The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dennybug
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

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...
Dennybug
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 60169
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

You do not have to burn in Hell. You can be sure that you are saved from it now. Are you sure you won't burn in Hell? I am sure I will not burn in Hell. If you are sure you won't burn in Hell, then you are agreeing with me that you do not have to burn in Hell and you should not be arguing the con position in this debate.

The is not "Hell is real" or "Hell is immoral", those would be different debates.

The Con position for this debate is "I have to burn in Hell" Upon acceptance of this challenge, Con agrees to debate from the postion directly opposite of Pro, which is "I have to burn in Hell".

Is there anybody who believes they have to burn in Hell so I can try to show them why they do not have to burn in Hell and how they can be saved from it?
Dennybug

Con

thanks pro, interesting resolution!


To clarify a few things, I will clarify what my opponent has started.

He will be arguing that

PRO: You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

and I will be arguing that:

CON: You Do Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.


My opponent has stated so himself, that the main position in this debate is whether or not we deserve to burn in hell! And whether or not we can be saved from it.

Since which hell hasn't been defined, I suppose my opponent has left it up to me, so we will be using the Holy Bible for our source matierials. Feel free to use which ever English translation you want.


Definition of have to: Must; need to; to be required to. Indicates obligation; Must (logical conclusion)

Definition of Must: be obliged to; should (expressing necessity).



So, now that we've clearly defined the resolution of this debate. We have discovered that this debate is infact about whether or not we should burn in hell?

Alright, So I will be arguing that we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it. While my opponent will be arguing that We don't deserve hell and can be saved from it.

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

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 20:13-15

13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the deadthat were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”


The bible clearly teaches that(metaphorically) If a man doesn't work, he doesn't deserve to eat.

every single human being should go to hell Lifemeansgodisgood should 100% go to hell as it is clearly defined in the bible that every human being should.




Romans 3:10

There is no one righteous, not even one;'

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.


So, My opponent will have to argue that we don't deserve to go to hell, I look forward to his response since the bible clearly says that we all should go to hell.
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Thank you Con for what looks like a debate wihere you are putting up arguments worthy of my time to read.

First, I want to clarify some things my opponent says I said when I have not said them in this debate.
It's not fair for my opponent to be putting words in my mouth, even though I may agree with him in some of the things he says I said. If my opponent is going to say I said something, he should quote it without adding words to it. My opponent says, and I will quote him exactly, that I said the following things I never said in this debate:

1) "
My opponent has stated so himself, that the main position in this debate is whether or not we deserve to burn in hell! And whether or not we can be saved from it."

The main position of this debae is "you do not have to burn in Hell." I made it clear in the opening argument that my opponent was supposed to debate from the position of "I have to burn in Hell". This debate was not intended to be about "you", the readers. It seems my opponent is trying to win this debate by taking my postion and not arguing the Con postion as in my opening statement; quoted with no words added or taken away, which he was supposed to be agreeing to upon acceptance of the challenge.

"The Con position for this debate is "I have to burn in Hell" Upon acceptance of this challenge, Con agrees to debate from the position directly opposite of Pro, which is "I have to burn in Hell".


2) "Alright, So I will be arguing that we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it. While my opponent will be arguing that We don't deserve hell and can be saved from it."
Again, my opponent is putting words in my mouth. When my opponent claims that I said something, he should be able to show the qoute. I never said we don't deserve hell, I cannot argue from that standpoint; we do deserve Hell.


I fully agree with my opponent in this statement of his which I qoute without putting words in his mouth: ".....we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it." My opponent in this statment is taking my postion for this debate and is not arguing as he implicitly agreed to do by accepting this challenge. My opponent is supposed to be arguing from the standpoint of "I have to burn in Hell". My opponent has dropped the argument before taking it up, put words in my mouth, and is now arguing from my postion implying that my position was different from what was clearly stated in the resolution and my opening argument. My opponent is trying to change the debate resolution into "we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it", and trying to change my postion into "We don't deserve hell and can be saved from it." My opponent should lose conduct points for this kind of misleading and fraudulent attempts to put words in my mouth and change the entire debate. My opponent should not have taken this challenge. I agree with all of the Bible quotes and applications used by my oppenent in his argument, but he is taking my postion and claiming it as his own.
Dennybug

Con

My opponent has asserted that I've mis-quoted him and that I've taken a faulty stance on this debate. I shall clarify the misunderstanding here so my opponent can begin to argue.


