questions at the end of his speech. Questions I sadly cannot answer as he is once again linking the soul with physical qualities. The soul is independent from the physical being, this has been my point throughout this entire round. The physical ideas of "heavy sleeper" "light sleeper" or even "consciousness" cannot be applied to the soul.

1. My opponent has offered no evidence that there is an immortal soul which continues after death, but offers a definition of soul as "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body...". Such a definition is no more than an unproved statement or opinion.

2. My opponent's statement that "a historic man dies for three days and then comes back to life" offers no further evidence for an "immortal soul" either; it is simply a statement that such a person was dead for three days and was then alive again: this not prove that such a person had an immortal soul; it simply states that their physical body was dead for a time period and was later alive. Is this an inference that there "needs" to be an immortal soul for this to have happened? No! If one believes in this historical figure, one can believe that God raised him back to life without the requirements for an "immortal soul" to exist or be required. My opponent states that someone "COULD be physically dead while still having their immortal soul", but this statement does not prove its existence; the statement simply ASSUMES such an existence without any evidence.

3. My opponent also states that "many times people die physically and then are brought back to life minutes later by doctors". Are such people really dead? Is their brain dead? No. Their brain's continued potential to function is directly associated with their life. This does not prove that there is an immortal soul.

4. My opponent states that "consciousness cannot be applied to the soul" and yet chooses to define the soul as "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans". Such a definition is meaningless without consciousness, since humans cannot feel, think, or take action without consciousness.

Therefore my opponent has failed to show any evidence that there is an immortal soul.

Hmmmm.... Lets start with a few examinations of past rounds.

My opponent round 1: My opponent instigates a case.

Round 1: I gleefully point out that I am the contender in this debate and that my opponent is the instigator, I go on to point out that he brings up 0 evidence for his instigated case.

My opponent round 2: My opponent makes no comment on these 2 statements, instead he attacks my definition of soul.

Round 2: I once again point out my opponent has offered exactly 0 evidence, notice this statement, "My opponent begins his second round stating that I have offered no evidence except for Jesus. Sweet, fine by me, my opponent has so far offered 0 evidence compared to my 1 piece of evidence. Thus my opponent so far is conceding to me winning this debate."

My opponent round 3: Decides that now would be a good time to attempt to lay the burden of proof on me. He states that I have brought up 0 evidence while conceding to me that he has brought up no evidence to disprove the existence of the soul. Thus at this point in time it is impossible to vote for my opponent. He is the instigator in this debate, he has instigated this debate with no evidence, thus he has proven nothing.

So now to bring up my evidence.

My opponent concedes to me that Jesus existed, and concedes to me that Jesus died for three days and was resurrected.

He then goes on to say that people who die still have their brain living, while completely ignoring the Jesus example. Two points,

1. The human brain can only survive for 4-6 minutes without oxygen, http://www.memorylossonline.com..., yet people have been known to be revived after half an hour of being clinically dead. People have even snapped back to in the mortuary.

2. Jesus was dead for 3 days.... his brain would have been mush. How did Jesus survive? The bible explains quite clearly that everyone has a soul, that would appear to be the only reasonable explanation. The soul is the contact with the higher being, without this contact Jesus would not have been able to know what god desired.

Furthermore the simple fact that my opponent concedes to the existence of a God, concedes to the existence of Jesus is evidence in itself of an immortal soul. God and Jesus taught/teach that the immortal soul goes on after our death. The fact that my opponent concedes to god means that what god says is correct. As god teaches the immortal soul, it is correct.

Finally I would like to once again draw my voters attention to the fact that my opponent is the instigator in this debate and has still offered exactly 0 shreds of evidence for his case. With that being said I thank everyone for reading and my opponent for starting this interesting topic.