The Instigator
Ahmed.M
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
popculturepooka
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Presupposing Islam is true, an eternal hell is justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ahmed.M
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,265 times Debate No: 25900
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (5)

 

Ahmed.M

Pro

= = = = = Introduction = = = = =

This debate will be about the justification for the conception of hell fire in Islam. I will argue that Hell fire conceived of in Islam, a conscious eternal torment is morally justified. My opponent may build a case of his own, but it is sufficient for him to only refute my case.

= = = = = Debate Guidelines = = = = =

R1. Acceptance

R2. Opening Arguments/Rebuttals

R3. Rebuttals/Arguments

R4. Closing Statements/Rebuttals

No side can present new arguments in the last round only rebuttals and closing statements. Also no semantics, the resolution is straightforward.

= = = = = Defintions = = = = =

I will define Allah using Surah Al Ikhlas which discusses the most crucial attributes of Allah, and Surah Al Araf which shows the mercy of Allah. Basically, all-powerful, complete/perfect, one (monotheism), and merciful.

[Surah Al Ikhlas Chapter 112 Verses 1-4] “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.”

[Surah Al Araf Chapter 7 Verse 156] ...My mercy extendeth to all things....

-- Framework for the Debate --

This framework addreses the main presuppositions which will form the guidelines for contention.

→ Islam is True

While this may seem like a huge presupposution it is only relevant to four other theological presuppositions in this debate which are:

→ Hell fire is an eternal conscious torment
→ Allah both knows what will happen whilst people still having Free Will (Molinism)
→ Human Beings have a Soul that exists eternally and is connected to the physical body (Dualism)
→ only intentional sin is weighed, unintentional sin is not. For example, the unlearned would not be punished because it is unintentional whereas people who know about the religion and go against guidelines would be punished.


Given these presuppositions, my opponent will argue for the negation of the resolution. In fact, he need not build a case of his own but only rebut my points. I will have the burden of proof.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If there is anything Con would to fix or point out about the framework or the rules etc, please address before accepting. The acceptance of this debate implies my opponent agrees to follow and comply with everything stated.

popculturepooka

Con

I accept and I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate such an interesting and important topic.

Good luck, Pro, and let the games begin!
Debate Round No. 1
Ahmed.M

Pro

C1: Status and Morality [1]


My first contention focuses on the severity of sin based on the status of the being it is being directed towards. This falls in line with general moral intuitions. It would be considered much more immoral to harm or kill a highly respected member of society rather than the common man. The argument doesn't require societal structures at all. Surely, the immorality felt by killing an ant or a fly is much different than that of another human since the status of the human is higher than that of the ant or fly.

Now when we consider Allah, a being of infinite greatness and supremacy the level of immorality rises to infinity. Many times when committing sins, Muslims are encouraged to not think of the weight of the sin but the greatness of the one we are transgressing “Do not look at the smallness of the sin, rather look at the greatness of the One Whom you have disobeyed.” [2] Since the more serious a crime is the more serious its punishment should be, all sin against Allah merits an infinite punishment.

An important consideration with this idea of the level of immorality increasing with higher status is the intentionality of the sin. For example, hitting someone with your car by accident rather than on purpose is much less immoral or even amoral rather than the latter.

In Islam, only intentional sin will be counted as was agreed upon in the framework in R1. An intentional sin would be someone who has heard the message of Islam, its guidelines, and freely transgresses them. People who have never heard the message of Islam will not be condemned to eternal damnation for their unintentional sins.


C2: Consequences of Sin


While my first contention argues that all sin (given people who have heard Islam) merits an infinite punishment based on status, this contention shows that some sins based on their consequences merit an eternal punishment.

Many people who reject or who are critical of the teaching of the eternal nature of hell often say that the amount of sins are finite and thus doesn't warrant an eternity in hell. However, what they seem to focus on is the time aspect of the sin rather than their consequences. While an act of sin maybe temporal, the effects of some sins have eternal consequences.

For example, consider heinous sins in Islam such as rape or murder. The consequences on the mind/soul of those affected by murder and rape are permanent for all those who have been involved. Since these crimes are arguably are primarily on the mind, their consequences are everlasting. Considering the agreed upon framework of this debate, the soul continues to exist after death and as such the effects continue to last until Allah relieves them.

