Child birth should be considered immoral
Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
First round is for acceptance.
Second and third for arguments and counter-arguments as you see fit.
Last if for summary and counter-arguments (no new arguments).
Burden of proof in on me.
If there is a problem with the rules of the debate, say so in the comments before accepting the debate, or else you are bound by the rules.
I wish my opponent strength in argument for both of our sakes.
Firstly, I will argue why life is most likely bad for you or anyone.
Secondly, in the following round, I will deal with the problem of creating other people's lives.
Suffering is bad
Suffering , in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer?" Some may argue that suffering can be good if it means to strengthen character, or if to suffer less in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that no rational being would ever pick suffering over non-suffering. Thus, suffering is bad (unless there is reason to suffer).
Life is discomfort
Any sentient creature on this planet will have a state of discomfort that motivates him/her to eliminating it. At best, the discomfort is eliminated with a transcended, euphoric feeling. For example, say you slave away at a "monkey-work" job in India, working 10 hours a day to make enough money to keep you alive for the day. You also know that the conditions you work in are terrible compared to the rest of the world's. You then receive 200 billion rupees for winning the national lottery. The feeling would be indescribable. But, I argue that it was only because of your prolonged suffering in a slave job that you were able to feel such a fantastic emotion. In other words, you had to suffer greatly in order to feel good. You had to have a nearly unbearable itch before it could be scratched. You could only have that thoroughly interesting conversation after having sat through dozens of boring ones, or not having had conversations for a longish time. You can only be happy with what you have after not having it. Contemplate for a moment just how soul-destroying that kind of existence was before the luck -- the fantastic feeling was anything but guaranteed. This is not to mention the deprivation revitalising soon after the money is received -- the need for "more". Perhaps it will not be "more money", but rather a companion of some kind, maybe an accolade. Thus, discomfort soon arises after comfort has been met. How is it justifiable to bring someone into existence that will be deprived incessantly?- and most likely suffer as a result?
Your life is far worse than you probably recognise
Ever heard the terms, "it is what it is," "that"s just life" or "life isn't fair"? These, I will now argue, are coping devices used to convince ourselves that our lives aren't that bad. How often do you hear these kinds of things after something terrible has happened, such as the house-dog defecating all over the couch, such as not receiving a job placement after applying for 20 different jobs, such as someone losing his/her best friend? Are these events good? No, because suffering of a kind results. These things are terrible and there is nothing you can do about them! What if a wheelchair-bound lady was brutally raped whilst attending a music concert? Would your response then be, "life isn't fair", as you watch her scream? This is essentially what is done in "day-to-day" life, wherein you convince yourself that these bad things are out of your control, yet are worth struggling through for the hope of alleviating them. How can you justify these things? How could you justify throwing someone into an awful existence like this?
Life isn't always worth living
It is hard to comprehend the true horrors of life -- to exactly what extent "rock-bottom" drops to. When would you say "enough is enough"? What if a person was born with muscular dystrophy, and he/she struggled with regular activities. Would that be a life worth living? Yes? What if a person incurred a crippling type of cancer, requiring 17, hard-to-swallow pills per day? What if a person had that type of cancer, yet was also a quadriplegic?- spending most of his/her time in bed? Is that life worth living? What if the person decided for themselves that the life was not worth living? Clearly, there are some horrible things in life which make the struggle not worthwhile, and bringing a child into this world gives him/her the risk of incurring these horrible things.
Conclusion (thus far)
For my first lot of arguments, I conclude that life is a burden, an incessant deprivation, and therefore most likely suffering. Sure, when the deprivation is eliminated, joy, happiness and the life will be the result. But the likely suffering and uncertainty of the elimination of deprivation create a far more negative atmosphere. In the event that deprivation is not eliminated, suffering is all but assured. Why would you want to bring another sentient human into a world wherein he/she is likely to suffer far more than feel any kind of positive emotion?- there is plenty of reason to not bring anyone into existence.
Suffering Is Bad
My opponent makes the case that suffering is bad. The problem is that one can run a parallel type argument, so she hasn't really proven anything. Take the section directly below:
Happiness And Pleasure Are Good
Happiness and pleasure , in their self, are good things. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: "in a world where there is only happiness and pleasure versus a world with only and non-happiness and non-pleasure, which would you prefer?" Some may argue that happiness and pleasure can be bad if it means to weaken character, or if to be happy or pleasureful less is actually bad in the long-run. However, without any kind of context, with this dichotomy, we can determine that every rational being would pick happiness and pleasure over non-happiness and non-pleasure. Thus, happiness and pleasure are generally good.
