The Instigator
epicuriousluxurious
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Life is fair

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,969 times Debate No: 19245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

epicuriousluxurious

Pro

I have always heard "that is not fair" or "I am so lucky" and i find these statements to lack both meaning and validity. We Americans believe that we are the happiest, most carefree, and the most "right" nation; however, this thought is tragically wrong in every sense. We have what is called a happiness level. We are all born with the same happiness level. This happiness level shifts everyday, but eventually, it will return to the normal state it was in, and thus we will crave more. Fairness is our subjective claim and is not defined by us as an individual, but as a whole by our God. Even if one doesn't believe in God, he or she can see that this world is balanced with good and evil. Sometimes the goodness is more visible, other times, the goodness is less visible. For example, one my classmates seemed to have it all. She had good looks, a good personality, good grades, and a good family, but she was depressed. She was depressed because she was used to her happiness level and desired more. She was not able to attain this level of perfection that she dreamed of. I don't see how this is different from the "unlucky ones." Have you ever been the son or daughter who wanted something so badly and the day after you received your wish, that wish did not matter to you anymore? This is because your happiness level regressed back to its normal state. Now this isn't to say that we should just ignore the world around us. We are made to help out others because we are not programmed to see life as fair. We are created this way to experience the idea of thankfulness. In conclusion this world is completely equal. Our happiness levels are not permanent. Sometimes we don't think we have it all, but why is materialism indicative of fairness? Its what is true that really counts.
BlackVoid

Con

I thank my opponent for this interesting topic and welcome her to Debate.org. I'll start by explaining my own reasons as to why life isn't fair, then refuting the things she brought up.


Why life isn't fair


1. Billions of people have died in wars throughout mankind's history. Most of those are civilians, who weren't even fighting. 60 million people died in World War 2 (1).

2. Billions of people have died of disease. Common sense would lead us to believe that many of these were genuinely good people who didn't deserve to die. In 2006, over 55,000 young people were afflicted with cancer (2).

3. Hundreds of thousands of people are raped every year. This sets them up for emotional trauma later in life. In 1937, the Japanese seized the Chinese city of Nanking. Over the next few days, in what would become known as the Rape of Nanking, 200,000-300,000 innocent civilians were killed and 20,000-80,000 women and children were rapes, some as young as 6 (3).

4. 1073 firefighters have died on the job this decade (4). Hundreds of thousands have been injured. In other words, people die trying to save other people's lives.

5. Holocaust. Nuff said.


While all this technically negates the resolution easily, I'm sure my opponent is looking for a more small-scale debate that talks about minor issues, rather than war crimes and genocide. So lets cover everyday life issues too.


7. Many people work twice as hard and make half as much. Dishwashers make $22,000 a year busting their a$$es off cleaning dirty objects, while video game testers make $60,000 to sit down and play games all day (5, 6). This is just one example; we all know there's hundreds more.

8. The lazy, new guy who's been working for 6 months gets the promotion over the hard-working, 2 year vet because he knows the boss.

9. Auto-dealerships are known for taking cars in that people ask them to fix, breaking them, and making them worse so the customer has to spend more money to get it "fixed" again.

10. Even though you only need 1 kidney and there are billions of people in the world, 67,000 people die of kidney failure every year because there aren't enough donors (7).

11. Innocent people get thrown in prison. Guilty people get off on technicalities.


If my opponent wants I can look up an individual example of any of these. After all, saying "6 million people died in the holocaust" doesn't create the same emotional response as detailing a 6 year old boy being taken from his mother and tortured for 7 days.


My opponent's arguments


My opponent talks a lot about how we all have "happiness level" that will generally remain constant throughout our lifetimes because we're always wanting more than what we have. Sure, I'll grant this. What does this have to do with life being fair? Saying that I will still want more even if I win the lottery doesn't change the fact that millions die of disease every year. In fact, this point would actually indicate that life isn't fair, because if we always want more no matter how much we have, we're essentially never able to become satisfied with our lives. That doesn't sound very "fair".



"Fairness is our subjective claim and is not defined by us as an individual, but as a whole by our God."

Fairness is often not subjective. All of the 10 arguments I gave are, and under most moral systems, objectively wrong and unfair. If my opponent wants to argue that fairness is subjective, he must explain how 6 million innocent people dying in the holocaust can't be considered an objectively bad thing.


