CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
0
Yes! Remove the reward. No! Respect the culture.
Debate Score:4
Arguments:2
Total Votes:4
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! Remove the reward. (2)

Debate Creator

marcusmoon(244) pic



Should the US Send Terrorists & Jihadis to Hell

According to what I have read (and I may be wrong about some Muslims' beliefs) Muslims believe all people will spend at least some time in hell, except those who die in waging jihad against non-Muslims.  Apparently, many Muslims believe that these Jihadis go straight to Paradise, get 72 virgins, etc.  However, if the body is dismembered, cremated, or defiled, the Muslim's soul cannot enter Paradise.

Should US military and law enforcement agencies confiscate the bodies of those who die committing terrorism or waging jihad against the US and our allies, and feed the bodies to pigs so that the terrorists cannot enter paradise?

Yes! Remove the reward.

Side Score: 4
VS.

No! Respect the culture.

Side Score: 0
3 points

"However, if the body is dismembered, cremated, or defiled, the Muslim's soul cannot enter Paradise."

Since the most common method of martyrdom is by suicide bomb, wouldn't they already have dismembered and cremated themselves? Is this actually written in a Muslim holy book?

Side: Yes! Remove the reward.
1 point

I am no longer part of the debate wherein the thread originated.

I do not mean to imply that randomness is indicative of free will, but rather that some randomness is necessary for free will. Without randomness, universal and consistent laws of physics would act on the beginning state of matter and energy in the universe with an absolute consistency that would create a deterministic state of the universe

We may be speaking past each other, which is why I had hoped you would provide your idea of free will. Even in your explanation here you seem to invoke randomness for freedoms sake. If randomness is necessary for free will, then your notion of free will must be one wherein some effects in the universe are completely unpredictable. If it is appropriate to narrow this to the human experience, then you are saying that it is necessary that we act in ways entirely devoid of causes in order to claim free will. If this is correct, it is the view of free will that I have been arguing against.

The term possible outcomes would be applicable only because we did not have enough data to predict which was the inevitable outcome. With some randomness in the universe, there are no inevitabilities.

Whichever is that case cannot be known. Lack of information can appear to be randomness just as much as randomness itself. Thus, the term possible outcomes is always applicable to humans since we will never have enough data.

The function of the randomness is to break the universality of determinism. This makes it possible for there to be things to choose amongst, because the path of the universe is not set

Randomness does not make it possible to choose in any sense that isn’t possible under determinism. If you take action based on a random variable, you are not more free than if you take action based on a causal variable. If you act randomly rather than determining your action yourself, you are less free. If randomness does anything for free will, it destroys it.

- If the universe is locked down by a deterministic interplay of the laws of physics with matter and energy, then it is impossible for free will to affect matter, because its paths are predetermined.

If you are one of the variables in the causal chain, then it is your will, based on preceding causes, that determines the next effect. Free will means being a causal variable. Whether you’re a random variable or a determined variable is somewhat irrelevant.

Side: Yes! Remove the reward.
No arguments found. Add one!