My opponents "Suffering Is Bad" section is completely matched with my "Happiness And Pleasure" section.
Life Is Discomfort
Pro mentions situations where people have to go through terrible hardships to finally get to that happiness or pleasure. However, just because there are instances where that is the case, that doesn't mean it is the case most of the time. I am happy engaging in this debate with you, and I didn't have to go through any hardships to achieve this happiness. I am happy to eat a meal. I had to work to do it, but work keeps me busy, I don't mind that much (most people don't either, or else they would all kill themselves instead of going to work). Just sitting on my bed doing nothing as long as it means that I am not suffering or dying seems to be good to some extent.
I will concede that there are discomforts in life. I don't think anyone denies that. Pro simply hasn't proven that there is enough of it, in general, to warrant acceptance of the resolution.
Your Life Is Far Worse Than You Probably Recognise
My opponent just lists a bunch of bad scenarios, and argues that certain phrases such as "Oh well, that's life!" are coping mechanisms to convince ourselves that life is not bad. However, one can look at them in another way. These phrases could be viewed as something that is actually true, and not just a tool for delusion. If someone bakes some cookies and burns them, then throws a hissy fit because they are ruined, and someone says "calm down, nobody said life would be perfect"; that seems like a perfectly reasonable response, and not a tool for self-delusion at all. Some people only see the dark side of things, and need to realize that life isn't perfect. It is filled with horrible and terrible things. I even tried to commit suicide when I was a teenager due to the constant bullying. I am glad I didn't though, because these feelings are temporary. I may stub my toe, and it hurts for a few seconds. However, most of the day I am perfectly fine. For the most part life is good.
I will concede that human life, naturally without the aid of human invention is bad. A long time ago, we only lived to be about 25. Most of us died of teeth problems, and most mothers died in childbirth. However, with modern food and medicine, life has seemed to make a shift. Since the debate is in the present tense; I think most people would agree that life is worth living.
If life is so bad, then why is the suicide rate so low compared to the amount of people that want to live? This makes no sense. The fact my opponent hasn't killed herself presupposes that her life is good and worth living. If not, why not take a load of pills and end it?
Life Isn't Always Worth Living
Not always, sure. However, nothing is 100%, all the time. It is not always wrong to steal, or always wrong to kill, or torture if necessary. However, those things aren't considered moral in general. Thus, my opponent hasn't really proven her case in context with this section.
My opponent hasn't provided any convincing arguments. Suffering is bad, but happiness and pleasure are good. One cannot experience happiness or pleasure without being born. How can giving birth be bad, or immoral? Pro would have to show that the suffering of life overall trumps the happiness, hope, or pleasure of life over all. This seems like a hard task to do. Why? My opponent talks about what most "rational beings" would do. However, if you ask most rational beings they would ask to live! It is mostly people with with depression and mental issues who weren't thinking straight would think life is bad and want to end it. Even people starving in Africa do not think life is bad enough to commit mass suicide with regards to the starving. Therefore, if my opponent wants to make the "most rational beings would say X, therefore, X is true" argument, then it can be used to show that life is generally good. This is presupposed by the fact that only 1,000,000 people worldwide commit suicide each year [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...] and virtually all of them suffered depression, or some other mental issues (they weren't thinking rationally). There are 7,000,000, 000 on this planet. This means, that last year, 6,999,000,000 didn't chose non-life over life, while the measly 1,000,000 that due weren't rational thinkers and probably suffered depression. Is virtually all of the world population irrational? What makes Pro so rational?
I don't have to prove the resolution false. All I have to do is undermine my opponent's arguments. I have done that.
I’ll start with counter-arguments first.
Suffering Is Bad
Yes, but the fact that this kind of horrible misery can happen is a serious problem. It is like drink-driving (which we, ironically, have laws against). You are unlikely to cause an accident whilst you are driving drunk, but there is still a risk that you could cause irreversible, excessive harm to yourself and/or others. Similarly, giving birth to a child can cause some seriously horrific things to happen (albeit a lot are unlikely), and some are even likely (such as experiencing a loved one’s death).
