Hell does not exist

Last round, my opponent inexplicably made two outrageous claims: 1. Pro claimed that I (CON) made a positive claim that Hell does exist. 2. My opponent claimed I was the instigator! As for claim number one, I challenge my opponent to show where I ever made the positive claim that Hell exists. I didn't, and I don't have to, I am Con. All I have to do is negate Pro's claims, and I win. But dint take my word for it. Let's remember what Debate. org said about the matter: "Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is false, just that there is not enough evidence to prove that the resolution is true. " [1] It's easy to see who is making the positive statement. It's the person with the word "PRO" next to their name. CON negates (which comes from the word "negative"). Now for the silly claim that I am the instigator of this debate. Debate. org tells you who the instigator is. .. the person with the word "instigator" next to their name at the top of the debate. My guess is that Pro realizes his/her mistake. My opponent has only participated in three debates, and may not be familiar with such things as burden of proof. So, now tat my opponent realizes that they made a mistake in crafting the resolution, he/she is trying to shift the burden of proof. Also, since Pro thought it would be a good idea to quote from the debate comments, let me return the favor. Actually, I will quote from two of the commentators: 1. "You are claiming that a hell doesn't exist. "If someone claimed that hell exists, they have the burden of proof. The negation of that claim is not that hell does not exist. The negation of the claim is that hell does not necessarily exist. Likewise, to say that hell does not exist is a truth claim that needs to be backed up. You've made it your job to convince us that hell does not exist. Con just needs to show that you haven't sufficiently justified that claim. The BoP is on whoever is making the claim, and right now, that is you. " 2. "you are pro, so its up to you to back up your claim, sure usually its the guy claiming that should prove his claim, and in this case, you need to prove your claim is true, that hell dosnt exist" Pro went on to say: "In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " (-Opponent) That is true, but "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" (-C. Hitchens)" MY RESPONSE: You are the one making the assertion that "Hell doesn't exist", so that's why I am able to dismiss your claim without evidence. . Christopher Hitchens never participated in a debate where the resolution was something "doesn't exist", so his quote isn't relevant here. WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING We're not debating if God exists. Pro was the first one to bring up the subject of God in this debate. I simply responded to Pro's claim that a good God wouldn't create Hell. Now Pro is asking for proof that God exists, but we're not debating if God exists. Also, for the purpose of this debate, it doesn't matter if God exists. Even if God doesn't exist, Hell could still exist. Therefore, arguing that God doesn't exist is not a valid argument that Hell doesn't exist. There, I've negated all of Pro's arguments, so the resolution is negated.