Pro also says that the world is balanced with good and evil. Hmm. How many people have been killed in war again?


But even more so, why should the world be "balanced" with good and evil? Why can't there be no evil? That seems like a much more viable alternative.


Then Pro gives an example of a friend of her's who had everything you could possibly want, but was still depressed. That's actually proof that life is unfair because even people with everything can't appreciate it. I think my opponent might just be drawing the wrong conclusion from her arguments.


I wish my opponent luck and await her response.




1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.nytimes.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.usfa.fema.gov...
5. http://www.indeed.com...
6. http://www.indeed.com...=
7. http://www.emedicinehealth.com...
Debate Round No. 1
epicuriousluxurious

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for giving me a very warm welcome to this new site. My opinions may sound ridiculous to many people and I will give reasons why I believe they aren't by refuting your opinions on why life isn't fair.

I will like to start out by saying that the statistics you brought to my attention are quite horrifying, and in any way be defined as unfair to humankind. Now, it's difficult to argue from an atheist's point of view, but I will try my best to. I am positive that all the facts that you presented me are true; however just because something seems unfair doesn't mean that it isn't fair. I am well aware that millions of good people die that don't deserve to die, but why is it our non-omniscient although consented opinion true? I would like to make something clear. There is material happiness and there is inner happiness. Some people have one; some have the other…its still fair both ways.

Billions of people have died in wars throughout mankind's history. Most of those are civilians, who weren't even fighting. 60 million people died in World War 2 (1).
Billions of people have died of disease. Common sense would lead us to believe that many of these were genuinely good people who didn't deserve to die. In 2006, over 55,000 young people were afflicted with cancer (2).
3. Hundreds of thousands of people are raped every year. This sets them up for emotional trauma later in life. In 1937, the Japanese seized the Chinese city of Nanking. Over the next few days, in what would become known as the Rape of Nanking, 200,000-300,000 innocent civilians were killed and 20,000-80,000 women and children were rapes, some as young as 6 (3).

Many believe that the U.S is the happiest nation on the earth because these things like what you described don't usually happen any more. According to http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com..., the U.S is not happier most other countries. Why? Our priorities are too high. These people that are victims of rape, murder, etc. Don't have the "same" happiness we do. These people value the little things that we don't value. When we are the state of valuing something, our happiness level does go up. The reason why there are so many more wealthy people who are depressed is that they have too much material happiness and find no further meaning in life. A girl who died in the Holocaust may also live with depression, but then again, her depression is on a different scale and must be looked at from her own perspective. You are wrong in that common sense can offer an answer to the question is life fair. Because we are not omniscient and omnipresent, we are not able to understand life from a spiritual perspective; rather we look at something from face value and grant it as true. Your claims seem to base off the assumption that what we see is what is right, but this is faulty in many ways. I will go on explaining this further in my next arguments refuting your other statements.

Many people work twice as hard and make half as much. Dishwashers make $22,000 a year busting their a$$es off cleaning dirty objects, while video game testers make $60,000 to sit down and play games all day (5, 6). This is just one example; we all know there's hundreds more.

The happiness that dishwashers exhibit is just as high as that of any other jobs. I am certain that video game testers will generally grow to if not dislike become more apathetic toward what they showed interest in previously. You can't argue something from point of view that requires one to accept that our truths are merely based off of observations. My father's friend was once a dishwasher working for a Chinese resturant. He believed that is just a job that a. doesn't require education and is for people who are not qualified to take on higher jobs (which still does not mean that they are gifted with any less happiness). Education is what gets us to places. I understand that many people don't get the opportunity for education; however, then their happiness level starts from a different point. B. Its NOT harder than most jobs. Game testers will later on have weakened eyesight; surgeons will continue to live in the fear that they will unintentionally kill someone. Everybody has his or her own worries and own perspectives. Life is fair, it is fairly balanced. We always think that the grass is greener on the other side, but once we cross over to that side, we will discover that we will have other worries.

8. The lazy, new guy who's been working for 6 months gets the promotion over the hard-working, 2-year vet because he knows the boss.

That doesn't mean he is happier, he may seem happier, but he just gets to place his worries somewhere else.

