God's Word Teaches Annihilationism

I will be debating the same topic with a fellow believer here: http://www.debate.org... I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to debate. Unfortunately, in this instance, I have decided not to begin the debate for the following reasons. 1. I do not accept my opponents definition of annihilationism. I would firmly contend for the idea that annihilationism is an ancient position that is not limited to the evangelical community by any means and that to simply call it the "growing Evangelical Christian belief etc." is more of an argument than a proper definition. 2. Neither would I accept this part of the definition of annihilationism presented by my opponent: that "condemned unbelievers will be destroyed or annihilated after death". I do not believe that they will be annihilated "after death" but that their fate will be death. 3. Also, in my opponents definition of annihilationism he stated that "It is directly related to the doctrine of "conditional emortality," I disagree. I have never heard of emortality, cannot find it in the dictionary and I don't see what it has to do with the subject. Of course I say this in jest. It is far more likely that this is simply a spelling error. 4. It was stated: "My opponent needs to show how any normal person reading the KJV bible would reach the rational conclusion (not through science, critical thinking, or common sense, rather through simple reading and unbiased interpretation) that the fate of those who do not believe in Christianity will be annihilated, rather than reaching the mainstream conclusion that sinners will be punished forever in the lake of fire/hell/hades/sheol." I am not a King James Onlyist and do not hold the position that the KJV is the most accurate translation of the text and therefore do not accept the idea that I must limit my arguments to the KJV. In fact, in the debate that I have decided to proceed with, I am using the ESV and will post all of my quotes from the ESV since I have been studying from and taking notes from the ESV (though I occasionally look into the Koine Greek). 5. I do not accept the idea that my burden of proof is such that I must show that any "normal person" (whatever that means) would come to the conclusion that the Scriptures teach annihilationism. Instead, I think my burden of proof would be to show that Scriptures teach annihilationism as this is the title of debate. 6. Neither do I accept the premise that I must prove that they would come to accept that scripture teaches it "(not through science, critical thinking, or common sense, rather through simple reading and unbiased interpretation)". In fact, I believe that critical thinking is extremely important in understanding the bibles teaching on the fate of the wicked. 7. My opponent stated: "So as to not ambush my opponent with these rules, and definitions I will allow him one paragraph to say anything he needs to respond to my Round 1 statements." Definitions and rules should not be an ambush in any sense at all in a debate. It seemed as though your "rules" were a bit of an ambush and I am not sure if they would really qualify as either proper definitions or as rules. Instead it seems that you used the time to make arguments through your rules and through your definition which I find somewhat unsporting. In the future, if you would like to debate this topic or any other topic in a fair and honest manner, I recommend basing your definitions on one given by a dictionary. Moreover, I don't think that commenting on your opponents burden of proof belongs in the acceptance phase of a debate at all and I see it as a breach of the debates format. It is probable that you were even aware of this yourself as you wrote "So as to not ambush my opponent with these rules, and definitions I will allow him one paragraph to say anything he needs to respond to my Round 1 statements." 8. My opponent stated: "Furthermore, we cannot define what is "God's word" unless an actual god is defined, questioned, and documented as having presented his story in his own words." When I saw that my opponent was a deist I questioned why he would accept this debate challenge, especially when he would need to argue from a position which I doubt that he holds to; namely that the bible is God's Word. I am not interested in debating "is God the God proclaimed in the Scriptures" or "Is the bible really God's Word". Instead, the topic of the debate presupposes that both debaters believe that Scripture is in fact God's Word. Because of these reasons I do not believe that I should begin this debate. Instead, I will debating another believing Christian ReformedPhilospher on the same topic here: http://www.debate.org...