The following users will probably go to hell because Christian theism is true.

My opponent seems very confused as to how resolutions work. He has put forth "The following users will probably go to hell because Christian Theism is true." As I have shown, the proper negation of this is "The following users will probably NOT go to hell because Christian Theism is true." The alternative negations involve either a nonsensical statement, or lack a change in the status quo. The instigator's burden with the resolution is ALWAYS to urge a change in the status quo. Since my opponent's resolution contains a given that is not part of his contention, I am free to assume that the given is true. This is no different than if someone put forth "Objects will fall up because gravity is reversed." Now we all know that gravity can't be reversed, but in the context of the debate, given that gravity is reversed, objects will fall up. Of course, the resolution involves a counterfactual (namely that Christian Theism is true), but resolutions that say things like "If the Nazis Had Won WWII..." are perfectly understandable. I'm simply pointing out that my opponent has decided (incomprehensibly) to work in the framework that assumes Christian Theism is true. So.... Given that Christian Theism is true, the users mentioned will probably go to hell, because they all espouse some sort of anti-God position. ************************************************************ >> "Semantics and invalid logic cannot establish the truth of metaphysical propositions." Which means they can't establish the falsity EITHER, and you just destroyed your own argument, because, as I've mentioned before, in the absence of compelling reason, the debate reverts to the status quo. >> "Since my opponent is arguing in the affirmative the burden of proof is on him to show why this statement is true with evidence." My opponent appears to have not even read his own source... a quote - "The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."" In other words, my opponent's OWN SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org...) states that the person changing the status quo carries the burden of proof. Since our resolution assumes Christian Theism is true, I am not changing the status quo, and need only to show that my opponent's arguments are incomplete. ************************************************************************** I cannot have put it better than my opponent: Everyone on this list is confirmed as being either an atheist or an agnostic. And the resolution my antagonist will try to affirm is that it's reasonable to conclude that these people will have their skeptical doubts rewarded with an eternity of suffering. (I-am-a-panda) (idontbelieveit) (SWfiend) (Ragnar_Rahl) (JBlake) (Nags) (Rezzealaux) (TheSkeptic) (atheistman) (Maikuru) (MTGandP) (comoncents) (Realist) (tmhustler) (theLwerd) (RoyLatham) and, of course, myself (Freeman) As the resolution implies - Given that Christian Theism is true, these users are probably going to hell because they are confirmed atheists or agnostics. AFFIRMED.