. Innocent people get thrown in prison. Guilty people get off on technicalities.

Guilty people have to run, hide, lie, in my opinion that this worse than living in prison. The conviction of innocent people can give them a whole new perspective to life, which again doesn't refute the "fairness" of this world. Just because an innocent person has to die for a punishment it does not mean that the world is not in favor of them in terms of fairness. This may sound cruel but I honestly don't mean this in an offensive way, but they may have lived the life they were supposed to live. You don't know their merit; maybe they deserved what they deserved from a spiritual perspective that we cannot fathom. I know you made a comment about God allowing millions of children to suffer. Let me tell you this, I know plenty about countries such as Uganda, and Nigeria. Nigeria is ranked number 2 in lifestyle happiness according to http://www.nationmaster.com.... I know people who go to Uganda for their missions trip. The first thing they say about these Children is how happy they are. Some of my classmates even went to Haiti; they said that these children look at life from another positive perspective EVEN after the earthquake. And yes, the boy soldiers from Uganda are constantly dying, but they still are probably as happy if not happier than we are and I know people who experienced this first hand. Maybe we hold untrue thoughts towards countries like this. Why are third world countries even on the happiness list? Because materialism is what we value and since we have so much material, we THINK we have the best life. Its not that we should give no effort to assist these people, we definitely should possess qualities of Jesus, but we should be thankful for everything we have right now, because our state of happiness will NEVER change permanently.

If my opponent wants I can look up an individual example of any of these. After all, saying "6 million people died in the holocaust" doesn't create the same emotional response as detailing a 6 year old boy being taken from his mother and tortured for 7 days.

Any argument that you present to me triggers the same response from a logical point of view, not from a being's point of view.
It's again difficult not arguing from a theists perspective… we are all assigned roles in the world. We are all born with the same happiness level; if you really think about it, that is all what it comes down to. We expect everything to fit our perspective to be correct. All of these facts do trigger an emotional response, but there is a difference between feeling a certain way and believing and taking our own illogical emotions as true. Our environment makes no difference to fairness in the world, happiness is equally accessible to people all over the world. It's not to say that we should just let life go as it does, we should do whatever life calls us to do. Everybody wants to be successful materially because this is what is visible and palpable, but for the final time, it doesn't mean materialism is more or less fair.

All my cites are in the paragraph.
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks for the response. Don't worry about any of your arguments sounding "ridiculous". We have communists and anarchists on this site and we tolerate their views just fine.



Death statistics

Pro starts by saying that just because millions of good people dying seems unfair, that doesn't mean that it objectively is. I have a few responses:

1. If you accept this argument as true then it basically makes it impossible for any Con to win. I can point out that 70,000 people die each day (fact) and my opponent can just be like "Yeah well you can't prove that people dying is a bad thing". Well, if mass murder and genocide aren't legitimate arguments in this debate, then what is???

2. If you can't objectively prove something unfair, then you can't prove it fair either. My opponent herself would even say that fairness is subjective. How then can she prove that life is fair? Thats the resolution after all.

3. If people dying can't be proven right or wrong, then we might as well legalize murder and every other crime out there. After all, killing someone who donated 5 million dollars to charity can't be objectively proven to be unfair, right?


Finally,


Foundationalism:


Foundationalism is a theory of epistemology which states that we have to accept certain things as true even though we can't objectively prove them. For instance, we should assume that murder is wrong, child rape is wrong, stealing is wrong in general), even though they can't necessarily be proven as such. The things we assume are right or wrong have to be based on common sense, or natural intuition. The reasoning is that not accepting these "basic beliefs" leads to the Infinite Regress problem. Infinite Regress is basically where you keep asking "why" when someone tries to argue something is right or wrong, and the end result is that nothing can be proven. For example:


"Murder should be illegal"

- "Why"

"Cause killing is bad"

- "Why"

"People don't want to be killed, we should respect their wishes"

- "Why"

"Cause we need to acknowledge human autonomy and the right to life"

- "Why"

And so on and so forth. This is a problem because if we just keep asking "why" an infinite number of times then it becomes impossible to prove or know anything, because at some point we won't be able to answer one of those Why's. In other words, knowledge is impossible, even if something seems obviously true. And if knowledge is impossible, then you have no way of proving that life is fair because I can just use Infinite Regress and keep asking "why" every time you make an argument for the resolution.