So far My opponent has not presented us with a single positive contention, and has also conceded to parts of my argument.

"I agree with all of the Bible quotes and applications used by my oppenent in his argument, but he is taking my postion and claiming it as his own."


My opponent has also said the following

Again, my opponent is putting words in my mouth. When my opponent claims that I said something, he should be able to show the qoute. I never said we don't deserve hell, I cannot argue from that standpoint; we do deserve Hell.

Alright so my opponent agrees that we all in fact, do deserve hell.

And then goes on to say that the following is his stance

The main position of this debae is "you do not have to burn in Hell."

I shall define this resolution to edify my opponent. Since he has failed to present definitions and clarifications, I have the right to do so otherwise this debate would be unable to function.

Definition of have to: Must; need to; to be required to. Indicates obligation; Must (logical conclusion)

Definition of Must: be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)


So have to, means Must.

Must means we should be obliged to or should.


And my opponent is arguing we Should not have to.

So he is arguing that We should not all go to hell, And I am arguing that we SHOULD all go to hell.

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

I ask my opponent to please present a case to support his resolution as so far, he has completely failed to do so and has questioned the legitimacy of my position.


Furthermore, I ask all readers to consider the following statement made by my opponent

"Thank you Con for what looks like a debate wihere you are putting up arguments worthy of my time to read"


A statement where he suggests that my arguments could in fact be not worthy of his time Which is conceited and baseless. I ask judges to consider this when voting.


Over to Pro,
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Again, my opponent is putting words in my mouth. My opponent has posted no new argument in round 2 because he hijacked my position as pro and claims it as his own position. My opponent in round 1 claimed my position is different from his position and then argued from my position claiming that I have to argue the opposing position. It was clear in the opening statements of the resolution that I wanted an opponent who would argue that they have to burn in Hell. I stated this clearly in the following quotes from the resolution:


1) The Con position for this debate is "I have to burn in Hell" Upon acceptance of this challenge, Con agrees to debate from the position directly opposite of Pro, which is "I have to burn in Hell".

2) Is there anybody who believes they have to burn in Hell so I can try to show them why they do not have to burn in Hell and how they can be saved from it?

This opponent should not have accepted this challenge as by accepting he was supposed to be agreeing to argue from a defined position with no need to change my position or his by twisting definitions. My opponent has hijacked my position and that is why I agree with his Bible quotes and applications of those quotes. Because he is using what would have been my arguments in support of my position, all points for arguments should be tied. All points for conduct should go to me since my opponent never should have accepted this challenge to start with as he apparently had no intention of arguing from the con position of "I have to burn in Hell". This debate was not about everybody else. This debate was intended to be between me and an opponent who would argue "I have to burn in Hell" My opponent did not drop the ball in this debate, he never picked it up to start with. This debate is unable to function because my opponent is not arguing the Con position, rather, he is trying to change my position and trying to argue the Pro position as his own position.

I will attempt a repeat of this debate with more careful selection of an opponent so I can be sure my opponent will argue the Con position and not try to usurp my position and fraudulently claim victory by doing so.

The positive contention I made from the beginning remains unchallenged in this debate because my opponent is not arguing the Con position. Pro was "you don't have to burn in Hell......" Con was supposed to be "I have to burn in Hell"

Again, my positive opening statement of "you don't have to burn in Hell" remains unrefuted while my opponent claims I have made no positive argument statement. My opponent has completely failed to even begin arguing the con position and until he does, we have nothing to debate. Even the argument points should be awarded to me since my positives statement in the resolution has remained unrefuted and I have stood by it throughout this non-debate.
Dennybug

Con

Definition of have to: Must; need to; to be required to. Indicates obligation; Must (logical conclusion)

Definition of Must: be obliged to; should (expressing necessity).


