A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

You said: "I accept all of your terms' definitions, Pro; that doesn't mean I have to believe they exist." You accept all the definitions, which included such words as God, saved, sin, child of God, hell, lost, yet you actually believe not a one of them? That's patently dishonest, as I said. Look at it: 1. "A saved person." You don't believe that - yet you sorta "accept the definition". Well, the apposition was used for clarification: 2. "A Christian" You don't believe that, either. You believe there is such a thing as a Christian, but you deny it as an appositive to "saved person may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost." Then this was further defined as: 3. "One who is ... not lost". Well, you don't accept that defintion, either, do you? Nope, because you do not believe in the concept of "lost" in the first place. 4. "May sin" was defined as .. what? Acts committed "contrary to God's law." You do not even believe God has a law. 5. "Eterally lost" defined as "eventually wind up in hell." You accept that "eventually wind up in hell" is an adequate definition, then turn right around and plead, "I don't even believe in a hell." Alright, as quoted above, you said, "I accept all of your terms definitions." No, you don't: that's a blatant lie. You do not accept a one of them. If so, why don't you kindly point out for me which one(s) you do accept. And it is a logical contradiction of the deepest dye to accept definitions, the basically un-accept them - toss them aside - and claim, "Well, they don't exist so I'm not bound by them." You say: For instance, if I made a debate "It's possible for unicorns to live entirely off of fish" and then defined "unicorns" as "a horse with a single horn on its forehead," anyone is welcome to accept and attempt to negate the resolution anyway he/she sees fit, be it explaining that unicorns' diets must consists of more than just fish for survival or explaining that unicorns simply don't exist." LOL No, they're not! You mean to tell me that any honest, logical person could read the proposition, accept it, read the terms, accept them, then do an "about-face" after accepting your definition, "a horse with a single horn ...", and then deny that a unicorn is a "horse with a single horn .." Sir, the person accepted the proposition and the terms/definitions: if he or she didn't agree with any of them, the time to point it out would be before clicking "accept" or else y'all won't be debating the proposition; you'll both be yapping about previously-accepted definitions. You say: "Unless, of course, it was clarified in the instigation that "Whoever accepts this debate must agree unicorns/Hell exist(s)" which you didn't do." Yes, I did: notice the definition of "eternally lost": "eventually wind up in hell." Why, you accepted that; thus, the issue of the existence of God, hell, and, implicitly, heaven became non-issues. You: "Yes, you can argue whatever stance you want." No, actually I can't - not after saying, "I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of 'once saved, always saved'." That means I'm not discussing Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine that there is no hell, doesn't it? Nor am I discussing the Univeralist position that everyone ultimately goes to heaven. I'm arguing against the typical Baptist position which, by the way, is that there is a hell: I have no dispute with them on that subject. You: "I'm sure the regulars here are quite aware I debate religious topics seriously." <-- depends on the definition of "religion", and there are several. If one considers the definition, "to bind again (to God) or to connect again (with a higher power), then you patently do not debate that. You debate science under the "Religion" section. You: "If you make a resolution stating "It's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up in Hell" then it's only natural you will have to, you know... prove that. So far, you have not done so." Ya think there are space constraints on the length of a proposition? The proposition was clarified in the definition: you knew the proposition, and you knew the terms/definitions. This is the deal: 1. You read the proposition - and accepted 2. You read the terms and definitions - and accepted 3. Then you said emphatically that you accept the definitions 4. Anyone with an ounce of logic can see that you accept NOTHING in the definitions except a few a's, of's, this's, and than's. 5. Then you try to turn the discussion into a defense of the existence of hell 6. THEN, to cap it off, blame me because the proposition was not worded to suit you even though you backed out of every definition. You: "I have done nothing but address the resolution of this debate; you have simply failed to meet your burden of proof." I think I've pretty well proved that your acceptance of this debate was a sham. Yet you have the colossal nerve and unmitigated gall to say, with a straight face, ""I accept all of your terms' definitions, Pro; that doesn't mean I have to believe they exist." Well, #1 ... you "accepted" them for a microsecond when you clicked "accept", then practiced some evolutionary "natural selection" and de-selected or de-accepted every one of them. And ... lol ... excused yourself by saying, "I don't believe they exist." Well, hell's bells - if there is a "hell", if the concepts embodied in the terms and definitions do not exist, then the terms are sorta misdefined, don't you think? So, in your eyes, you accepted a debate and the terms, when in actuality you disagreed with every term/definition, then excuse yourself by saying, "I kinda agreed with 'em, but they don't even exist" - so let's argue about the terms. As I said, the dishonesty in the whole thing boils down to your acceptance of a debate when you appreciated fully my position, then your attempt to turn it into a free-for-all based upon (1) terms/definitions that you accepted, then un-accepted and (2) the word choice/semantics of the proposition. How's this: you believe that protons have a positive charge. I'm quite sure you think you can prove it. You make out your proposition and define "proton." I accept your proposition and definitions. Then I'll state that you can't SEE a proton, you can't FEEL a proton, the Bible doesn't MENTION a proton, and there's just no such thing as a proton. You'd think I was an idiot - and I'd sorta have to agree with you. I accepted your proposition and terms/definitions .. I ACCEPTED ... then turned right around and claimed I did not accept your definitions at all. That's about what you've done, and I think most people can see right through it.