Is heaven better than hell?

I believe for a number of interesting reasons that hell would be a better place to stay in the afterlife. These reasons involve human psychology, rational logic, and the overview of the quality of the people who are within these two places. I expect a lot of hate, as this is an unbelievably controversial thing to say, but I will be interested to hear my opponent's response. The only rule is that the first round must be acceptance.

This is my first debate.org debate, so please note if I have misunderstood your rule "the first round must be acceptance". I accept the debate. Since the rule is not "the first round must be only acceptance", I shall present my prima facia argument:

First, a note. Obviously this debate is intended as an academic/theoretical debate. I expect there to be no "hate" comments directed to my opponent. I cite Proverbs 25:9 "debate your case with your neighbor".

Now my arguments.

1) I submit that He'll is hot, unpleasantly so. Sure Dante's inferno and other references give alternate views, but the conventional wisdom is that he'll is hot. So I ask why?

Kinetic theory ells us heat is derived from the movement of electrons, atoms, and molecules. Since we know hell is hot and we know heat requires atoms, and we know atoms have mass and volume, we must logically conclude that he'll has a mass and a volume. We must consequently conclude that hell is an actual place which physically exists.

To be fair, since he earn isn't described as "uncomfortably cold," we can surmise it has a temperature above 0 kelvin and therefor must also have mass, volume, and consequently a physical location.

2) All evidence indicates that heaven's location, relative to hell, is simply "up" (e.g. "Above", "higher"). Following the basic principal of real estate, where value is higher level units are worth more than lower levels, we can surmise that heaven has a higher value. Since value is a measure of desirability, I surmise that heaven is a more estimable location.

3) Philosophically, the only concrete description of hell that is unwavering is that it is "separation from God". I submit that God is almighty Ruler, King, Emporer, etc. If we compare capital cities to non-capital cities, we find that capital cities are wealthier, healthier and safer- all measures of "quality of life". I submit that it stands to reason that heaven would qualify as a capital city, since it is the residency of the almighty ruler, and hell would not, since the devil can tempt (which in political science is merely a "soft power") but holds no legitimate power (e.g. To create, judge, et cetera). Since we know little about heavy and hell, we can infer that heaven is probably preferable based on it qualifying as a capital city.

Ack! I missed my own deadline! What a wasted round! Well that's why we have 5, I guess. Here's my argument I would have put in at round 2.

If this is your first time then congrats! But, just for future reference, if someone does say that the first round must be acceptance, they do mean only acceptance. But that's just fine. Here are some of my arguments that hell would be the same as if not better than heaven.

1) I believe that Dante's version of hell is a bit sketchy, because what if you committed two different sins? Which layer of hell would you go to? Dante's version of hell leaves much to be desired, but I'll stick with it. Now, here is why I said human psychology makes hell not such a bad place after all. Let's ask ourselves a hypothetical question. When we were babies in our mother's wombs, why did we not want to escape and see the real world? The reason is that we didn't know that anything better was outside of where we lived, so this was normal, no matter how boring. And we we're fine with it. My point? Well, humans tend to forget things overtime, so after 500 or so years of being tortured, we would start to forget our past lives. Whatever punishment we would be receiving would become normal. This punishment would simply be an aspect of everyday life. (Or death, if you want to get technical.) So, whatever punishment you would be receiving wouldn't be so bad after a couple of centuries. It would be normal, and the same would happen in heaven with all the good you were experiencing. So eternal punishment would just be normal, and so would, eternal bliss, therefore equalizing the values of the two places. After all, you have got all the time in the world.

I have other arguments, but I will reserve them for later. I don't want to be rambling! They include the quality of people in hell compared to heaven, and the interesting aspects of the two places.