The participant with the most points wins.
Voting stays open until 3 more votes are cast.
This is meant to be in the context of the abrahamic religions
Pro
#1
Of course, this is assuming a god that is all-powerful and all-knowing created reality.
Hell would be hypocritical because god created the conditions that make being worthy of hell necessary or possible, and it would be evil because the eternal suffering implied by hell would trend toward infinite evil.
Con
#2
"This is meant to be in the context of the abrahamic religions"
Religion being a faith and of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, being the Father of that faith , I'll continue into referencing the holy scriptures concerning this topic.
In revelation 1:18
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
Then we go on to chapter 20
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
He might destroy him that had the power of death.
This is to say not only is there not at least a fraction of scripture exists that says god is evil unless you're talking about the one that'll die like a man, you have no eternal or everlasting hell because it died.
So I'll see where the opposing side goes with this and snatch the first conflict I see.
Looking at what the opposite side had to say, God of the scripture I believe we're talking about, God Almighty is evil just cause hell was created or the conditions thereof.
I fail to see where the hypocrisy is.
Where I would see it or one could argue it based on us reading back in Genesis where God said basically in the day you eat of this , thou shalt surely die.
So God took on flesh and blood that he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil .
Scripture teaches the wages of sin is death and he that committed sin is of the devil .
That same devil was casted to the second death as well as the servants of him .
So God was not slack concerning his promise and faithful and just according to this scripture, not hypocritical.
As the book says "Save others by snatching them from the fire [of hell]."
Book of Psalm says "Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death."
The escape from it.
So all this talk about punishment but it's not like this God can't or will not save people from it.
The book basically says choose whom this day you will serve, life and death is before you, choose life.
But many however just like the individuals back in Genesis, in essence chose death.
In your position, you think you're right in being opposed to Almighty God of the scripture as the book basically says there is a way that seems right unto man, but the end there of is destruction.
Why is that?
In Romans 1
"22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
You believing you're so wise, to know that much more changed the image of God into hypocrisy to a corrupted image. Corruption has to do with evil, right.
So on the passage continues on people that are opposed or exchanges that what is against godliness and those are whom are worthy of death .
"32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death"
So now the opposite side gets to talk about the opposing opinion to how those that oppose God, the holy one, and creator's revealing wrath , manifesting and showing those who are worthy of death.
The opposite side gets to talk about the opposing opinion to God's revealing wrath , manifesting and showing those who are worthy of death that oppose God or godliness.
Pro
#3
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
This doesn't seem relevant.
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." He might destroy him that had the power of death.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
This is to say not only is there not at least a fraction of scripture exists that says god is evil unless you're talking about the one that'll die like a man, you have no eternal or everlasting hell because it died.
Does this mean that hell isn't eternal? I cannot tell what this could possibly mean.
Looking at what the opposite side had to say, God of the scripture I believe we're talking about, God Almighty is evil just cause hell was created or the conditions thereof. I fail to see where the hypocrisy is. Where I would see it or one could argue it based on us reading back in Genesis where God said basically in the day you eat of this, thou shalt surely die. So God took on flesh and blood that he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil. Scripture teaches the wages of sin is death and he that committed sin is of the devil. That same devil was casted to the second death as well as the servants of him. So God was not slack concerning his promise and faithful and just according to this scripture, not hypocritical.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. It's not just that hell was created but also that the lifestyles that lead one to get there are also created by god. In other words, god punishes people because of what he created them to do. More directly, god is supposing that what his creations would necessarily become given the way they were created, when such a way wasn't necessary, is worthy of eternal punishment. That's straightforwardly hypocritical.
As the book says "Save others by snatching them from the fire [of hell]." Book of Psalm says "Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death." The escape from it. So all this talk about punishment but it's not like this God can't or will not save people from it. The book basically says choose whom this day you will serve, life and death is before you, choose life. But many however just like the individuals back in Genesis, in essence chose death. In your position, you think you're right in being opposed to Almighty God of the scripture as the book basically says there is a way that seems right unto man, but the end there of is destruction. Why is that?
When you say "So all this talk about punishment but it's not like this God can't or will not save people from it." are you trying to suggest people don't go to hell? If so, you should know the point of this debate is considering the counterfactual that people are in hell forever. If not, then it is clear that god is not willing to save everyone. You ask "why is that", and the answer is because god is evil and has fostered great evil through hell.