“I am happy engaging … (most people don't either, or else they would all kill themselves instead of going to work).”
This isn’t about only you, sorry. One person’s contentment with existence doesn’t excuse the poverty, hardship, disease, war and all other terrible things. Your parents hadn’t a clue that your life would have turned out the way it has. You could have developed some crippling disease. You could have been raped as a child. It is through mere fortune that none of these disastrous things happened to you (and this is to ignore all the burdens of ‘day-to-day’ life).
“Just sitting on my bed doing nothing as long as it means that I am not suffering or dying seems to be good to some extent.”
I would argue that boredom will eventually overcome you, which is suffering in itself, but your argument seems to be missing the point (i.e. would everyone sit on a bed all day and be content with life?).
Nonsense -- barring hyper-specific context: getting out of bed in the morning on a cold day is uncomfortable. A neighbour having a barking dog is uncomfortable. Feeling the need to go to the toilet is uncomfortable. Having an itch is uncomfortable. Stubbing your toe is comfortable. Getting sworn at is uncomfortable. Not having a seat on the beat is uncomfortable. Burning yourself with hot microwave-food is uncomfortable. Realising that you’re struggling to get to sleep is uncomfortable. Thinking about being uncomfortable is uncomfortable. How many must I list before you say that “there is enough of it”? Do honestly doubt that there isn’t any more? You might also laugh at the triviality of these, but none of these are positive things and are relatively common.
The fact that you have to say that “life isn’t perfect,” is another cop-out phrase used to justify shortcoming. Is it good that the cookies are burnt? No. You are trying to suggest that this isn’t too bad, but you have already conceded the argument if that is your line of reasoning: that life isn’t ‘too bad’. It’s like saying that, ‘getting punched in the face once is better than getting punched in the face twice,’ as if you have to get punched in the face.
“…However, most of the day I am perfectly fine.”
No, it’s that you’ve been trained to ignore or cope with the suffering that life almost ensures. It’s a relativity scheme in which you convince yourself that you’re fine. You might say things like, “I was bullied at school and that really sucked. I don’t have that anymore – life is great,” but you’re only saying that your life is great because it’s better than what you had previously. It would be like someone on a slave-wage getting double the amount. Whilst the amount is not passable as a liveable wage, the person would feel ecstatic because the wage earned now is far better than it was. However, in reality, it’s a negative-sum game in which the person is in a less-bad position than he/she was in before, rather than a truly positive one.
Because there are many other pressures that influence a person’s decision to kill themselves, let alone having the internal courage and reasoning to do so; anti-life reasoning isn’t exactly taught in school (i.e. not socially conditioned) because suicide can be very detrimental on other people’s lives (i.e. the ones not wanting to kill themselves). People understand the great suffering killing themselves will bring to their loved ones, let alone the humiliation of self in ‘being weak’ or ‘giving up’.
Besides, I am not advocating for suicide, I am merely arguing that life is generally bad.
“The fact my opponent hasn't killed herself presupposes that her life is good and worth living.”
Ad Hominem, address only my arguments, please.
I made this point to break the barrier of, ‘life is always worth living’, which you seem to have conceded that it is not. That is all.
By bringing someone into existence, you are gambling with someone else’s welfare without his/her consent
Would it be considered moral for you to go into a casino with someone else’s life-savings, and for you to gamble with it all? The fact is that you could potentially gain a great amount of money for the person, but it is also plausible that you could ruin his/her life. However, consider if you were to gamble with his/her money without his/her consent. Would anyone consider this moral?
Similarly, by bringing a child into existence, you are gambling with his/her welfare without his/her consent. His/her life doesn’t have to be miserable for this to be immoral.
Furthermore, let’s consider some specific scenarios. Would it be immoral for a 3rd World person to bring a human into existence knowing that poverty and slavery are almost assured? Let’s take the best case scenario, wherein someone is born into riches, a loving family and a perfect state of health. Is this person more likely to be happy than the one born into poverty and slavery? Yes. Are they assured happiness, joy etc.? No. The fact is that even when the conditions are reasonably the best, they can still result in great suffering.
Life is generally bad for most people, and in the event that it isn't, it is still immoral to gamble with someone else's welfare by bringing him/her into existence without his/her consent.
