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.I am not required to offer any definitions, nether am I required to explain my position as I am not interested in engaging in a rigged debate.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.This is a genuine disagreement. I do not agree with your definition and do not hold to the position that the "condemned believers will be destroyed or annihilated after death". This is not my position nor is this a proper definition of what annihilism teaches.3. My opponent obviously recognizes this is a typo, and should realize I was referring to "conditional mortality."I know that it was a spelling error but you made a different mistake this time. It is not "conditional mortality" but "conditional immortality".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.I have no "ulterior motive suppressing alternative interpretations". I will be debating this same topic with fellow believer ReformedPhilospher and will gladly accept any translation that he uses as long as it is accurately portrays the Koine Greek. I believe that he should hold me to the same standard. I'm sorry but you wrote "As such, we shall stick to the tried and true translation of the King James bible using the 1960 revision as the oldest one we should reference in this debate." I do not agree that the KJV is the "true translation" of the text and therefore find no reason to agree to this rule.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.Well, if I truly did misunderstand it then I am afraid that many other "normal" people might have misunderstood it as well.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.I disagree that critical thinking is rejected when you accept faith and I find this to be one of several extremely offensive things that you have said.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.My invitation to accept the debate and post rules was not a way to offer you a platform to begin your argumentation. 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.I'm sorry but I was seeking an honest debate on the topic. You do not believe that Scripture is God's Word and therefore should never have accepted this debate in the first place. _____________________________________________________________________________________________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.They may agree on the "basic premise" of your definition but they do not agree with your definition and I also reject your 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.The debate topic is not whether I have a rational reason for refusing to debate the topic but is whether "Gods Word Teaches Annihilationism". You should never have agreed to the debate if you do not agree with the topic of the debate. Moreover, you should not have used the acceptance phase of the debate as a platform to begin your argumentation.