Hell is likely locked from the inside
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
C.S. Lewis theorizes in The Great Divorce that no one is barred from heaven or forced to remain in hell, rather that it's a choice. One must desire to be free of pride, sin, etc.
Pro carries the burden of proof and must demonstrate this theory can be used to resolve the problems with the traditional heaven/hell dynamic.
Hell is defined as any place or state separate from god, and it is assumed heaven, or the presence of god, is more desirable.
This could have been an interesting debate, and it's construct was well devised by Con to be the instigator, but opposed to the Resolution/Resolve: "Hell is likely locked from the inside," a position of argument that suggests that once in hell, a person yet has the choice to vacate hell for heaven and has the unlock function available to do so. I disagree with Con's entire argument in this regard, yet, I was confident in my ability to separate from personal opinion to render a justifiable vote. Con's argument should have been relatively easy to combat while maintaining the sense of the Resolve by valid reasoning, but Pro chose to take a tangential journey of rebuttal by an argument of misinterpretation of scriptural translation over time. This is, factually, a valid argument, but not in the manner of Pro's approach, which was not oppositional to the Resolve, i.e., that the lock on hell's door is outside the door, thus unavailable to its inhabitants to unlock, and therefore, in agreement with the "everlasting hell" of Con's scriptural references. Thus, Con's argument prevailed.
Further, Pro forfeited the last two rounds; 50% of the debate. one seldom will win a debate ignoring half of its rounds, and failing to overcome the opponent's arguments.
Con wins the debate.
Yes
To be clear, this debate assumes for the sake of argument that heaven and hell exist?
It's an interesting theory, and I don't qute know what to think about it. I think it provides a better explanation than the traditional heaven and hell dynamic but I don't believe it's a full explanation.
I like c.s Lewis
I read his books in year 3
It was good
So you propose a very nonsense topic and want someone else to defend it? Or do you suspect it to be true and want someone to convince you?