Suffering Is Bad
Yes, in general (besides isolated instances), suffering is bad. I do not think anything more needs to be said in this regard.
Happiness And Pleasure Are Good
My opponent says that the problem with this section from me is that suffering always occurs first and it is not always alleviated. She did absolutely nothing to support this. Giving an example of one instance where suffering occurred first and was not alleviated, wouldn't show that suffering always occurs first and is not always alleviated. Also, pertaining to my opponent's example, one can be in a neutral zone (not suffering, or feeling pleasure), with getting a Job causing the switch from a neutral state to having pleasure. There is nothing which necessitates that one has to be suffering prior to feeling pleasure or happiness. Since the support for her contention was not sufficient; we are left with no valid reason accept my opponent's proposition that suffering always occurs first and it is not always alleviated.
Pro also claims that people are not always given jobs in their lives, or even jobs that they feel satisfied with. This is obviously true, but trivial. People would rather be homeless than not have life. If this wasn't true, then more bums would commit suicide. I am not satisfied with my job (I think it sucks). However, I would rather have that and survive than not have life, as would most rational people. Nobody ever said life was easy, but it doesn't follow from the fact that life is hard, that life isn't worth living to the point where giving birth is immoral. That is a radical position that no list of horrible things in life can support. It doesn't matter how many terrible things my opponent lists, she must show that these things make life not worth living. This has not been accomplished.
Life Is Discomfort
"Yes, but the fact that this kind of horrible misery can happen is a serious problem."
The real issue is that Pro has not demonstrated that it is a big enough problem to deem non-life > life (remember, Pro has the burden of proof in this debate; not me). Life is full of discomfort. I mean, I have a pretty bad head ache right now, but even if we take all these things collectively; it still doesn't mean that it is uncomfortable to the point where non-life is the best option. How come the world isn't engaged in mass suicide, and the population keeps growing if life is so bad?
Also, her "driving while drunk" example is a bad one. One can still cause an accident even if they are not drunk. My best friend died in 2007 in a car accident and the driver did not have a drink. This doesn't mean that diving is bad.
"One person’s contentment with existence doesn’t excuse the poverty, hardship, disease, war and all other terrible things"
Yes there is poverty, hardship, disease, war and many other terrible things. There is also wealth, comfort, good health, peace, and many other wonderful things. My opponent is only looking at one side of the coin here. For the most part, there is less suffering than non-suffering. I have a head ache now, but I don't most of the time. When I stub my toe it hurts, but not most of the time. These instances of suffering are never usually enough to warrant life not worth living. As I said, about 1,000,000 people commit suicide each year, but that is nothing compared to the world population. Most people clearly agree that life is worth living regardless of all the hardship. There are children starving in Africa that are not killing themselves. There is no good reason to think that all this suffering deems life not worth living.
"I would argue that boredom will eventually overcome you, which is suffering in itself, but your argument seems to be missing the point (i.e. would everyone sit on a bed all day and be content with life?"
I didn't say "all day", that is a straw-man. My point was that most of the time, suffering is not occurring. Thus, it appears as if the suffering that does occur doesn't make life not worth living overall.
"Nonsense -- barring hyper-specific context: getting out of bed in the morning on a cold day is uncomfortable..."
My opponent just lists uncomfortable things. However, I can name comfortable things. Waking up next to a beautiful woman is comfortable, eating a tasty hot breakfast is comfortable, watching a funny television show is comfortable, drinking a beer is comfortable, being with family and friends is comfortable.
All my opponent is doing is listing uncomfortable things. Well, I can list comfortable things. My opponent must show that these discomforts warrant the conclusion. So far, it seems as if she just wants us to take it on faith.
Your Life Is Far Worse Than You Probably Recognise
It is not good that the cookies are burnt. That doesn't mean that life isn't worth living. If someone thinks life isn't worth living over cookies burning; they may have some serious mental issues. I have been punched in the face many times, as have many people. People rarely deem non-life > life over getting in a few fights.
My opponent says that I'm just trying to convince myself that I am fine when I say that I am fine most of the time. However, I can just say my opponent is just trying to convince herself that he is not fine. I do not have the burden of proof in this debate; she does. It is her who must prove that most of the time, most people are not fine. Even with people who suffer most of their lives don't deem non-life > life! You don't see mass suicides in Africa, they all want to stay alive till their last dying breath. Life is something to precious to people, that the suffering is worth it. Until my opponent can prove that false; she has no case.