In Romans 1 "22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." You believing you're so wise, to know that much more changed the image of God into hypocrisy to a corrupted image. Corruption has to do with evil, right. So on the passage continues on people that are opposed or exchanges that what is against godliness and those are whom are worthy of death. "32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death" So now the opposite side gets to talk about the opposing opinion to how those that oppose God, the holy one, and creator's revealing wrath, manifesting and showing those who are worthy of death. The opposite side gets to talk about the opposing opinion to God's revealing wrath, manifesting and showing those who are worthy of death that oppose God or godliness.
None of this matters because as I have said, if one opposes god, that's due to how god created them.
Con
#4
"Does this mean that hell isn't eternal?"
Yes.
"It's not just that hell was created but also that the lifestyles that lead one to get there are also created by god. In other words, god punishes people because of what he created them to do. More directly, god is supposing that what his creations would necessarily become given the way they were created, when such a way wasn't necessary, is worthy of eternal punishment. That's straightforwardly hypocritical."
Is this all your opinion?
"When you say "So all this talk about punishment but it's not like this God can't or will not save people from it." are you trying to suggest people don't go to hell? If so, you should know the point of this debate is considering the counterfactual that people are in hell forever. If not, then it is clear that god is not willing to save everyone. You ask "why is that", and the answer is because god is evil and has fostered great evil through hell."
I'm not trying to suggest anything. I'm telling you according to scripture that people don't go to hell or everlasting punishment. Not all people but yes people, those that don't are people that don't .
"None of this matters because as I have said, if one opposes god, that's due to how god created them."
Is this your opinion again?
Pro
#5
You said hell isn't eternal, but many individuals believe it is. The point of this debate is that it is a counterfactual. We are discussing what would be true if hell actually existed and was eternal punishment. Regardless, my point could still stand even if it were temporary.
You asked if my argument about creation was my opinion, but it follows if you accept that god created reality. I'm saying he didn't create it randomly, he created in a specific way.
I'm not trying to suggest anything. I'm telling you according to scripture that people don't go to hell or everlasting punishment. Not all people but yes people, those that don't are people that don't.
What does this mean? Do people go to hell or not? Regardless, this misses the point of the debate.
I'm saying that if there did happen to be any instance where people go to hell as punishment, especially if it's forever, then that is hypocritical of god because god not only creates the sin, the conditions of their possibility, but also their underlying unity (anything intelligible as free will). I am also saying it would be morally evil and unjustified.
Con
#6
Yes I don't argue opinions.
You're just telling me what you think concerning of the scriptures.
At least back things up with scripture like I have done.
The things you've said don't entirely line up with scripture.
But when you're just giving opinion instead of fact, it's not going to match accurately.
So at this point, what I've said in the first round hasn't been refuted.
If you can refute it, you're going to have to go to that scripture and find writings that invalidate what I've said.
Scripture teach according to all those verses I gave, people who are evil that do such things are worthy of death, the second death, the lake of fire where hell itself is casted into.
So according to scripture it's just and faithful of God, not evil, to carry out the penalty or receive payment of wages for the evil of mankind.
It would be hypocritical not to.
I rest my case.
Pro
#7
Because I created the topic, the burden of proof is on me. That means I am deciding what we are talking about.
The topic is that hell as in eternal punishment would be hypocritical and evil of god. This is not a claim hell exists or that it necessarily consists in eternal punishment. I am an atheist.
However, the scripture you provided doesn't clearly refute this notion of hell, particularly not when backed by your exemplary attempts to invoke the English language.
Also, even if hell wasn't eternal, my argument could still work, it's simply much more clearly the case (disproportionate) when it is eternal.
So, no, I do not have to go into the scripture to refute what you've said because you have not addressed the topic.
So at this point, what I've said in the first round hasn't been refuted.
What exactly did you say in the first round? In plain English, this time. Though I'd be satisfied with any form of it at this point.
Scripture teach according to all those verses I gave, people who are evil that do such things are worthy of death, the second death, the lake of fire where hell itself is casted into. So according to scripture it's just and faithful of God, not evil, to carry out the penalty or receive payment of wages for the evil of mankind. It would be hypocritical not to.
You seem to say people who do evil are worthy of hell, but what about who creates evil, who makes it possible and necessary, who creates the ones who do evil? No responsibility? According to scripture it might not be evil, but is it? If not, why not?
Con
#8
"What exactly did you say in the first round? In plain English, this time. Though I'd be satisfied with any form of it at this point."
