TH Prefers a world where the concept of afterlife does not exist

Prime Minister

The perimeter: The house would define said world as where the idea of existence beyond death never
occurs, however, humans still exist with various principles that stem from spiritual, rational and
philosophical origin.

The Goal: The proposition would prove that the overall situation would be preferable over the status
quo where the idea of afterlife is widespread and heavily heeded by a huge portion of the population.

Argument:

 The idea of afterlife makes people debate over unnecessary meta-narrative while the best thing
they can refer to on the discourse are sets of untested claims that can at some point goes
against one another within the same belief. The proposition believes that a world without such
endless disagreement would birth a human civilization that is more productive by folds than the
one we live as at the moment.

Opposition Leader

Goal: The opposition believes that the government made a coherent premise, but their conclusion I far
from being unambiguously correct. The opposition would prove that the afterlife narrative is better
when it is came to known by the human civilization.

Responses

 The proposition blames perpetual conflict as the hamper of human progress, yet such thing
exists outside the afterlife discussion. Right now, humans are largely fighting over political
orientation, land occupation and even on philosophy and economics in many terms. Removing
the idea of afterlife would not do anything meaningful on the matter.

Argument:

 The belief of afterlife is largely harmless and bears no exclusive drawbacks, like any meta
narrative I fiction. In the end secularity and materialistic needs overcame the mindspace of
mankind and become the driving force of their decisions and set principles. Removing the idea
of afterlife from mankind may cost us our imagination, but if one thinks this will automatically fix
the world, they’re very wrong.
Deputy PM

Responses:

 The Leader of the opposition neglected the obvious premise where influential people and
organizations pander to the belief in afterlife to manipulate people to do harmful things, such as
joining their cult. Thus, the harm is exclusive in many cases because the means of manipulation
was ireeplacable.

Argument

 The idea of afterlife leads to extremism, because the concept often talk about transcendence or
higher power that invalidates human rule and gives people a “higher purpose” that bypass their
rationality and lead them to start or follow on the path of terrorism, cultism and deviants, which
even when done on genuine intent, is very harmful.

Deputy OL

Responses

 The proposition is once again trying to frame exclusivity where there is none; humans have also
been led to extremist path over predominantly secularistic ideas such as race supremacy or
deep disappointment towards their government.

Argument

 The egoistical human nature is largely responsible for the perversion of any and all existing idea
there is, thus to dismiss the notion of post-mortality gratification which are actually dictated by
a set of rules that became the root of most moral compass today.