The Instigator
Caploxion
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Child birth should be considered immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,419 times Debate No: 43042
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (69)
Votes (5)

 

Caploxion

Pro

4 rounds, 48 hours to argue, 8k characters and a 2 week voting period.

Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Discomfort:

1. Mental or bodily distress.

2. Something that disturbs one's comfort; an annoyance.



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.
Wylted

Con

Thank you for having this debate. I look forward to seeing how you approach this topic.
Debate Round No. 1
Caploxion

Pro

I thank my opponent, Wylted, for accepting this debate. Hopefully, I can provide not only an interesting argument or two, but a cogent, formidable argument overall.

Discomfort is bad

In a world where there is only discomfort and comfort (i.e. no context), no rational sentient animal would choose discomfort over comfort. It is only with context that discomfort could ever be considered preferable, such as a deal that if you were to be uncomfortable now, you would be comfortable for twice the amount of time afterwards. Therefore, it appears to be no less than a truth.

Life is (almost certainly) more discomfort than comfort

I will now argue that life is essentially a ‘negative-sum game’, in which there are states of comfort that all fall below the ‘0’, rather than anything that is truly positive. In other words, positives and negatives are not opposites, rather, states of discomfort.

Anything that is positive is, overall, a result of overcoming a negative. To feel happy, you must have no lingering, serious discomforts. To feel healthy, your body cannot be burdened with ailment. To feel pride for your son/daughter, he/she must overcome something and you must be hoping that he/she will overcome it to begin with. It is not sufficient a counter-argument to say that for every negative there is an equal positive always met, because discomfort requires ‘no alignment of the stars’, rather only the sentient psychology feeling deprived; whereas, elimination of discomfort is not necessarily assured. For example, you cannot be sure that you will be hired for a certain job, yet you can far more easily wish that you could.

Certain actions can produce more positive than negative, but only within themselves. For example, going to the fridge to eat whilst starving, would be an enormously positive trade (the discomfort of having to go the fridge and select food to eat etc. , versus the elimination of starvation). However, given context, it would be apparent that you were unable to satisfy discomforts to begin with, hence the starving state that you found yourself in. Overall, the sum can never reach a true positive, as you have, in reality, only experienced great relief by suffering greatly beforehand.

Conclusively, relative to this section, it would be virtually impossible to reach the ‘0’, as every possible discomfort would have to be accounted for. Therefore, in the event that you cannot eliminate every discomfort, you will have an overall negative sum, meaning that your life is more discomfort than comfort.

Permanent state of discomfort

Through our perception, our mind gives us tasks. Production of these tasks are like the ‘building of broken chairs’, in that there exists no problem in reality outside of our perception. For example, a woman’s nails need not be coloured or manicured; it is only through a combination of a sexual drive and vanity does this ‘broken chair’ seem to need fixing. In other words, if you were without the filter of sentient psychology, you would be able to see that these ‘problems’, in reality, do not exist. Furthermore, the illusion that these broken chairs need to be fixed, need not exist. Does it really achieve anything to say ‘thank you’ after someone has done something nice for you, other than satisfy ego and other products of sentient psychology? Is there some greater purpose for this psychology that ordains its existence? Why must the psychology exist if it is designed to produce these broken chairs that need not exist in reality, yet only serve as discomfort?

It will never be enough to acquire one million dollars as you could have ten million dollars, and for all the brilliance of earning such a large amount, as soon as the psychology becomes accustomed to it, more will be required. If you are able to resist the natural urge for more, then it will be another field of desire that will strike your attention, such as the growing of a simple garden, or the gathering of family. Either way, your sentient psychology will always want more of or ‘one more time’ of anything. And such, it is apparent that a permanent state of discomfort rules whenever a sentient psychology exists.

Seeing as coming into existence will almost certainly bring about more negative than positive, it follows that it should be considered immoral to bring any sentient animal into this.