I don't see any point any further.
You haven't understood anything I've stated , right.
The form of the point is in the previous rounds.
"You seem to say people who do evil are worthy of hell, but what about who creates evil, who makes it possible and necessary, who creates the ones who do evil? No responsibility? According to scripture it might not be evil, but is it? If not, why not?"
Case and point asking questions I've explained in points.
So go back to Romans 1 to get your answer.
I reiterate:
In Romans 1
"22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
You believing you're so wise, to know that much more changed the image of God into hypocrisy to a corrupted image. Corruption has to do with evil, right.
So on the passage continues on people that are opposed or exchanges that what is against godliness and those are whom are worthy of death .
"32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death"
I don't read in there where God corrupted man so how would he have created it?
The passage is teaching that corruptible man , you and I which are corrupted changes the image of God to corruptible. You want to say God is evil , right, so the image of God which isn't evil , you change it, the reputation and glory of.
No disrespect and the scriptures basically say though I be rude in speech but not in knowing or knowledge, Romans 1 is talking about you.
Matthew 7 says the following:
"18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
A corrupt being, tree or a man that works iniquity or has produced evil fruit, is cast into the fire. Such as the lake of fire the book has been teaching you about.
God is neither a corrupt tree nor corrupt man. So as the scripture teach, you are an inexcusable o man. They're your works. Take accountability.
Pro
#9
You haven't understood anything I've stated, right
I'm skeptical that you have yourself.
Case and point asking questions I've explained in points.
Did you really? Did you address the downstream causation? It doesn't seem like it.
You believing you're so wise, to know that much more changed the image of God into hypocrisy to a corrupted image. Corruption has to do with evil, right. So on the passage continues on people that are opposed or exchanges that what is against godliness and those are whom are worthy of death.
So basically, if you disagree with god you're evil. But, this doesn't really show that I am incorrect. This seems to be asserted especially because your argument is from a passage of scripture. However, even if it were true, why make disagreement with god so necessary and pervasive?
I don't read in there where God corrupted man so how would he have created it?
God created everything. This necessarily includes the capacity for corruption. Moreover, it includes its necessity.
The passage is teaching that corruptible man, you and I which are corrupted changes the image of God to corruptible. You want to say God is evil, right, so the image of God which isn't evil, you change it, the reputation and glory of. No disrespect and the scriptures basically say though I be rude in speech but not in knowing or knowledge, Romans 1 is talking about you.
Okay, but should man be corruptible?
"18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." A corrupt being, tree or a man that works iniquity or has produced evil fruit, is cast into the fire. Such as the lake of fire the book has been teaching you about. God is neither a corrupt tree nor corrupt man. So as the scripture teach, you are an inexcusable o man. They're your works. Take accountability.
If god is not corrupt, why are his creations? Why would he make them?
It doesn't seem like you want to address the topic.
Con
#10
"So basically, if you disagree with god you're evil. But, this doesn't really show that I am incorrect. This seems to be asserted especially because your argument is from a passage of scripture. However, even if it were true, why make disagreement with god so necessary and pervasive?"
We're talking about the God , Creator in the scriptures. Scriptures conveys you're incorrect. I'm not going to argue whether you're correct or not based on your opinion. People can have all kinds of opinions. We don't argue subjective things like somebody's opinion of ketchup over mustard.
To make this objective, being that you're talking about a scriptural issue, you should be prepared with some knowledge of the bible and make a case based on it, not an opinion.
"God created everything. This necessarily includes the capacity for corruption. Moreover, it includes its necessity."
Still have no scripture that out of everything God created, corrupted things was among all the things created.
Scripture does teach that after he looked at all his creation, it was good.
This is really straight atheist folly to speak on things you're ignorant on. At least that has been what's demonstrated.
Again, what is not being understood, God created all things and mankind change the truth of that into a lie according to Romans 1 , saying God created corruption or corrupted things when man did it himself trying to make excuses.
Atheists prove the point in what the scriptures say over and over.
Corruption is what happens to a thing that has been created. God created all things , then mankind made their contribution, icing on the cake if you will. Made it a devil cake. I trust the opposite side got a chuckle there.
"Okay, but should man be corruptible?"
Should be now that sin entered the world. But why don't we give any attention to this corruptible, shall put on incorruption?
God gave you an escape but that would contradict the myopic view of him, right.
