Ministry to a girl facing execution

Point 1 - No AfterlifeI presented the argument that the lack of a known afterlife meant that his claims of one were false. While there may very well be religious voters who believe in an afterlife, even specifically a Christian one, I expect that if required to you could give a rationale for your beliefs whether it's the accuracy of your holy book, the holes in science, etc, etc. It's not necessary that I agree with you, but you would be able to offer a reason why you believe your belief is supported. Bearski has not done this. When challenged that the entire idea of an afterlife is false, he has twice completely ignored the issue and not devoted even a single sentence to offering a rationale for why we should beleive there is not an afterlife. If there is no afterlife then the Pastor was wrong in his claims and advice. As Bearski has offered no defence and doesn't consider this even though it has been pointed out twice, considering "Will it be with God or will be for eternity in Satan's Pit" the only options. I feel on this point alone you must vote in my favour as Pro has utterly failed to respond. Point 2 - Not correct according to Christian doctrineSimilarily on my second point, that the pastor has advised the girl in a manner incompaitble with Christianity that (If Christianity is true) would surely not save her soul but instead damn her to hell, breakski has again failed to respond. IN R2 he did nearly touch on the issue when he said "the pastor is not merely telling the woman to repent but to genuinely repent and to ask for forgiveness. Very simple, honest and practical advice". Howerver the issue is not whether it is honest simply or rpactical, but whether it actually represents christian teachings and would do what the pastor said even if the christian afterlife was real. As I showed in R1 acceptance of Jesus is required and "to genuinely repent" is not enough. To merely reiterate that the girl would be repenting and offer no explanation for how she could possibly be saved when she has not been advised to accept Jesus means that Bearski has one again completely avoided dealing with the issue raised. Once again, this single issue alone should be enough to gaurentee a vote for me. Point 3 - Lying about certaintyOn the third issue of her execution and wether the pastor is right to say she will die, Bearski misstates the situation. He claims that "[Overhead] imagines bizarre events which of no chance of happening". This is of course clearly untrue. Although unlikely people having their sentences commuted, prison riots, natural disasters and much more do happen. The pastor's claims are untrue. While this may seem like a technacality, it is an important technacality as the supposed certainty of the girl's death is used to pressure her into following through with what the Pastor wants. Moreover as shown in R2 is is also morally wrong from a religious standpoint as Christian believers should not claim to know the future. As Bearski never gives a reason for WHY these events are supposedly impossible, he has again failed to address my claims. Overall I think Bearski has failed to comprehend my argument. take for isntance his parting sentence "By the way if I was taking the other side I would talk about what the pastor might have, could have, and should have said to the girl instead of or in addition to what he said at the end. " Seeing as I specificalyl did point out what the pastor could have said to the girl instead, for instance informing her of the actual Christian doctrine which would save her immortal soul rather than only telling her a portion of it that alone would condemn her to hell (Point 2). I would also express my umbrage at Bearski suggesting in R3 that I should have assumed hypotheticals about things like the pastor's potential point of view. I find this very hypocritical when he has unilaterally claimed any hypotheticals I assume about the scenario are wrong without offering ashred of evidence or reason for this (The one exception being his reason that the US doesn't use gas chambers, though this was an incorrect claim as was shown by my sources). Bearski's claims Bearski did not provide an argument in R1 and R2 was meant as a rebuttal to my points. Although it is somewhat vague, R3 is the closest Bearski actually comes to presenting a positive argument to support his own position. His claims seem to rest on "When the pastor answers the girl telling her she is to die because the law requires it and she must be punished he is being honest with himself and with her" and "The pastor doesn't want to give her false hope". However as explained (and never defended by Bearski), the pastor has done both of these things. He had no evidence or rationale to back up his statements. That's really all there is to say. His posts were fairly long but lacking in useful content.