As far as the suicide part is concerned, her answers are unconvincing. She claims that some people don't have the courage to end their lives, but who needs courage to end something so bad? If life is so terrible, then it actually takes courage not to kill yourself and face that pain. This means, my opponent's courage argument fails. It would actually take more courage to stay alive if life is as bad as my opponent makes it out to be. Additionally, the reason anti-life reasoning isn't taught in school is that it is flawed reasoning (as I have demonstrated). Also, it is true that people may not want to kill themselves because it may hurt loved ones. However, if life is so bad, then their loved ones should be happy that person is gone. The very fact that those people would be negatively effected by the loss of that person's life, presupposes that person's life was good!
My opponent accuses me of an Ad Hominem, but that is an informal fallacy. Pro hasn't shown that it applies to what we are speaking about, because the subject is inherently personal. When the subject is personal, making arguments based on personal aspects is sometimes the only sound way to argue. Therefore, in this case, at the very least, Pro would have to show I committed the fallacy; and not just bare-assert it.
Life Isn't Always Worth Living
This point is trivial, as it does nothing to establish the resolution (not even in a cumulative case).
Pro's New Argument
"By bringing someone into existence, you are gambling with someone else’s welfare without his/her consent"
Pro backs up the argument with a gambling example. However, people lose most of the time at the Casino. Pro hasn't showed that in general, people lose enough in life to not make it a safe bet. Also, even though suffering is bad, that doesn't mean that a person who causes it is doing something immoral. If my arm randomly hits someone, I caused suffering, but I couldn't control it, so it wasn't immoral. Many people in third world countries don't have birth control or access to abortion clinics (with men who aggressively desire sex which makes it hard for females to say no). Thus, even if one causes mass harm on a child by giving birth in a world of suffering, that wouldn't necessarily make the mother immoral.
Pro simply hasn't established the resolution.
Happiness And Pleasure Are Good
Try to understand the general principle, as it is more important than the examples. You must feel the need to itch first in order to want to scratch. You must feel a grumble in your stomach first in order to satisfy your hunger. This constant wishing for things, which leads to happiness when the wish comes true, comes only through not having things, and that is uncomfortable. If you weren’t suffering, then you would feel no need to do it, as this ‘neutral state’ would not be convincing enough. Have you ever heard someone say, ‘I don’t care either way, therefore I must do this’? Thus, pleasure is the result of overcoming discomfort/suffering/deprivation.
This is an appeal to popularity. Slavery was once accepted by most, does that make it right? A rational person would not choose to suffer if he/she understood the burden of existing, and was not preoccupied with the superficial instincts to survive. It is in no sense trivial that people do not enjoy their jobs. They are clearly suffering as a result, which, as we know, is bad. Sure, it is not a convincing reason to end your life, rather part of a cumulative negative conglomeration that is far more persuading. It is the state of existing as a sentient entity that is the problem, and this is just one of the many negatives that result.
“Nobody ever said life was easy, but it doesn't follow from the fact that life is hard, that life isn't worth living to the point where giving birth is immoral.”
I argued that life brings about much suffering, not that it was ‘hard’. Seeing that suffering is bad, and that there is more suffering than pleasure in the world, people should not be brought into it.
“… It doesn't matter how many terrible things my opponent lists, she must show that these things make life not worth living...”
Are these instances of suffering not important? Does it not matter that human psychology produces more suffering than pleasure due to its nature? It is the suffering that results which should not be ignored and brushed off in the way of my opponent.
I’ll try rephrasing: because people have a natural state of wanting to live, regardless of the circumstances. It is a biological result of evolution (i.e. the humans that survived in the past were the ones not killing themselves), perpetuated through media and government encouraging people not to kill themselves. It is also reinforced through loved one’s pressure (‘I will become sad if you kill yourself; please don’t do it’). It is also scary to kill yourself, especially if you don’t know what will happen afterwards.
You have missed the point entirely. Yes, you can still cause an accident if you’re not drunk, but it is wrong to drive drunk because it significantly increases the risks of an accident. Similarly, by having a child, even though the risk of the child being born into an incredibly horrific state is low, it’s still a risk that you taking for someone else without his/her consent.
But if you didn’t have a headache, you could have countless other things – you are creating a false-dichotomy.