Irrespective of whether the damage is repaired, the punishment should be eternal. An analogy to illustrate, suppose one who was stabbed by another person was hospitalized and brought back to good health in a reasonable span of time. Simply because the pain and damage caused has been repaired, it doesn't mean that the one who wronged doesn't pay the punishment anymore. In fact, they still would pay the same penalty regardless of whether the victim was healed or not. Similarly, because the one whom sin with eternal consequences has been inflicted upon is relieved it doesn't mean the one who has committed the sin is also relieved.


C3: Free Will


This contention shows that Hell is ultimately a choice made by the individual and not be blamed upon Allah. On Islam this entire life is a test, it is a preparation for the next life to come. Those who are righteous and freely follow the guidelines of Islam (after hearing the message) whilst constantly repenting for their inevitable wrong doings will attain paradise and those who choose to not (after hearing the message) will reap the results of their evil deeds, eternal damnation.

There is an important distinction that needs to be made when I say that one chooses to go to hell. Many times, a person would object that it is inconceivable that one would choose to go into a burning fire eternally. However they are forgetting that hellfire is a choice not in the direct sense but in an indirect one, it is a consequence of rejecting the teachings and moral guidelines of Islam. When one chooses to freely reject Islam, they are simultaneously choosing hell. This is what is meant, and it is in this way that hell fire is a choice made by the individual.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

In conclusion, an eternal hell is justified because of the infinite severity of intentional sin due to the infinite status of Allah. Some sins are indeed infinitely severe due to their everlasting consequences on the soul of an individual and finally, hell fire is essentially an indirect choice made by an individual when they freely choose to reject the message of Islam. All these reasons strongly support the doctrine of an eternal hell.


The resolution is affirmed.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Sources

http://www.iep.utm.edu... [1]

http://islamqa.info... [2]

popculturepooka

Con

C1: Status and Morality

It seems to me, in fact, that Pro's contention is radically counter-intuitive despite Pro's protestations otherwise.

C1.1) I'm not sure by whom it would be considered "much more immoral to harm or kill a highly respected member of society rather than the common man" but I would consider someone who held such a moral principle to be, in the best of lights, a deep moral confusion. It might be more disastrous (for American society) if the President of the United States is murdered than if I were murdered, but it's unclear how it'd be more immoral (assuming we were murdered under similar contexts). In fact, if the moral principle that everyone has equal moral worth is true than Pro's contention is just false, full stop. The president is no more instrinsically morally valuable than I or the poor child in Africa.

C1.2) Besides the fact Pro's contentions here stem from an archaic model of crime based on fuedal relationships- where the seriousness fo the crime is deterimined by both the act and the social status of both the perpetrator and the victim - that are no longer held to, this threatens to destroy a central intuition motivating retributivism which the theory of punishment assumed by Pro. [1] The intuition is this: the seriousness of the crime determines the seriousness of the punishment. It'd obviously be unjust if I decided that I was going to kill my nephew because he stole some candy as "punishment". So, if all sin against Allah merits an infinite punishment what is entailed by that statement is that stealing candy and murdering 26 people both merit an eternity in hell as both are a sin against Allah. This runs counter to the main intution motivating retributivism, i.e. it is radically counter-intuitive.

C1.3) It's not even clear why one should accept the proposed claim "since the more serious a crime is the more serious its punishment should be, all sin against Allah merits an infinite punishment." in the first place! As Pro somewhat alludes to the nature of the offense also figures heavily into the moral calculations. Say I have 100 "units" of moral status and worth. Imagine Pro comes along and just punches me in the face for no discernible reason. Then imagine someone else comes up to me and roughly shoulders me to the side. Clearly Pro here is the one more seriously encroached on my moral status and worth. Both of these acts can't be worth a full 100 "units' Of moral dishonor and demerit.


C2: Consequences of Sin and C3: Free Will

There are 3 major issues here - here I will largely just be modifying slightly what I've said in earlier debates on similar subjects from both respective round 3's. C 3.1 actually touches on C2 as well so it can be considered a response to both.