My opponent insists that I take his position, I will add that my arguments are 100% valid under his resolution.

My opponent has failed to awknowledge this and insists I am not a worthy opponent. I ask that conduct would be taken from him for failing to awknowledge how my definitions are not valid as well as failing to present a positive case. Which I have done.
Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Have to does not mean should. My opponent's definitions are wacky, If you have to perform bodily functions to eliminate waste, you have to do it. You should do it in the bathroom, but you don't have to. What you should do and what you have to do are two different things. This debate is not about the definition of "have to". The debate assertion was clearly stated in the challenge and opening arguments and remains totally unrefuted by my opponent. He is refusing to argue in the debate as agreed to upon acceptance, and doing nothing but trying to change the debate by taking my position and claiming it as your own. My opponent should lose all conduct points and get zero points for argument since he has argued only what would have been my position and posted no argument for the Con position. My opponent has totally ignored his agreement, by accepting this challenge, to argue from the position of "I have to burn in Hell". My opponent deserves no points for arguing a position he has refused to take.
Dennybug

Con

Extend all my arguments.


My opponent seems to have the impression that Hell is a choice, one does not willingly decide to go to hell. You are condemned to it.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Now, the nature of this debate is burning in hell. Whether we

Have to|Are obligated to|Should|Need to|Are required to.

We all have to go to hell unless we accept the love of jesus christ. That is clearly written in the bible.

Furthermore, my opponent has not offered a single argument for why one "Doesn't have to" Unless we are saved from it. Because his resolution implies that we can do something to avoid the fire of hell when clearly we cannot.

My opponent has clearly tried to weasel his way around a faulty resolution by claiming my argument as his own. He hasn't offered one single positive contention and at this point it is too late.

Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Summary
!) My opponent repeatedly ignoring the agreement he subscribed to by accepting the challenge to argue from the position of "I have to burn in Hell"

2) My opponent trying to put many words in my mouth to change my position and argue the pro position instead of taking the con Poseidon.

My opponent has completely failed to refute the assertion of the debate which I uphold, "You don't have to burn in Hell, you can be saved from it" The reason you do not have to burn in Hell is that you can be saved from it. If you are not saved from it, you will have to burn in Hell. My opponent continues to put many words in my mouth implying I said things I never said, then uses my own arguments which would support my own position so I cannot disagree with his statements on the penalty of Hell attached to sin and the Bible references supporting the doctrine. Until your death is finalized, it is possible for you to be saved from burning in Hell.

My opponent never argued from the Con position in this debate. My opponent never refuted any of my statements, but rather tried to change the meaning of my statements to put me in a position contrary to the pro position while he used arguments supporting my resolution. You have to burn in Hell if you are not saved from it. You don't have to burn in Hell, you can be saved from it.


My opponent deserves no points in this debate as he made no arguments against the resolution other than trying to change the meaning of words and put words in my mouth as he usurped the pro position in the debate. The only thing good I hope comes out of this is that at least one person will consider the importance of knowing that your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, and they get the matter settled with God.

Binding Contract:
I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:

1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.
2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.
3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.
This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.
It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.

Sign here ___________________________
Dennybug

Con

Extend all arguments.


My opponent did not state that Acceptance of jesus christ couldn't be part of my resolution. He only mentions this now.

this debate was about the obligation to burn in hell.


Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
right here, preaching at its finest. Go home, your'e drunk
Posted by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
Do you like my profile picture btw?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDennybugTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro drawn out at end
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDennybugTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: nac
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDennybugTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Placing this vote to remind me to vote later when I have time to read it.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDennybugTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 did not make his position very clear at the start of the debate. He stated verses that helped his opponent and obviously doesn't have a good understanding of Hell or the Bible. Conduct is tied because both were polite. Grammar goes to Pro because Con's first word of the whole debate wasn't capitalized and left sentences unfinished. Overall I feel that Pro had a good debate, although it was kind of confusing.