“These instances of suffering are never usually enough to warrant life not worth living.”
These things happen frequently, it’s just such a ‘part of life’ that you don’t look closely at them and say, ‘hey, these things are bad’. Yes, they’re not all catastrophic, but there is still an overall accumulation of suffering over pleasure.
You were so vague that I couldn’t pin-point what you were saying. Besides, even if it’s not occurring all the time, suffering amount exceeds positive things because it occurs first.
Those things you have listed as comfortable are only so because you had the discomfort to begin with. You can only appreciate a beautiful woman because you are not with one constantly with a deprivation state of sexuality (i.e. you need to be sexually attracted to women before you can be attracted to them). Eating a tasty, hot breakfast can only be comfortable should you be without good food constantly, or hungry for food (i.e. you have a deprivation state that requires satisfaction). It is by existing in a state of being able to be satisfied by food that makes you suffer beforehand when you are not satisfied.
Clearly, we were talking metaphorically.
I would argue that the decision is not a rational one, predicated upon, ‘it will be sad if you die’ or something similar. Besides, if you want to live as a quadriplegic with agonising cancer, then that decision is ultimately yours, but you have no right to impose the risk of that upon someone else by creating him/her without consent.
It’s not necessarily always “so bad”, it’s that it’s usually more bad than good. Again, people are influenced by a numerous of non-rational influences; do people always make rational decisions?
“The very fact that those people would be negatively effected by the loss of that person's life, presupposes that person's life was good!”
I am arguing against the procreation of people. If people weren’t born in the first place, we wouldn’t have this problem. Furthermore, by advocating procreation, you have the problem of people having to suffer through the loss of others. The life was only good in the sense that it fills the deprivation of the loved ones (e.g. need for comfort/love), but if neither existed in the first place, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
You should not be refuting my arguments by attacking my character. The fact that I haven’t killed myself should not be used to discredit my argument, because it is not relevant to the resolution. Even if after finishing this debate, I went out and had hundreds of babies, this does not refute my argument.
Depends on which game you are playing, but this is beside the point. The point is that if you go gambling (procreating) with another person’s life inheritance (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral.
“If my arm randomly hits someone, I caused suffering, but I couldn't control it, so it wasn't immoral.”
Sex isn’t random. You don’t have to have sex in the first place, especially when these risks are involved.
“Many people in third world countries don't have birth control or … that wouldn't necessarily make the mother immoral.”
Again, you don’t have to have sex in the first place.
Happiness And Pleasure Are Good
Pro wants us to accept this general principle:
GP: One must suffer first before being motivated to be happy or pleasureful
I see no reason to accept GP. Many times one can be happy, but be motivated towards a different form of happiness. It wouldn't follow from this that the former happiness was suffering. In fact, I would think that is self-evidently false. I am happy right now in context 1, but I am motivated to be happy in in context 2 as well, and this has nothing to do with any previous suffering.
Even if we accept GP, how does this really effect the resolution? There are many missing premises. Pro would have to show that the good that comes from the previous suffering isn't enough to deem the suffering trivial; she does not have any rounds left to do that.
I made the argument that most rational people would rather be alive and live a life with a lot of suffering, than not have life. I cited bums in the street who would rather barely make it every day than die (and all the people in Africa). The ones that do kill themselves suffer from depression, and aren't very rational. My opponent says this about my argument:
"This is an appeal to popularity."
This is clearly a case of a double standard and special pleading. In her first round to support the notion that suffering is bad, she said:
"Suffering , in itself, is a bad thing. This can be determined by simply asking any sentient, rational being the question: in a world where there is only suffering and non-suffering, which would you prefer?"
It seems appealing to popularity is alright when it comes to her arguments, but when it comes to mine it is not. If we run with this notion of an appeal to popularity being fallacious, then this undermines her support for suffering being bad meaning that premise now has to be rejected, thus, making her argument obsolete by default.
The Good, The Bad
"Sure, it is not a convincing reason to end your life, rather part of a cumulative negative conglomeration that is far more persuading."
My opponent forgets that I listed plenty of good things to match with her bad scenarios. We can list bad and good situations all day, but it is not going to get Pro any closer to meeting her burden of proof.
"Seeing that suffering is bad, and that there is more suffering than pleasure in the world, people should not be brought into it."