C2.1/3.1) As Marilyn McCord Adams has aptly pointed out it'd be entirely irrational, unreasonable, and unethical for Allah to trust such psychologically limited, ignorant, and deception-prone creatures such as ourselves to make decisions regarding our eternal fate - especially since the consequences are so horrible in the case of hell! [2] In short, we have "diminished capacities". [3] What this means is that we literally don't have the coginitive faculties capable of truly recognizing how truly terrible eternal punishment; if that is the case (and it surely is) then our moral culpability for "choosing" to go to hell is severly diminished. To think that Allah created us with all these setbacks to the clear thinking we need in order to avoid hell and then expect the majority of us not to go hell borders on almost unbelievable. We are in a state in which we cannot discern of the relevant distinctiosn between an act and it's consequences. [4] It'd be like parents putting their two year old in a room with perfectly safe, breathable gas but the gas will ignite if a flame is started in the room. Now,imagine further, the parents have also put in the room gaudy (kid-attractive) colors as a "test" to see if their child will obey them. Even if the parent tells their child not to touch the matches and light them and the child knows to obey their parent the parents are still at fault for putting their child in a situation like that in the first place. We wouldnt seriously blame the two year old for "freely choosing" to disobey their parent. We wouldn't even adequately conceive a "direct choice" for hell, much less an "indirect choice" in favor of hell.

C3.2) Even supposing that the foregoing point is wrong, the very notion of choosing to "freely reject" Allah is nonsense and lapses into incoherency. Talbott asks us to imagine a normal boy who, inexplicably and randomly, thrusts his hand into a fire while screaming in pain. Nonetheless, he does it even though he has strong motive not to do it and the absence of any motive to do it. Could we coherently say this boy had made a free choice to stick his hand into the fire or that he could be held morally responsible for his actions? It doesn't seem so. So, as we can see a minimal degree of rationality is required for an agent to make a free choice. But, then, we have to ask ourselves what kind of rational person would choose to be separated from God and suffer eternal torment? Remember, on Islam, Allah is the source of all goodness and happiness and fundamentally wants what's in our best interests and he wants what we would want for ourselves and others if we were thinking clearly. What rational person would "freely choose" to actively subvert what's in their best interests? This raises a dilemma. Perhaps, Pro can allude to something like C.S. Lewis when he writes about those in hell trapped on the inside - those caught in self-delusion (and/or ignorance/misunderstandings); perhaps that sort of person would "freely choose" to reject Allah. But then they wouldn't really be rejecting the real and true Allah, now would they? They'd be rejecting a Allah of their own construction and delusions - an infantile caricature of Allah. Perhaps they are like those misinformed souls today who believe that Islam is best represented by those of Bin Laden's ilk. One could hardly say they are "freely choosing" to reject Allah on that horn. But, on the other hand, if the person is removed of all delusions, ignorance, and misunderstandings about Allah they'd immediately recognize that it'd be positively absurd to "freely choose" to reject Allah. On either hand, the notion of "freely choosing" to reject God is simply incoherent. [5]

C3.3) Why is free will supposedly so sacrosanct wherein it is elevated to something so absolutely inviolable by Allah? Why could Allah not simply just override a persons' choices at least some of the time...? Remember, hell is an irreparable harm and anyone who had an adequate conception of hell would not want to go there. So the only the way they could choose to go there is only through irrationally choosing to go there (and so it wouldn't be a free choice; more like a random event). If I were to irrationally (maybe due to a mental illness) choose to jump off a 20 story buidling without a parachute for no particular reason I would hope someone I know would stop me and my 'free will' be damned. I would not want them to sit back and say, "Oh, well, you know, that's his choice and I'm going to respect that. Even though in a sane and rational state of mind he would never choose to do that and he has no reason to do it now, I'm going to just sit back and watch it play out." Would, Allah who is said be good and merciful, just sit back and watch as his creatures freely choose to do irreparable harms to themselves? Why is the value of free will so elevated in the face of unrelenting torment? [6]

Sources

[1] http://www.jstor.org...;
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://philpapers.org...; (p. 3)
[4] ibid
[5] http://www.debate.org...;
[6] ibid
Debate Round No. 2
Ahmed.M

Pro

C1: Status and Morality

I. I would first like to admit that I made a mistake in the first contention of my opening statement. I agree with Con's moral principle that every person has equal moral worth. My premise is that the severity of a sin is based on the status of the being it is being directed towards. I gave a poor example to illustrate this which was:

>> “It would be considered much more immoral to harm or kill a highly respected member of society rather than the common man”

I would like both Con and the audience to dismiss that example and accept the other one in which I said:

>> “Surely, the immorality felt by killing an ant or a fly is much different than that of another human since the status of the human is higher than that of the ant or fly.”

