The Instigator
v3rd3_fiv3r
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

how we can prouve that there is a hell and heaven

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...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 79586
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

v3rd3_fiv3r

Pro

im sure that there is a hell and heaven, and i can prouve it .
Lexus

Con

I accept understanding that pro must prove there is hell and heaven to win, if they do not do so then I should win
Debate Round No. 1
v3rd3_fiv3r

Pro

In the name of Allah the Merciful, "O my Lord! Open for me my chest, And ease my task for me;And make loose the knot, That they understand my speech" Surah Ta-Ha (Quran).
At first my sister I ask your forgiveness on my modest English
Sister, I'm not here to win, or something like that .. I just want to tell the message Perhaps the reward comes the Day of Resurrection.
I want my sister to give me an answer for a couple of very easy questions and all agreed
Is theft a good thing ?? All agreed that it is not so
Is terrorism and extremism is good ?? of course not
Is this true sister ??
Lexus

Con

Brother, I do agree that theft and terrorism are bad things; I do forgive your modest English (although you appear to be fluent)! However, this is besides the point, brother; we are here to have intelligent discourse on the nature of Heaven and Hell - my moral ideas are not relevant to this discussion! Please, brother, I want to hear your ideas instead of asking me questions that appear to be besides the point - for we only have one round left!
Debate Round No. 2
v3rd3_fiv3r

Pro

My sister, I use Google to translate
This life without a day of jugment and without hell and heaven is not fair do you know why??
For every one that stole and raped and all the acting is decent and not held accountable for them and the examples are lot can not escape or to survive without being held accountable and to clarify the idea I would like to give an example.
my example is Hitler..Everyone knows his crimes and everyone knows what my sister committed by Hitler..He has to burn six million Jews and millions of people were killed, but in the fourth he suicide, if some one was arrested him What is the maximum penalty .. who will receive life imprisonment to death ,Do you think it would be a penalty just kill him.What about the remaining 5999999 Jewish people ???
For this life there is no Justice without the Lord of the Day of Resurrection and be held accountable for all the pains.
Finally, I ask God to open your heart and guide you to the right Amin
Lexus

Con

My Brother, I do agree that having no hell or heaven in this life or in the next is unfair - I do agree that the crimes of Hitler do warrant some type of extreme punishment. However, you fail to show us why a hell or heaven is at least more likely to exist than it is not.
Just because life is unfair and that we cannot all go to eternal bliss in heaven or the eternal punishment of hell, that does not mean that these two places exist as default. I do not see you prove that these places exist, so I think that you have not fulfilled your burden. I should win this debate due to no arguments that are topical being made (while the arguments that you did make were truths, they did not advance you on your end of the resolution).

As for your last sentence, I will try to search for God in my search for big-t Truth, thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
No problem. Happy to clarify any RFD. I understand that you didn't mean to present empirical evidence, but you, unfortunately, did not provide rational basis for proving a hell or heaven's existence either. You only showed that there should be a hell/heaven, not that there *is,* and that is the fundamental problem with your argument.
Posted by v3rd3_fiv3r 1 year ago
v3rd3_fiv3r
thanx for voting but i wana clear something
First, when I said I did not mean I will prove there is no concrete evidence can be proved, because our knowledge is limited
I mean, I will prove it logically
After all, I told her and I return I am here for the message and told God help us
Posted by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
== My RFD ==

First, let me cover conduct. Both debaters maintained reasonable conduct, so I tie the conduct point. As for spelling/grammar, Pro fails to punctuate many sentences, and "prove" is frequently spelled wrong. There's also often the usage of multiple question marks. Frankly, it's a borderline case on spelling and grammar, but words such as "prouve" instead of "prove" really hurt readability. It only gets worse from there. So, I award spelling/grammar to Con.

As for the arguments, I don't see how Pro's arguments actually relate to the resolution. They aren't really sufficiently explained. I don't understand what Pro is getting at with his subjective interpretations of "good" and "bad," and his Hitler example. Pro then commits an is/ought fallacy. The resolution is an "is," not an "ought," but Pro says there *should* be a hell, not that there *is* one. Con successfully points out this fallacy, and it's sufficient to negate, simply because Pro carries the massive burden of proof of demonstrating that hell and heaven exist. As such, Con wins arguments as well.

Neither side utilizes sources in this debate, therefore I cannot describe their sources as "reliable" with the lack of any sources. Therefore, I vote Con on arguments and spelling/grammar.
Posted by v3rd3_fiv3r 1 year ago
v3rd3_fiv3r
brother Thescarecrow066 i respect your book but all we know that there is a lot of question points about it and for this I advise you that you see, Ahmed Deedat God's mercy him.
Posted by v3rd3_fiv3r 1 year ago
v3rd3_fiv3r
My sister I did not say I will prove its existence that Eric them or that I will bring you something to them .. I said i give an evidence logicall, and I just I hope you are doing open-minded and do not be stresses obout what u think is right because it could be wrong.
Posted by Buttersnapple 1 year ago
Buttersnapple
You can't so, either believe or don't. Just don't be an obnoxious douche about it. Religion is personal, why do people feel the need to bring it up in a public setting. You can't force your way of thinking into the throat of others due to your feelings on the matter, it's selfish.
Posted by Thescarecrow066 1 year ago
Thescarecrow066
What is this anyway? I can prove it I found it in a book it's called the bible....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
v3rd3_fiv3rLexusTied
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: BOP was on Pro to prove that heaven and hell existed, and they failed to do so. They only stated that it makes sense for bad people to be punished after their death. However this isn't objective evidence of anything. The only other argument that Pro had was quotes from the Quran, which are worthless as evidence. Arguments to Con due to the unfulfilled BOP.
Vote Placed by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
v3rd3_fiv3rLexusTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
v3rd3_fiv3rLexusTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The BOP was on Pro to prove that Heaven and Hell exist and they were unable to prove that it did. Merely, stating that it is only fair if it did exist is not a valid argument and Con successfully refuted Pro's argument.
Vote Placed by William.Burnham 1 year ago
William.Burnham
v3rd3_fiv3rLexusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to prove that heaven or hell existed, he merely stated that it would be unfair if it didn't. Both pro and con displayed good conduct, and I won't take points away for grammar since english is not a primary language for pro. I feel that con used better rationale in the discussion, drawing from logic rather than just faith. Pro did not bring in any outside sources besides the Koran and Hadith, even though numerous philosophers like Descartes have provided arguments for the proof of an afterlife, so points go to Con.