That is all for my main line of argument

It is better to have never been

Benatar’s Asymmetry:

(1) If a person exists, then his/her pain is a bad thing.
(2) If a person exists, then his/her pleasure is a good thing.
(3) What does not exist cannot suffer (therefore this non-existing pain is a good thing).
(4) What does not exist cannot be deprived of any pleasure (therefore this non-existing pleasure is not a bad thing).

This is a simplified version of David Benatar’s work, found here: [1]. This argument does not hinge on my above arguments, rather it is stand-alone, mathematical proof that not existing should be preferred over existing. The first two lines should be accepted by all, but the latter two is where the asymmetry occurs. I think this version of Benatar’s Asymmetry is so simple that I could only repeat it in trying to explain it. From this, it is better to not bring people into existence, making child birth immoral.

I would like to use a couple of analogies to express some other issues with child birth. Again, these two analogies do not rest upon any argument above, thus should be taken as arguments within themselves.

Gambling Analogy

If you go gambling (procreating) with another person’s life inheritance (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral. You do not own the person’s inheritance, so you should not have the final word in how it is used. Even if the likelihood of you being able to increase the inheritance via using the inheritance is high (the child will likely have good health/a good life etc.), it would still be immoral to gamble with it without permission, much as it is immoral to sign contracts for people without their permissions.

Driving Drunk Analogy

Many societies have rules against drunk-driving. This is because drink-driving causes unnecessary risk. Let’s assume that it is necessary to drive a car. It is not necessary to drive-drunk in order to drive. Similarly, it is not required of your life to procreate in order for you to live/ experience pleasure. The risks of causing harm increase substantially in drunk-driving (procreating), and even if the risks are low, the ramifications that result could entail catastrophe (serious disabilities, a truly nasty experience in life etc.).

Conclusion

Discomfort is bad. Since life is basically about experiencing discomforts and then feeling the need to fix them in order to experience some kind of positive, it seems as if you can only lose the game of life. The best you could possibly do with your life is reach ‘0’ in the negative-sum game. Besides, it is better to have never been than to be thrown into this silly life game, without giving consent, in order to try and feel some kind of comfort when it is the function of sentient psychology to be uncomfortable.

References

‘Negative-sum,’ gambling, driving drunk and ‘Broken chair’ analogies taken from the Youtube channel ‘Inmendham’.

[1] http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com...

Wylted

Con

Discomfort is bad

I'm not sure why this argument is included. Its an obvious point. Comfort is better then discomfort when no other factors exist or are taken into account.

Life is ( almost certainly) more discomfort then comfort.

Pro argues life is a 'negative-sum game'. Her premise for this statement is there is more discomfort then comfort in a persons life. I disagree, but let's look at why even if her unfalsifiable lone premise is correct, the conclusion drawn from it is not.

1. Life is the one game where you get to choose your objective. You can't narrow these objectives down to comfort and discomfort either. Thrill seekers aren't after comfort. They are after an adrenaline rush, which does not fit the definition of comfort.[1] Doctors are not after comfort either they know how tough their chosen path will be( how uncomfortable ). They do it anyway and for a multitude of reasons. Ussually having something to do with helping others [2].

2.Unless you are capable of killing all people in one smooth stroke, then many will suffer until they pass on.
If people didn't exist already then it would be wrong for any sentient being to be allowed to exist to start with. Given how people exist your argument falls apart.

Why?

Generally a birth in the family is a joyous event. It makes people happy and therefore less uncomfortable. It has also been shown that as society becomes more technoligically advanced and interconnected , that life becomes less of a zero sum game[3] If you have good genetics and parenting skills then not bringing a child into the world would be a selfish immoral decision. Would you really make the tens of thousands of people suffer for the sake of one?

3. Giving birth to someone is a gift you give. Nobody can grant their self life[4]. If that person decides that they don't appreciate the gift they can always decide to end it, and all the suffering associated with it. However you have no right to decide for someone if they are born. You have no right to deny them the decision you were allowed to make. They should be allowed to decide for themselves if the discomfort is worth it.

Arguments that show the premise for the conclusion " child birth is immoral" is flawed.