Thus, to avoid this problem we need to accept foundationalism, and acknowledge certain things, like the Holocaust and child rape, as objectively wrong and unfair. Life includes the Holocaust and child rape. Therefore life is unfair.


Happiness level

"These people that are victims of rape, murder, etc. Don't have the "same" happiness we do"

I'd certainly hope not. You can't be happy if you're dead ://
Anyway, Pro again refers to people who have everything they could possibly want being depressed because they have nothing to strive for, and they don't value the things people with less do. Well now, that seems pretty unfair now doesn't it? I have absolute wealth and still can't be happy? Again, this is a reason life is unfair, not fair.


"A girl who died in the Holocaust may also live with depression"

Lolwut? I'll assume this is a typo or something.


Dishwashers vs video game testers

Pro says "The happiness that dishwashers exhibit is just as high as that of any other jobs." I beg to differ. Most people hate their jobs, including dishwashers. Whatever occupation people have, its usually not what they want to do. Even Pro's father she mentioned who's a dishwasher, he doesn't enjoy washing dishes. He does it because he has to, to make money. But then some people make hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit and type on a computer. Or to play video games.

There's also plenty of people stuck on manual labor. They aren't voluntarily choosing that over an easier occupation either. They're forced to do it because life's circumstances have put them in that situation. Life is unfair.


The lazy, new guy who's been working for 6 months gets the promotion over the hard-working, 2-year vet because he knows the boss.

Pro writes, "That doesn't mean he is happier, he may seem happier, but he just gets to place his worries somewhere else."

Apparently people don't get happy when they get a promotion? While he does have other worries, getting the promotion takes one of those away. And the man who was unjustly denied the promotion is going to be hella-mad. So yes, there is a happines disparity going on here.



Innocents convicted, guilty being equated

Pro writes that "Guilty people have to run, hide, lie, in my opinion that this worse than living in prison." This is only true of the minority of court cases that go public. There are thousands of trials each year and only a small portion are publicized. The criminals aquited in the non-publicized trials don't have to worry about hiding from the public because we haven't heard of them.


Pro says that innocent people being sent to prison is OK because they may have "lived the life they were suppose to live" or maybe deserved some sort of divine punishment. These are both just speculation.


Africa!

My opponent brings up Nigeria and Uganda, which have oppressive governments but still have a happy population. This ignores the thousands of innocent people who have died in their genocides. Likewise with Haiti. Yeah, people there might be happy. The thousands killed in the earthquakes aren't.



Lastly, my opponent makes a puzzling statement: "Happiness is equally accessible to people all over the world"


Three words. Slavery, miscarriage, human trafficking. So not necessarily :)




To close, lets look over dropped (not refuted) arguments.

Pro does not respond to a key argument against her case. If human nature is to always want more, then that means we can never be truly satisfied with our lives. Thats unfair. This turns her argument about a Happiness Level because it just creates a system where no one is actually happy with what they have.


She also doesn't refute my argument about the world being "balanced" with good and evil. Why does it have to be balanced? Why can't there just be no evil in the first place? This easily negates the resolution because the mere existence of evil implicitly proves that life is unfair.



I patiently await my opponent's response.






Debate Round No. 2
epicuriousluxurious

Pro

I thank my opponent for giving me very good and well thought out responses and for telling me that beliefs are not condemned by the people using this website =). None of this is supposed to be offensive, it’s only the art of debating =D.

Since you are taking a materialist’s standpoint and arguing from a materialist’s worldview, of course there is such thing as unfairness. But what makes that worldview more logical and greater than my belief in Christ? You offered me some foundationalism rules that have no true logic according to your method of thinking; after all, all my arguments about children dying have to be logical while yours don’t? I don’t want this to turn into a debate on worldviews, but we have to find some common ground here.

The main idea that I argue from is that Expectations differ from person to person because of the differing environments that people live in. You are right in that I cannot explain undeserved death through a materialist’s viewpoint, but I will go on explaining this later, but right now, I will say that from a Christian’s worldview, these Children that die WILL be treated fairly, justly, and humanely in God’s Kingdom. God gives us what we deserve in his point of view…not ours.