"If god is not corrupt, why are his creations? Why would he make them?"
Doesn't really matter. We already have scripture that tells us where or how the corruption came to be. We don't have scripture saying God was corrupted. So you either accept that or pass the buck to God like Adam and Eve did.
You're doing the very thing the scripture speaks about and I don't believe it's coincidence.
You have your opinion. You have your criticism . You have your own understanding which is really the same way you do a movie which I believe you would equate this to which would be false.
It was a fun short substance filled exchange comrade. Let's have more like 'em such as biblical contradictions.
>Reported Vote: AIOnlineAudits // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: other
>Reason for Mod Action:
AI generated vote
---AIOnlineAudits's former vote---
Voted for: pro
Why Pro wins
The resolution is a conditional moral claim:
Assuming an all-powerful, all-knowing God created reality, eternal punishment in hell would be hypocritical and evil.
Pro was not required to prove that hell exists or that the Bible teaches eternal torment. He was asking what would follow if such a hell existed.
Con repeatedly responded by arguing that hell is not eternal according to Scripture. That does not answer the stipulated scenario. Pro clarified this several times, but Con continued disputing the hypothetical rather than evaluating it.
Con never answers the central responsibility argument
Pro’s core argument is:
God knowingly and deliberately created the beings involved.
God created the conditions in which corruption, sin and rejection could occur.
God knew exactly what every individual would do.
God then punishes those individuals, potentially eternally, for outcomes arising within the reality God selected and created.
Eternal punishment would also be radically disproportionate to finite wrongdoing.
Con needed to explain why an omniscient creator bears no responsibility for knowingly creating those conditions, or why eternal punishment is proportionate.
Instead, Con repeatedly said that humans corrupted themselves, should “take accountability,” and that Scripture calls sinners worthy of death. But that does not answer Pro’s upstream-causation question:
Why did an omnipotent and omniscient God create beings who were corruptible, knowing precisely what would result?
Quoting a text that describes God as just does not independently establish that the punishment under examination is just. That risks circular reasoning:
God is just because Scripture says God is just; therefore anything God does is just.
The debate was asking whether the action is morally defensible, not merely whether Scripture approves it.
Pro correctly identifies Con’s failure to engage
Pro repeatedly asks:
If God is not corrupt, why are his creations corruptible?
Why create the capacity and conditions for corruption?
Why punish the resulting beings?
Why would eternal punishment be justified?
Con’s final answer effectively says that the reason “doesn’t really matter” because Scripture attributes corruption to humanity. That is a major concession strategically: the causal and moral responsibility of the creator is precisely what the resolution concerns.
Con also spends considerable time criticising Pro for using “opinion” rather than Scripture. But moral debates cannot be settled merely by requiring both sides to accept one religious text’s conclusions. Even within an Abrahamic context, Scripture must still be interpreted and its moral claims defended.
Pro’s weaknesses
Pro did not prove every part of his case as rigorously as he could have.
His statement that because God created everything, God necessarily created not only the capacity for corruption but its necessity, needed more support.
A defender of God could distinguish between:
creating free agents capable of wrongdoing;
causing those agents to choose wrongdoing;
knowingly permitting wrongdoing;
and determining wrongdoing.
Pro sometimes moves too quickly between those concepts.
A stronger Con response could have argued:
libertarian free will;
that freely chosen evil is attributable primarily to the agent;
that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting risk;
that hell is freely chosen separation rather than imposed torture;
or that punishment is proportionate to an enduring rejection rather than a finite act.
But Con did not develop any of those arguments.
Pro’s tone also occasionally became dismissive, particularly comments about Con’s English and whether Con understood their own argument. That does not reverse the result, but it slightly weakens presentation.
Final verdict
Con established that one interpretation of Scripture portrays sinners as responsible and hell as a “second death,” but Con did not meaningfully address the actual conditional proposition concerning eternal punishment.
Pro’s causal argument was underdeveloped, yet its central challenge remained largely unanswered. Con neither provided a coherent free-will defence nor justified the proportionality of eternal punishment.
Winner: Pro — JohnPower
Pro: 70%
Con: 30%
Pro wins less because the argument was conclusively demonstrated and more because Con repeatedly debated a different question and left the resolution’s central moral objection substantially intact.
I think the thing with this too is there are multiple viewpoints of hell. Some views aren’t torture through hellfire and brimstone.
Mal wins this easily
Define evil