1. Pro argues that being happy you must have no lingering serious discomforts. Some people are happy with serious discomforts though. Out of respect I won't provide a link or go into detail, but there are people who can be considered masochists and others active in the BDSM scene that would disagree with you.

2. Pro argues starving is uncomfortable. There is no reason the signals that go to your brain to inform you that it's time to eat, have to be uncomfortable. These signals are in place to help you avoid discomfort.

3. Pro argues that to feel pride in your kid they must have overcome something, that you were hoping they overcome to begin with. This is absurd. Some people feel pride for their kid for absolutely no reason. For people that have reasons they can have pride for a multitude of reasons besides a previous hope. If my kid gives CPR to their teacher after they suffered a traumatic injury, and saved the woman's life, then I would be proud without a previous hope for them to overcome this scenario. As a matter of fact I can feel pride for them while also being angry because, a hero mentality is dangerous.

Permanent state of discomfort

1." A woman's nails need to be coloured" " It is only through the combination of a sexual drive and vanity that 'this broken chair' seems to need fixing."

Sexual arousal is not uncomfortable. It feels good. So does the sex act and so does the release. Not in all cases but in general. Just because one feeling ends and a new one begins doesn't make the previous act uncomfortable. Vanity is not uncomfortable in an of itself. Lots of times vanity serves as a tool because you are seeking pleasure with it. Mostly through compliments. This is not pleasure derived from a negative self esteem either, but instead it serves to confirm what you already believe about yourself.

2."It will never be enough"

Enough is different for different people. You can be content with a million dollars. The person content with a million can accept 9 million more and still be content. His current contentment with more is no indicator that he was not content when he had less. It's also possible to lose all ten million and still be content. Sometimes people change their mind about what they want to do. If a person gains enough money to retire and does so and then takes up gardening, didn't neccesarily do so because they were uncomfortable with their life. A person can suddenly refocus their attention on something else. This redirection of focus need not be mistaken for a previous period of being uncomfortable.

A lot of people are are happy with the process of something such as making money. The results of such action doesn't indicate being unhappy of their financial situation but instead on their happiness of the pursuit.

The reason for pain and pleasure.

1. Life is not about seeking comfort or avoiding discomfort. The primary function of life is self preservation[5]. These urges pro defines as uncomfortable, are merely tools to aid in the process. hunger is a signal to eat. Vanity is about acceptance within the tribe that protects you. Politeness is so your not cast out. Sexual urges are there to insure survival of your genes.

Benatar's asymmetry

1. Pain is bad for people that exist.

Not really pain is a signal that aids in man's primary purpose of existence. Without pain survival would be very unlikely.

2.pleasure is good for people that exist.

Yes and no pleasure Seaking can lead to drug overdoses, distract you from important tasks and make you more unlikely to notice underlying problems creeping up.

3. What is non existent can't suffer.( this non existent pain is a good thing)
4. What does not exist cant be deprived of pleasure ( there for non existing pleasure is not a bad thing )

Value can't be assigned to non existent pleasure but it can be assigned to non existent pain. This is very hypocritical. Either things that don't exist have value or they don't. It's ridiculous to assign value to non existent things that support your argument but assign no value to non existent things that hurt your argument.

Summary

Pro's conclusion- Child birth should be considered immoral.

Pro's premise-Pro comes to this conclusion by asserting that life is a negative sum game.

She never explains what the objective of this game is. One is left to derive from the arguments supporting this statement, that the objective is to obtain more comfort then discomfort in life. Why is this life's objective? Why should everyone share this objective if they choose not to? For pro to prove her conclusion these answers are needed.

Premise to support life as a negative sum game- pro's entire argument is based on the assertion that there is more discomfort then comfort in life.

She supports this premise with only anecdotal evidence. Every piece of anecdotal evidence has been easily dismissed with common sense alternative explanations.

Pro has one argument consisting entirely on anecdotes.. This is not enough to meet any burden of proof.