Note that Con didn't address this example at all but focused on the other one. The source by which my whole argument is based on pointed out that since human beings despite having different social statuses would have the same intrinsic moral status because they are of the same natural kind. It states:

"Other things being equal, killing a saint’s best friend seems no worse than killing a criminal’s, even though the saint would arguably enjoy a higher social status. On the other hand, this may not be a genuine counterexample to the first premise, because saints and criminals are both of the same natural kind (humanity);” [1]

II. Con says that my contention is in part based on social status which has already been addressed above. I agree that the seriousness of the punishment is also based upon the seriousness of the sin, this isn't very controversial. Con gives an example of stealing a candy and a nephew and doesn't elucidate on what he is trying to illustrate or show. Con then says that stealing a candy and murdering 26 people would both merit an infinite punishment since it is against Allah. He thinks that this is a refutation but isn't, this is what my argument proves. I would like to formalize it in a syllogism to be more clearer.

(4) Other things being equal, the seriousness of a crime increases as the status (the degree of importance or value) of its victim increases.

(5) God has an infinitely high status.

(6) Therefore, crimes against God are infinitely serious (from (4) and (5)).

(7) All sin is a crime against God.

(8) Therefore, all sin is infinitely serious (from (6) and (7)).

(9) The more serious a crime is, the more serious its punishment should be.

(10) Therefore, all sin should receive an infinitely serious punishment (from (8) and (9))” [1]

Any sin against Allah merits an infinite punishment since Allah has an infinitely high status. Con didn't refute the argument, he just listed what the argument proves.

III. Con gives an example of two varying degrees of wrongs done and says that my argument would say that each is the same. This is false, my argument brings into account the seriousness of the crime and the status of the individual. These are two factors not only one. In Con's example, both are people meaning they have the same moral status. The punch in the face would indeed be more immoral than the hard shrug against both people.

(However, taking in to account that it is indirectly sin against Allah they would both would be infinitely immoral against Allah)


C2: Consequences of Sin


I. Con's response to my second contention is severely lacking and doesn't really address my contention. It mostly focuses on my third contention. If we apply Con's response to my second contention, Con claims that we are so psychologically limited and ignorant that it isn't our fault if we commit major sins such as rape or murder. While I do believe that we are limited and ignorant, I don't think we are so limited that we cannot avoid these major crimes that impact souls eternally. Con is underestimating human beings too much.


C3: Free Will


I. Con claims that we don't have sufficient cognitive faculties to be able to know how truly horrifying the punishment of hell fire is and tries to illustrate this using an irrelevant example. For one, I do think we can have sufficient knowledge of how truly horrifying the nature of hell is. Here is an example which outlines the duration of hell fire, I would like the audience as well as Con to put this into perspective:

(They will abide therein for ages) they will abide in the Fire for ages and ages, each age consisting of 80 years, each year being 360 days and each day is the equivalent of 1,000 years of the years of the life of the world; it is also said that none knows the exact duration of these ages save Allah, and therefore these ages are never interrupted.” [2]

This example only illustrates the length of hell fire, imagine if one were to give descriptions of the actual torment. What I think Con is trying to subtly imply is that since we haven't experienced hell fire, we cannot know how truly terrible it is which is false. Simply because one hasn't experienced a certain thing doesn't mean he cannot know that it is bad. No one will say that suicide isn't immoral because we haven't experienced it.

II. Con gives an example of a direct choice of going to hell fire. Con talks about a young boy who purposely puts his hand into a fire, but as I explained in my opening statement I said that freely choosing to go to hell is an indirect choice not a direct one. It is a consequence of freely rejecting the teachings of Islam.

III. Con says that why couldn't Allah be more merciful and overwrite some of our choices. The fact is that Allah wants true and sincere followers of his to enter paradise. In order for this to be the case, he must test them. Even though all Muslims enter paradise by the mercy of Allah and not on their own accord, what brings forth this mercy? It is wilful obedience to Allah and genuine sincerity and constant repentance that will foster Allah's mercy. How can you receive mercy if you do not ask for it?

- - - -

Con's objections were answered. He has hardly touched my second contention which is essentially extended.

The resolution is affirmed.

