God's Word Teaches Annihilationism

In response to my opponent's claims: 1. My opponent did not offer a definition for annihilationism in his Round 1. He didn't even offer a definition as a rebuttal to my own definition in his Round 2. Instead he claims annihilationism is an ancient position... but he doesn't explain that position. 2. My opponent claims he disagrees with my statement "condemned unbelievers will be destroyed or annihilated after death," but only offers a semantic argument, rather than genuine disagreement. He still, at this point, has not offered an alternative definition for annihilationism, rather he has merely pointed out there may be a varying interpretation of the same definition. 3. My opponent obviously recognizes this is a typo, and should realize I was referring to "conditional mortality." 4. My opponent's only rule was that sources not be linked. He didn't set a standard for which version of the Protestant canon he was referring to, so I chose the most accepted version. I offered my opponent the choice of breaking his own rule to justify using any other version with conditions. His response implies he would rather stick to the version he has studied, and the ulterior motive of suppressing alternative interpretations. My rule welcomes all interpretations with the caveat that any variance from the generally accepted true translation (the KJV) be justified with original language references. 5. My opponent seems to misunderstand my standard for the burden of proof. A "normal" person would be one using their own rationale, and objective examination of the arguments rather than their own beliefs, or what a person in position of authority taught them. This condition is presented so as to reject authoritative appelation to leaders of denominations that present their own interpretations, rather than a truthful examination of the texts. 6. Critical thinking is rejected when you accept faith. This is a standard of faith. As such, I am placing the burden on sound interpretation of the actual texts regardless of their scientific veracity or truthfulness, rather their integrity within the context. 7. My rules and definitions may have seemed like an ambush, but that is my opponent's own doing. His own rules state that rules and definitions would be laid out int he first round. He laid out only two rules: 1. Rules and definitions will be posted in the first round (along with rules for the following rounds), and 2. no posting of links. I am currently in violation of the first rule only in response to my opponent's refusal to debate. 8. My rejection of the notion that "God's word" is contained in one book does not affect my ability to accurately debate this topic. In fact, my opponent may be showing I have more of an ability to debate this topic than someone with a biased opinion, emotional attachment, and subjective investment in their position. I gave my opponent the free will to decide what he would identify as God's word, and I even packaged it in the form of variances of the KJV bible. I did not start discussing the Qur'an, nor the Baghavad Gita, nor the Book of Mormon, nor did I even suggest we should look to these other sources as the context of our debate. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Annihilationism defined: http://christianity.about.com... http://www.theopedia.com... http://reknew.org... These definitions are from very different sources, and they all agree on the basic premise of my definition. My opponent has no rational reason for refusing this debate after posing it to begin with. I fit the criteria for accepting the debate, and I accepted an open debate. I followed the rules as much as I have been allowed to, and I've done nothing deceptive nor destructive to the integrity of this debate.