Another problem is Pro's redefinition of the words comfort and discomfort. Which simply mean ease and unease[6][1]. Pro's uses the words in whatever way is useful to her argument, but not in a way that the words are meant to be used. At one point even calling sexual arousal uncomfortable.

Sources
[1] http://www.google.com... define
[2] http://www.kevinmd.com...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
[4] http://www.cyh.com...
[5] http://www.simplypsychology.org...
[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Caploxion

Pro

1.


“Life is the one game where you get to choose your objective. You can't narrow these objectives down to comfort and discomfort either.”

At their core, objectives are comforts and discomforts. You can put pretty colours and flowers all over them, but to get gold at the Olympics, after wanting it, is to fill a hole of great discomfort.

“Thrill seekers aren't after comfort. They are after an adrenaline rush, which does not fit the definition of comfort.”

C’mon man, you know what I mean by comfort; don’t play word games with me. Thrill seekers aren’t after literal comfort, but that wasn’t in the sense I argued for. The thrill seeker once experienced the adrenaline rush, and now wants it again, but doesn’t have it at the moment. THAT is the discomfort.

“Doctors are not after comfort either they know how tough their chosen path will … Ussually having something to do with helping others [2].”

They are after comfort after they place the massive burden upon themselves: to become a doctor. Again, you’re not arguing comfort and discomfort in the sense that I am; you’re just playing word games.

2.

“Unless you are capable of killing all people in one smooth stroke, then many will suffer until they pass on.”

I’m not arguing to kill everyone once people are born; I’m arguing that it’s immoral for people to breed.


“If people didn't exist already then it would be wrong for any sentient being to be allowed to exist to start with. Given how people exist your argument falls apart.”

Are you saying that allowing people to exist is immoral? Again, I am not arguing that we should kill them once they are born.

“Generally a birth in the family is a joyous event. It makes people happy and therefore less uncomfortable.”

Freudian slip?-: “less uncomfortable”. It is not that the life is now overall comfortable, rather less uncomfortable since a discomfort has been negated.

“It has also been shown that as society becomes more technoligically advanced and interconnected , that life becomes less of a zero sum game[3]”

This is absolute nonsense. The zero-sum game results from our psychology, NOT technological advancements. Read my initial argument again, please, because you don’t understand it.


3.

“Giving birth to someone is a gift you give ... If that person decides that they don't appreciate the gift they can always decide to end it, and all the suffering associated with it.”

But he/she can’t end it until after he/she has lived in overall discomfort, which is almost assured considering the negative-sum game. Again, to impose that upon someone is immoral.

“However you have no right to decide for someone if they are born.”

Yes, I do not have that right, and nor am I arguing for it. But this is only ONCE they are born, which shouldn’t be happening in the first place.

1.

“there are people who can be considered masochists and others active in the BDSM scene…”

And again, you talk about discomfort in a different sense to which I am talking. Again, for goodness knows how many times, they are discomfortable in the sense that they are not being whipped or tortured (considering that they want that). This kind of semantics arguing is disrespectful, and should not be done within a debate.

2.

“Pro argues starving is uncomfortable. There is no reason the signals that go to your brain to inform you that it's time to eat, have to be uncomfortable. These signals are in place to help you avoid discomfort.”

What an incredibly stupid argument. Try not eating for 60 hours, to the point where you are actually starving, and then try telling me that starving isn’t uncomfortable (and I can use uncomfortable in both senses here, so you can’t say that you don’t understand).


3.

“Pro argues that to feel pride in your kid they must have overcome something, that you were hoping they overcome to begin with. This is absurd. Some people feel pride for their kid for absolutely no reason.”

Well, I’ll beg to differ, but this point does seem moot.

Permanent state of discomfort

1.

" A woman's nails need to be coloured" " It is only through the combination of a sexual drive and vanity that 'this broken chair' seems to need fixing."

“Sexual arousal is not uncomfortable.”

But having a sexual drive is, and that’s what I said: “sexual drive”. Sexual arousal =/= sexual drive.

“Vanity is not uncomfortable in an of itself…”

Again, semantics; this isn’t in the sense that I was arguing.