Dishwashers vs. video game testers
Actually what I meant to say was, my father’s friend is a former dishwasher. Anyways, he moved his way up into the field of engineering by going to college and is now a CEO because worked his way up to this level. His joy regressed back to the state of which he was in previously as a dishwasher finding that life is just as hard from any point of view. He had a divorce with his wife because she was complaining about how much time he had to sacrifice for his company. Do you have true evidence that dishwashers are any happier? They have nothing to worry about outside of work and even during work. Can you name people who sit behind computers and have sinecure jobs? I can’t; not even Paris Hilton can be used as an example. Paris Hilton has the world scrutinizing her every move. I’ve been at the hospital for anorexia and had nurse scrutinizing my every move. It’s not worth her material life. Life doesn’t have to be unfair in one area to be seen as unfair as a whole. Although fairness is still subjective, so is unfairness, however, fairness seems to be more probably if you look at the big picture. Steve Jobs does not sit in front of the computer and earn “free” money. He worked hard to get where he was. I am not trying to downplay the merit of achievement, but you have to realize that more material does not equal a more fair life. Take me for example, I am short, I have a learning disability, I suffered from OCD, avoidant personality disorder, social anxiety disorder, anorexia, a couple years before and currently have ADHD. On the outside I appear to be happy because, I am an A student, winner of multiple national drawing competitions, daughter of a father who has a seven figure salary, I have perfect harmonious family, and I have wonderful and loyal friends. Every time I visit my relatives in China, they always tell me how lucky I am. If only they knew what I went through in life will they know that their life is just as good as mine is.

Yes, getting a promotion does make one happy, but we don’t weigh the amount of things that we have that makes us happy. If we get upset over one thing, it is going to ruin our day if we have higher expectations for own life. The man who was denied the promotion will get over the unhappiness later and something else will come and occupy him with happiness.

Convicted people
I am quite certain that convicted people will have or already have had issues in their marriage, friendships, or in life in general. This alone is a punishment. One can’t assume that they are going to leave the past in the dust. Innocent people being sent to prison is not okay if you think of it in straightforward manner, but if you believe that the world is balanced, then what ever happens is whatever is planned for him or her. We should give every effort to prevent these things, but if it is unpreventable, we have to let life take its course.

Your morality is that whatever the scenario, genocide, death, etc. are wrong. Were do you base your assumption off of? How do you know what is best for person when you don’t know how these people feel and perceive life when they have nothing to juxtapose it to other than the “better” lives of others? How can facts affirm something as true when they could be biased, incomplete, and too general? Have you experienced life from three different points of views? Even if you did, you would base your idea of fairness based off of the other lives two lives; it still wouldn’t be accurate. I can’t prove that fairness exists without using God’s name and you can’t prove world is unfair without foundationalism either. If you think human set principles should be the base of the answers to all philosophical questions as this, philosophy would not be complete!

“If human nature is to always want more, then that means we can never be truly satisfied with our lives. Thats unfair. This turns her argument about a Happiness Level because it just creates a system where no one is actually happy with what they have.”

How is this unfair if we are all on the same boat? And yes, none of us are actually content with what we have. It’s not humanly possible. Even my father who has already accomplished enough still feels the need to write more software programs to that he could feel more achievement.

“She also doesn't refute my argument about the world being "balanced" with good and evil. Why does it have to be balanced? Why can't there just be no evil in the first place? This easily negates the resolution because the mere existence of evil implicitly proves that life is unfair.”

If there is a balance of good and evil, then this still does not refute the idea of fairness. If evil were evenly distributed among people, then fairness would still exist. If you refute me saying I am assuming my position from the idea that everything is fair, you also base your assumptions off of many baseless ideas; we would be arguing in circles.

Because our worldviews are so different, it would be difficult for us to reach a consensus. I completely understand everything you mean and I wish we had more rounds. Thank you for debating with me, it has been a pleasure, you are very intelligent and I wish you luck in your other debates.



BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to Pro again for finishing the debate and being a great opponent.


Judging this debate

Remember the two dropped arguments I mentioned at the end of my last round. She tries to pick them back up in the last round, but by standard debating rules drops are considered concessions. I will refute the rebuttals she made, but in any case you should count these arguments as true because we are required to refute an argument the instant it is made, not 2 rounds later.