- - - -

Sources

http://www.iep.utm.edu...;[1]

http://www.altafsir.com... [2]

popculturepooka

Con

C1: Status and Morality

I. Pro drops one point and urges us to focus on his other allegedly more sturdy point; I will do so.

II. Pro seems to misunderstand the purpose of my analogy; it was a point to illustrate a reductio ad absurdum - that is, a reduction to an absurdity by showing the absurd consequences that would follow if we accepted Pro's main contention here. The analogy brings out the the motivating intuition in favor of the retributivist model of punishment - that punishment can be doled out in gradients on a "scale of moral seriousness", as it were. Stealing candy would be on the low end of the scale and murdering 26 people would be on the high end of the scale. In the former case, paying back the value of the item stolen (and perhaps other minor actions) can be a proper punishment but in the other case only something such as life in prison would suffice. But if that is the case - and it surely has to be on the retributivist understanding of punishment - Pro's contention collapses this motivating intuition because Pro's contention makes it so that ALL sin merits the same punishment. But this clearly goes against the retributivist understanding of punishment which is what his argument is based on. It just seems absurd that my stealing candy and my murdering 26 people could amount to the same punishment - an eternity in hell. And, indeed, if Allah is Just as he is maintained to be, it doesn't seem that a perfectly Just Judge would issue such punishment(s) - and this all brought out by Pro making his own argument. Pro has undercut himself. So, if that is truly what Pro contends then that is good reason to reject the argument and amounts to a refutation.

III. This doesn't seem to address my analogy either. Despite what Pro is saying his contention that he actually takes into account the nature and seriousness of the crime it doesn't seem that it does. As my analogy clearly shows both actions are not worth equal punishment, even if they done upon the same person and that has to do with the principle of retributivism that I elucidated on in the above paragraph. But if that is the case it is unclear how the "moral calculus" changes so drastically when you bring Allah into the picture. If, per my analogy, you replace the 100 units of moral status of a human being with the infinite units of moral status of Allah that still doesn't show how a person one person who does minor sin A against Allah merits infinite punishment just as a person who does major sin B against Allah. In fact, if what Pro says is true there would be no distinction between "minor" and "major" sins - which, again, counts against the very model of punishment Pro bases his argument on.

C2: Consequences of Sin

I. Actually, my contention is very relevant here and Pro doesn't take it seriously enough because, if true, it directly undercuts support for his argument in support of C2. Pro caricatures my argument here; I never said that it "isn't our fault if we commit major sins* such as rape or murder" nor did I say or imply that we cannot avoid murdering or raping. What I did say is merely a truism; moral culpability diminishes the more the moral agent is impaired in the relevant ways (and I listed out some of the relevant ways in my opening round). This is obvious - it's the reason why we don't try children as adults in the court of law for various offenses. It's the reason why there are "age of consent" laws. But in this case (when conceiving hell) we are all in a child-like state of ignorance and having immature cognitive faculties.

*Again, if Pro's points in C1 are correct there'd be no such distinction between major and minor sins here.

C3: Free Will

I. This is somewhat an extension of the previous point and somewhat of a new point but it is crucial. I think that Pro's contention here that "we can have sufficient knowledge of how truly horrifying the nature of hell is" is just out and out false. He quotes a relevant passage from the Qu'ran and, indeed, it does sound horrible; definitely not something I'd choose to subject myself to! I still contend that is a horribly insufficient characterization of hell. There is a difference here between experiential knowledge and knowledge-by-acquaintance. For instance, I have never had to watch a situation as described by Elie Wiesel but I can indeed recognize, somewhat, how soul shattering an experience that would be. [1] But that is only through empathy and paltry analogies to my own experiences and through reading his account of his experiences. I will never truly know what it is like to experience such an event, and as such it's hard for me to conceive of how truly horrifying, terrifying and despairing such an event would be. I've never been a participant (either victim or perpetrator) of such a horrendous evil. As Marilyn McCord Adams has pointed out "where suffering is concerned, conceivability follows the capacity to experience, in such a way that we cannot adequately conceive of what we cannot experience." [2] I have never had an experience of the nature of Wiesel's so I cannot adequately conceive of such a state of affairs. It be absurd (and insulting) to say that I could. Or, in a different situation, I could impress with all my might to a two year old how horrible it would be burned alive and that that is a "bad" state of affairs (per my earlier analogy) but they would not adequately conceive of such an event. This ties into my point because no one here on this earth has experienced an eternity of hell fire, and thus we cannot adequately conceive of such. We just know that it's "bad". Even if one has been burned before, it's hard to say how an eternity of burning would feel like.