2

“Enough is different for different people. You can be content… It's also possible to lose all ten million and still be content.”

I used money just to propose something of value. Clearly, if you don’t value the money, you are going to be content with losing it. You may also become content with losing it if you value it, but only after the initial heart-ache.


The reason for pain and pleasure.

1.

“Life is not about seeking comfort or avoiding discomfort…”

Sure, the fundamental, biological core of life is not about comforts and discomforts, but these two make for my moral argument, which is what we are debating here.



Benatar's asymmetry

1.

“Not really pain is a signal that aids in man's primary purpose of existence. Without pain survival would be very unlikely.”

You missed his point. Would there be anyone in the world, that would sit in agonising pain for the rest of his/her life, and continue to say, “this is good”? Or how about getting your face smashed in, and your pain receptors screaming at you? Yeah, that’s really helpful, even “good” as you like to argue. Once again, you continue to dance around with your intellectually dishonest answers that surmount to dirty semantics games.

2.

“Yes and no pleasure Seaking can lead to drug overdoses, distract you from important tasks and make you more unlikely to notice underlying problems creeping up.”

Pleasure is the reason you’re doing these “important tasks” in the first place. Besides, it’s not “pleasure Seaking”, it’s simply pleasure.

“Value can't be assigned to non existent pleasure but it can be assigned to non existent pain.”

The value assigned to non-existent pleasure is neither good nor bad. We’re not mourning the choice of trillions of instances where people choose not to have a baby because no-one is being deprived of it. Conversely, it is good that no-one is suffering as it is bad to suffer.

Summary

“She never explains what the objective of this game is.One is left to derive from the arguments supporting this statement, that the objective is to obtain more comfort then discomfort in life. Why is this life's objective? Why should everyone share this objective if they choose not to?”

Because discomfort is, at the very least in an inter-subjective sense, bad. You talk about things with the word “objective,” which implies that you know the meaning to life (as if you have even proven that there is one first. You haven’t, all you have done is argue what is there biologically, which is an appeal to nature).


“She supports this premise with only anecdotal evidence.”

No, I argued a moral framework and gave examples to demonstrate the framework.

“Another problem is Pro's redefinition of the words comfort and discomfort. Which simply mean ease and unease[6][1]. Pro's uses the words in whatever way is useful to her argument, but not in a way that the words are meant to be used. At one point even calling sexual arousal uncomfortable.”

This is the problem with most of your argument: you want to play stupid semantic games. I have explained the sense in which I have used the words and it is consistent with their definitions. Even if those words did not mean the things I suggested they did, you can still argue against the meaning I have used, but you would rather play your word games and waste everyone’s time.

Also, none of my analogies have been addressed, and thus they stand uncontested.

Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Caploxion

Pro

May anti-natalism be the mercy of sentience.
Wylted

Con

My forfeit of the last round wasn't a forfeit to the debate.The forfeit changes nothing the burden of proof is still on pro And she has failed to meet it.

Let's examine pro's case point by point.

1. Comfort vs. discomfort

Pro draws people in by asking them to come to the simple conclusion that comfort is good and discomfort is bad. This is where she draws you in. Once you agree to this simple statement then the bait and switch comes in. After and only after you agree comfort is good and discomfort is bad then you are told a new definition to these words.

Definition of comfort when you agree it's a good thing.

Relaxed, at ease.

New definition after you've accepted comfort as good.

Fulfillment of urges. something done to fill a void.

As you can see this new definition the one shared with you after you've agreed comfort is good is turned from something positive to something that is at best neutral but ussually bad and only in response to primal urges.

Definition of discomfort when you agree it's a bad thing.

Not relaxed or at ease.

Once you agree discomfort is bad new definition.

Any urge you have. Any insecurities you have even your yet to be fulfilled hopes and dreams.

I'm not the one playing games with semantics pro is. If I plan on radically redefining a word I will atleast give you the new definition before having you agree if that particular word is now bad.