Pro simply never showed that there is more suffering in the world than not; this is the point. She just listed all these bad scenarios like "what do you think?". The problem is I can just list plenty of good scenarios; this gets us nowhere. Regardless, even if there is more suffering than bad there are still missing premises. Perhaps life is intrinsically valuable, and no amount of suffering could damage the goodness of life. My opponent is just expecting us to take the resolution on faith, without closing any of the huge gaps in the argument she presented.
"It is the suffering that results which should not be ignored and brushed off in the way of my opponent."
This is just more of my opponent delving into the dark world of double standards. Pro has ignored and brushed off much of the good that results from suffering that I mentioned, and presupposes that this good isn't good enough to deem life > non-life. Why believe that?
Life Is Uncomfortable
"I’ll try rephrasing: because people have a natural state of wanting to live, regardless of the circumstances."
My opponent's whole case is shut down off of this self-refuting statement alone. This is because she concedes that suffering doesn't matter to people in the long run, and that life is more important. If this is the case, then all the suffering my opponent points to is trivial with regards to supporting the resolution, when previously, she acted like the suffering somehow made life, in general, bad. However, the only argument my opponent used to support the notion that suffering was bad was an appeal to popularity. Since my opponent admits that most people would rather live and put up with the suffering than not, then this means that based on the same logic she used to support the notion that suffering is bad; suffering isn't bad enough to warrant non-life > life.
Once the mother gives birth, and that child has a will to live, then according to my opponent, the suffering won't matter. Pro literally has no case now.
"You have missed the point entirely. Yes, you can still cause an accident if you’re not drunk, but it is wrong to drive drunk because it significantly increases the risks of an accident."
Ironically, my opponent misses the point. Even if driving drunk increases the risk, there is still that risk with regards to driving without being drunk. How is increasing a risk necessarily immoral, but engaging in that risk in the first place isn't?
"But if you didn’t have a headache, you could have countless other things – you are creating a false-dichotomy"
Things like headaches and stubbing toes are relatively uncommon, most of the time people aren't tripping and constantly in pain. I think it is self-evident with with regards to most people that we are not suffering most of the time.
"Besides, even if it’s not occurring all the time, suffering amount exceeds positive things because it occurs first."
The above is a non-sequitur: the order doesn't determine which exceeds which.
"Those things you have listed as comfortable are only so because you had the discomfort to begin with. You can only appreciate a beautiful woman because you are not with one constantly with a deprivation state of sexuality."
My opponent appeals to GP here, but I already discussed the problems with it earlier in this round. Either way, if we accept GP, all this could be showing is that the suffering was good. Why? Well, if I didn't suffer, then I couldn't experience the good of waking up next to a beautiful woman; which clearly trumps the suffering. Suffering is good if it leads to a greater good. I will hold out on smoking marijuana for a week (suffer), just so when I smoke again I will get more pleasure (happiness). People purposely cause suffering on themselves specifically for the reason of the happiness that will occur. My opponent even conceded that people would agree that life is worth the suffering based on a will to live (she clearly accepts appeals to popularity based on the "Suffering Is Bad" section).
Your Life Is Far Worse Than You Probably Recognise
"...but you have no right to impose the risk of that upon someone else by creating him/her without consent."
Pro hasn't shown that this risk is substantial enough to warrant the claim that creating someone is immoral. Life is a precious gift from nature, and as my opponent concedes; people agree that the will to stay alive trumps the suffering. Even if this is popularity, Pro has to accept it, or reject her support for the notion that suffering is bad (and forfeit that point).
"I am arguing against the procreation of people."
Here is another reason why my opponent's argument falls flat. My opponent is advocating taking away people's basic human rights (the right to procreate). This is itself immoral, no?
"You should not be refuting my arguments by attacking my character"
I wasn't "attacking" anyone's character.
Pro's New Argument
"The point is that if you go gambling (procreating) with another person’s life inheritance (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral."
The above is only true if the risk is high enough to justify such a conclusion. Sufficient support for this simply has not been brought to the table.
"... you don’t have to have sex in the first place."
It is a basic human right. Anything that undercuts people's basic human rights are usually not moral (this seems to include the idea that people shouldn't give birth).
Pro cannot win, because if an appeal to popularity is fallacious then her support for suffering being bad fails (her arguments rest upon it). If it is not, then my objections go through.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|