II. My points apply equally to both direct and indirect choices; in either case it doesn't seem moral to allow such a momentous choice to be left up to human beings. This would also raise the troubling point of why Allah would make such a momentous choice an "indirect choice" in the first place; surely if it was a direct choice and people could clearly see that such and such choice(s) would send them to hell then they wouldn't do it and more people would end up being saved. If Pro alludes to that's because it is a "test" that would surely impugn on the teachers character if they made such an easily failable test knowing that the students aren't up to the task.

III. My question, which didn't get answered is, why the value of "free will" is place of the infinite disvalue of an eternity in hell. I agree that free will is valuable, but when placed next to hell? It seems a bit paltry. We clearly recognize instances wherein which another persons' choice should be overridden if they are doing something irreparably harmful to themselves in an irrational state of mind. Why can't that also be the case here? It also beggars belief to think that infinitely smart and powerful and good Allah couldn't find a way to set up a state of affairs in which people freely choose to enter in communion with him.

Sources

[1] "Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, that turned my life into one long night seven times sealed.
Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky. Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith for ever. Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes. Never shall I forget those things, even were I condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never." -- Elie Wiesel
Debate Round No. 3
Ahmed.M

Pro

I don't have enough time as of right now to post a full response so i will leave as this an let the voters decide who won. This isn't a forfeit.
popculturepooka

Con

Since my opponent did not post a round, I will not either. Extend my arguments and thanks to Pro for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Lol wow. Just noticed this.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
I know, it's unfortunate I only won by 1 point.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Well, that's unfortunate.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
RFD:

Presonally, the latter of the two arguments are irrelevant for this topic. Only the first really addresses this resolution.

Pro showed, in C1, that the purpose of eternal hell is basically for the retribution for sin.

The only objection con ever had to this was that some sins must me more objectively immoral that others, however, pro, in the use of his analogy, that this point is irrelevant. Pro wins with this: "This is false, my argument brings into account the seriousness of the crime and the status of the individual. These are two factors not only one. In Con's example, both are people meaning they have the same moral status. The punch in the face would indeed be more immoral than the hard shrug against both people."

He highlighted that there are two factors to the morality of an action. He said that the moral status of the being by which it is being directed towards AND the seriousness of the crime is what is being weighed.

He said all sin against Allah should merit an infinitely serious punishment since Allah is of infinite status. When he said major sin A or minor sin B, he was talking about it in relation to when it is being committed against another person and not Allah.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
Are you interested in me or Con?
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
To me, the winning argument in this debate was con's counter to pro's contention that "hell is justified because of the infinite severity of intentional sin due to the infinite status of Allah." In other words, pro argues that infinite punishment for finite sins is justified because the finite sins are committed against an infinite being. Con counters by arguing that everyone as equal moral worth. Therefore, pro's analogy of killing the President vs. killing someone like myself is a false analogy.

On the subject of free will, I think con sufficiently shown how that does not show that an eternal hell is justified.

If you have any more questions about my RFD, please PM me.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Excellent debate and great read. I must say that I was disappointed that pro was unable to finish. I do, however, have to give the victory to con.

The conduct point goes to con because of the forfeit; however, the grammar point goes to pro because of pro's grammar. Except for the capitalization error in the final round, pro had fairly good grammar. However, con's was inferior. For example:

"The analogy brings out the the motivating intuition in favor of the retributivist model of punishment."

This should read:

The analogy brings out the motivating intuition in favor of the retributive model of punishment."

There are many other cases other than that such as the misspelling of feudal as "fuedal."

==Continued ==
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Interesting. I kind of want to see that debate between Maikuru and Ahmed.
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
Ahmed, You believe a forfeit for random reasons is the same as a a forfeit that indents to put balance between the debaters? I'll remember that when we debate someday.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
I like the way you countered like that.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Ahmed.MpopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Ahmed.MpopculturepookaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Edit: I am reviewing my RFD by request of pro. I still believe pro had better spelling so I am keeping that for now.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Ahmed.MpopculturepookaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cleverly exploits the contradictions in Pro's case. Pro both advocates and dismisses retributionism in terms of the appropriateness of punishments against crimes (or sins). He then differentiates between major and minor sins to justify eternal consequences, only to later ignore this differentiation when it comes to sins against God. Pro tries to have it both ways for both duration and severity of punishments. Conduct to Con; Pro skips round 4 and thus drops all of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Ahmed.MpopculturepookaTied
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: RDF in comments.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Ahmed.MpopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RDF in comments