Pro's argument that any and every ambition is bad is ridiculous and unfounded. Once it's agreed that ambitions are bad it's easy to show that comfort ( things resulting in ambition according to pro) is bad because it comes from ambition. Even the fulfillment of ambition isn't good enough because then you will be ambitious about something new.

2. Random rebuttals

Your argument holds no water your premises don't logically connect to each other and your conclusion doesn't neccesarily follow from your premises even if true, and your premises haven't been proven true..

" You talk about things with the word " objective " which implies you know the meaning to life"

It's you pro who claim the meaning of life is to be comfortable, and label anything ambitious as bad and in conflict with that meaning. I however said the meaning to life is a very personal and individual thing. I did give scientific evidence in one source to show that nature pointed to the meaning of life being self preservation. The evidence was provided as an acceptable and alternative piece of evidence to knock down your argument that comfort is the ultimate purpose and meaning for life.

When I point out that you assign value non existent pain but assign no value to non existent pleasure, you go out of your way to justify this by merely repeating what was said before. Either nonexistent things have value or they don't . You can't just assign value to something because it helps your argument.

" would there be anyone in the world, that would sit in pain for the rest of his/her life, and continue to say, "this is good"

You continually accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when you use examples like this. I'm showing a balanced opinion so when you say " pain is bad " and I say " not alway it ussually is a signal for you to act." " example take your hand off that hot stove" or " don't walk on that broken leg". I don't mean pain is good in all circumstances and situations typically pain is temporary. When you come back with statements like these it is proof of you as the intellectually dishonest one. Clearly pain that is permanent and torturous it is a rare thing. Clearly this type of pain is not even the pain your talking about sparing people from preventing their birth. The pseudo pain you are trying to prevent people from going through is the pain of being hungry or the urge to urinate. A lot of kids want to be president of the united states. According to you this ambition is painful and every minute the kid isn't the leader of the free world the kid is suffering. It would be better that my son wasn't born then for him to want to be the leader of the free world according to you.

" try not eating for 60 hours"

Once again we are talking the difference of balanced and extreme. When you are hungry it's a signal going to your brain telling you to eat. If you ignore this signal and don't eat then it turns to pain. This pain is to make sure this need is your primary focus. It's not pain until you take it to the extreme.

I wonder if your the type of person who would invite a homeless guy off the street for a hot shower. Then when he exclaims " that would feel good" you would refute his statement by saying "no its painful see" and dump boiling water on him.

" I'm not arguing to kill everyone" " I'm arguing that it's immoral for people to breed"

I clearly never said you was arguing to kill everyone. I was arguing based on evidence that I presented showing every birth made the world a better place for current people then based on your own view of morality that preventing breeding would cause more pain on average per person then breeding would.

" to get to the Olympics, after wanting it, is to fill a hole of great discomfort."

This is crazy and not true. As I already have proven someone can be both content with their life and still be ambitious

In pro's world there is no thing as content. In pro's world ambition is bad, and everything that you strive to do isn't because you enjoy the pursuit but because you lack in something. Everytime your not eating a pizza you are suffering from lack of pizza. Does your kid dream of being a fireman then right now your kid is in pain and suffering from not having his dream already fulfilled.

Pro you have failed to meet you burden of proof despite me giving you an entire extra round to prove it.
Debate Round No. 4
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I know it was an arrogant statement. Just can't help myself sometimes.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I just don't like the word given. It's not really like you felt some sympathy and have her another round... I'll look/voted on this.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I stated a fact

Fact- she was given an extra round.

She was very kind not to take advantage of it. However her kindness doesn't change the fact.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
"Pro you have failed to meet you burden of proof despite me giving you an entire extra round to prove it."

Dude stop, you didn't give her a round. You FF'd and she decided to be a good person and not post in that round to.
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
Sure, I wouldn't be saying too many new things in response.

I think the prevalence of logical fallacies is mostly due to the fact that they are not specifically taught in school, that logic is not inherent but very much a learned skill.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Well, I think at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just a few things to leave you with. It's important to recognize that any time we assess a balance of how much the average person values a certain portion of their experiences versus another, we're often inclined to make inferences as to what we believe that value to be. Whether they're informed by our own experiences, our world view, or some other source, we are looking at something that will inherently contain bias with our own biased perspective. Just something to think on.