1. Pro constantly brings up that humans always want more, even if they have everything. This works against her case because the implication is that even people with absolute wealth can't be satisfied with their lives. Thats unfair.

Pro says that this isn't unfair because it applies to everyone; Nobody can be truly happy. But under this logic, if everyone on the world is born with AIDS, that would be fair because its happening to everyone. Clearly its not.


2. The world shouldn't be "balanced" with good and evil. No evil is a much better alternative.

Pro makes a similar argument as the last one, saying that the existence of Evil isn't unfair so long as its evenly distributed. But again, if everyone on Earth was born with Smallpox and died after a week, thats not fair even though the evil is equally distributed. Also remember that evil actually isn't distributed equally. The infant mortality rate in developing countries is infinitely higher than places like the United States.


Foundationalism


My opponent brings this up but never actually gives a reason to reject this theory. I explained we should accept it because it solves the Infinite Regress problem, which wasn't refuted. Again, drops are concessions. The implication of accepting Foundationalism is that we have to accept certain (obvious) things as right or wrong even though we can't prove them 100%. So if your common sense tells you that genocide and child rape are wrong, then genocide and child rape are wrong and you should consider life unfair for containing them.


Also, my opponent drops my turn on the subjectivity of fairness. She is making the positive claim that life is fair. But she herself says in R1 that fairness is subjective. At that point, the resolution is unaffirmable because you as the judge cannot attribute an objective standard to determine if life is fair or not.


Most importantly, she had no answer to the implications of accepting fairness as subjective. If we can't objectively prove anything as fair or unfair, then we might as well legalize every crime in the book because murder and theft aren't objectively bad.


Genocide, murder, etc

Pro makes a new argument that people dying unjustly isn't unfair, because they will be treated fairly in God's kingdom. However, the resolution questions Life being fair, not the afterlife. Secondly, while I personally am undecided on religion, this site has a sizable atheist community, so making this argument would require proof that not only does God exist, but specifically the Christian god. This is the most commonly debated topic on the site, so we can't assume it to be true for debate purposes.


Because I want this to be easy to judge, and last rounds are generally summaries, I will summa-phrase the remaining issues.


While many people living in poor conditions are just as happy as wealthy, the poor people still had to deal with several obstacles before they could become accustomed to their situation. Someone born into an impoverished neighborhood may have bad to deal with drug addiction and rampant crime around them before they become accustomed to it. Whereas the wealthy typically don't go through these problems and have good living conditions from the start. So you can still attribute a net difference in happiness between the two groups. And because people aren't voluntarily born into poor living conditions (sub-Saharan Africa), its something life has unfairly forced upon them.

This answers my opponent's example of herself. Its great that she can be happy and live a good life in spite of her mental difficulties, but she (probably) did suffer for a long time with these issues and had to work very hard to get through them and live normally. Whereas someone born without these conditions wouldn't have dealt with the stress.

Note that this doesn't mean life is bad. Life is good. Me and my opponent can agree on this. But fair? Eh...



My opponent would later write "Your morality is that whatever the scenario, genocide, death, etc. are wrong. Were do you base your assumption off of? How do you know what is best for person when you don’t know how these people feel and perceive life"

People killed in murder and genocide cannot perceive life, unfortunately.

I'm making the drastic assumption that murder is bad because no one can rationally will themselves to die. And because of Foundationalism, whereby we assume obviously bad things to be obviously bad. Like the Holocaust.


Finally, guilty people who don't get prison punishment may have to live in secrecy and deal with other problems, but it doesn't outweigh the punishment in prison they actually deserve. If it did, then we might as well legalize every crime and not throw anyone in prison, since they'll get their punishment either way.



Conclusion

Life may be good, but it isn't fair. Over 500,000 miscarriages happen every year, killing half a million people before they even get a chance to experience life. Even in general, too many unjustified deaths happen. Plenty of people are born to poor living conditions, and while they may get used to it and be happy eventually, there's still a transition period where they suffer from the situation they're in before they grow accustomed. This is nonexistent for other people. For this and other reasons, it should be clear that while life is good, it isn't fair.






Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
No problem. I've only been able to vote for about 3 days so that's why you've never noticed my votes. I think you've left out Daniel though, her RFD on Innomen vs blue steel's debate was massive.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Thanks for the beast RFD phantom. I thought me, F-16, and Raisor were the only ones who leave 4000 character RFD's anymore.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
PART 2 -Con states that he is "making the drastic assumption that murder is bad because no one can rationally will themselves to die. And because of Foundationalism, whereby we assume obviously bad things to be obviously bad. Like the Holocaust." Con logically showed that it is better to assume these things, otherwise we have the Infinite Regress problem. This helped to effectively refute much of pros main argument.

Pro argues from an atheistic perspective but than suddenly veers off to a Christian perspective. Pro argues that dying unjustly isn't unfair because they would be treated fairly in Gods kingdom. As con pointed out we can't assume the existence of God in this debate. Both debaters bring up arguments in the last round which is contrary to standard debate rules.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
RFD Part 1.-Pro tries to argue that fairness is our subjective claim. However she never really gives any convincing arguments that our opinion of life is not true. She also assumes the existence of God in her argument. Con refutes her argument with three main points my favorite being that if you can't objectively prove something unfair, then you can't prove it fair either. Pro makes the positive claim that life is fair but also says that fairness is subjective.

Pro shows that people in poverty can be happier than middle class Americans, such as her example of her friend who seemingly has everything but is still unhappy compared to hungry, poor, suffering children who are still happy, but this still leaves out many many people. Con attempts to turn pros arguments around by saying that the fact that even people with everything cannot appreciate life, makes it unfair. However I did not find this particularly convincing. The reason she isn't happy is not really because of life being fair or not (except maybe in a minor sense). It's the own persons fault that she does not enjoy life. Pro however drops and thus concedes this point.

Con starts out with five simple arguments covering a larger scenario. 1.The billions of people who have died in wars most of them being civilians. 2. The billions of people who have died because of disease. He rightly states that we can assume many of these people were good and did not deserve to die. He brings up a statistic saying that 55,000 young people die every year from cancer. 3. The hundreds of thousands of people raped every year. 4. That over 1,000 firefighters have died this decade while on the job. Lastly 5. the holocaust. These were backed up by sources. All of these arguments I thought were convincing. Con then goes on to cover the more everyday issues. 9 and 10 were more of a moral issue rather than a fair issue but cons 9 other contentions were enough. Con makes a well founded case for foundationalism. -->
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Well when I say life is good, it basically means that an unfair life is better than no life at all. Usually.
Posted by epicuriousluxurious 5 years ago
epicuriousluxurious
Well done, BlackVoid, you did great! My only question is what do you mean by life is good? Looks like we finally reached a (sort of ) consensus, I agree with you...not completely in everything, but looks like you win this time. I will be very glad to debate with again in the future about another topic =D.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Interesting debate. I'm going to vote on this when it's done.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
By the way, when I said 'lolwut" I meant that in a humorous manner and in no way meant it to be personal.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Time to talk about slavery!
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
"Our environment makes no difference to fairness in the world, happiness is equally accessible to people all over the world."

Not to argue for Con but there are innumerable individuals whose entire (short) tenure on this planet consist of nothing but suffering. Accessibility to "happiness" is a huge hurdle for many, made all the more daunting by the fact that it is often completely out of one's control.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 4 years ago
mariahjane
epicuriousluxuriousBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Read the other comments.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 5 years ago
DevonNetzley
epicuriousluxuriousBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: life is most certainly not fair. my dad never married my mom and ran off, my step dad was a creep drunk before struck with stage 4 cancer. my great grandparents died, my great grandfather being one of the few military survivors of iwo jima did not recieve the military funeral. tell me is that any way fair?
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
epicuriousluxuriousBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never laid out a clear understanding of what fair is and resorted to dramatically shifting her position from an atheist argument to a Christian one to stay in contention. She tries to explain undeserved deaths of babies by saying God will take care of them, however Pro pointed out that the resolution is about life not the after life. This point alone wins him the debate. Cons arguments throughout were very well stated, and more convincing.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
epicuriousluxuriousBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
epicuriousluxuriousBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It is difficult to argue against the harsh statistics of death and atrocities, especially when one's counter-argument is simply that life must be balanced. Suffering is generally unfair to the sufferer and Pro presented no evidence to the contrary.