And actually, I was using the term "ad populum" long before I came to this website, though I was surprised to see him using it as well. Always interesting to see how people declare fallacies, though it seems to me that people often don't understand the meaning of the terms "red herring" and "straw man" on this website. Both are all too common in debate, and yet I see people called out for using it when they are clearly being quite fair. False dichotomy and slippery slope are so common it boggles the mind. But, anyway, now I'm rambling, so I'll stop here.
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
For you, Whiteflame"

Sure, the value isn"t objective, but it is certainly inter-subjective. But we"re getting off topic slightly. It doesn"t matter what unique discomforts/comforts you have, what matters is: what discomfort is valuable? To put it in comparison, it doesn"t matter what flavour of ice-cream you want, what matters is that you want the ice-cream. The "inherent value" is that you want the ice-cream. I reckon that this will help you understand what I"m getting at in terms of "value".

As for the ad populum argument, I see that you saw Rationalthinker"s arguments. Ad populum is "if many believe it is so, it is so", but my argument is that many would determine it to be so (so, they have decided that yes, discomfort is bad). Again, it"s not that many are believing that, it"s that they"re determining that. In fact, they"re not even believing what they would determine!

In regards to the non-existent beings, I"ll concede this: it is worse that someone isn"t experiencing comfort when they could be. However, it isn"t bad, considering that the imaginary person isn"t experiencing discomfort. I can"t really say anything else.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Come on kbub I should at least get points for sources.
Posted by Caploxion 2 years ago
Caploxion
This is going around in circles again; I'm done with this.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
My argument for the same conclusion and against the same conclusion were based on entirely different premises. Also arguing semantics is important to a certain extant. Also, my argument wasn't entirely based on semantics. Its just that you let your anger cloud you from seeing my other objections. Such as your assigning value to some non existent things while deciding other non existent things have value. You never could justify the double standard. It doesn't matter if the nonexistent thing is good or bad. It doesn't matter what you argue now you never gave me a proper rebuttal.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
CaploxionWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Great strategy by the con! Making her lose her last round. Unfourtunantly, that is not how you debate. That is why conduct goes to pro. S and g are tied. Reliable sources go to con because he used more. Overall, pro's argument fealt very unorganized and coming from everywhere. Con had a better argument, and overall wins the debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
CaploxionWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. You made Pro waste her last round. You can't just come back from that. Well, my original thinking was that the sources that Con used ended up being mostly unimportant; the debate was mostly about comparative logic, and the sources didn't play a big role, so I didn't think it was worth changing one's standing. Let me think about it. Well, I suppose I can give it to Con since that's how this style of debate tends to make their decision. I suppose Maslow and technology did provide some decent material. Alright, sources go to Con.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
CaploxionWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Suffice it to say that I don't think comfort levels suffice as a sole reason to be against childbirth. I think Con argues this well. The loss of capacity to make the decision about whether they accept a net negative or pursue the impossible net positive is also well argued. I think other arguments exist that weren't fully delved into, as Pro's arguments assume that time spent in discomfort and time spent in comfort are viewed at 1:1. People do die happy in this world, and it's because of their choice of focus, often even a focus on discomfort. Many people see their comfort as massively important and minimize their experiences with discomfort. Just achieving the goal of ridding oneself of discomfort can engender such comfort as to erase and exceed that past discomfort. Pro seems to be claiming that they are always viewed equally, and that comfort can never exceed discomfort simply for want of time spent in each.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
CaploxionWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out pain is temporary. FF lose conduct.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 2 years ago
Tophatdoc
CaploxionWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the debate because they pointed out that pain is temporary. Pro failed to establish the a strong argument for the burden of proof. Con forfeited a round, conduct to Pro. Source point to Con because Pro used a blogging website which is not a valid source. Good luck to you both in future debates.