The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception.....One or the other will be forever.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,117 times Debate No: 56386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (46)
Votes (5)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

This is about the problem of pain caused by man's evil toward his fellow man, or the pain and suffering caused by disease, or the pain of losing a loved one. Why does God allow suffering? It is because He is being merciful. He is giving us time to be saved from eternal suffering, He wants us to know eternal mercy. The two cannot go together forever.....for now we have suffering and we have time because God has not dealt with us according to what we deserve, but according to His mercy. Because He is just and righteous, He must execute punishment of death against all of His creatures who broke His law. He does not want to finalize our execution, He wants us to find His mercy forever. Time is runniong out......suffering and mercy will not go together forever. Suffering will end or mercy will end. Suffering will go on forever or mercy will relieve suffering forever. We have to go on under mercy or under suffering, but they cannot go together forever because it grieves God to watch the suffering.

Please post your first argument when you accetp this debate challenge.
Raymond_Reddington

Con


Pro's Impossible Stance: Pro has affirmed the resolution here and in the process has given himself an impossible burden of proof. Firstly he must give prove that an embryo is even capable of experiencing suffering or being given mercy. He must then prove that mercy and suffering start for every embryo at the moment of conception. Secondly he must prove that individuals will experience suffering or mercy for forever. He must prove that an afterlife (one which gives us mercy or suffering) exists to accomplish this and since this is not possible, it is impossible for Pro to prove the resolutions and fulfill his BoP. Pro must prove both resolutions to win this debate.


Definitions


Suffering- The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship


Distress- Extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain


Hardship- Severe suffering or privation


Mercy- Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm


Forever- For all future time; for always


Oxford Dictionaries


Resolution 1: Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception


P1: For suffering and mercy to always start at conception all embryos must be capable of experiencing suffering and being granted mercy at the instant of conception.


P2: All embryos are not capable of experiencing suffering and mercy at conception at conception.


Conclusion: Not all embryos experience suffering and mercy at the moment of conception.


A defense of P2: Pain is only possible at 20 weeks at the earliest and there is no evidence that pain is possible at conception. Neither the sperm or the egg initially have pain receptors so this is absurd. (http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...) Distress includes anxiety, sorrow, or pain. Emotional development does not occur at the instant of conception so embryos do not face distress. As for hardship, privation means scarce access to resources needed to survive and since the majority of embryos don't experience that the point is negated. Mercy is a little easier. Because at the instant of conception very few embryos are capable of being punished or harmed, the resolution is false. Also note that mercy and suffering are contradictory and all


embryos cannot experience them at the same time. Pro needs to provide serious proof to support his assertion here.


Resolution 2: To prove this assertion Pro must provide empirical evidence, so proof, that all individuals will experience suffering or mercy forever. To show this pro has the impossible task of proving the existence of an afterlife. Since there is no evidence supporting such a claim there is no reason to believe it.


Conclusion: This debate was over from the beginning, Pro gave himself an impossible resolution to prove. There is no empirical evidence to prove any of his claims. A smart debater who didn't believe in wasting time could have not put in any arguments and simply let pro's burden go unfulfilled and would have easily won.


Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Thank you Con for taking me up on this challenge. I hope the wording is clear enough so we can have a focused debate.
I did not assert that an embryo can experience suffering, I did assert that mercy and suffering both start simultaneously from the moment of conception. I will not argue anything about 20 weeks from conception. That is covered in my assertion that suffering and mercy start at conception, and I will explain that concept.

The debate here was intended to address the problem of pain and suffering and if there is any hope for relief. From the moment of conception, we are in a world of suffering. We may or may not experience suffering at the moment of conception. If you destroy an embryo at the moment of conception, it can be said that the embryo suffered damage which destroyed it, though the embryo may or may not have felt the experience. Surely it can be observed that the embryo was trying to live. It will experience suffering soon enough as we are all conceived in a world of suffering This is not meant to be an abortion is justified or abortion is unjustified debate. The debate is about the possibility of the relief of all suffering and the freedom from all pain.

From the moment of conception, the embryo grows under mercy in a world of suffering. It is the mercy of the mother which protects the embryo and does not kill it. It is the mercy of the mother's body which provides the nutrients for the embryo to grow. Surely, the mother's tolerance of the baby inside her which is sure to bring her pain is merciful to the baby from the moment of conception.

Since the process of death is working in the embryo from the moment of conception, it is suffering if it experiences it or not. We all have in our genes from the moment of conception a defect which will allow disease to kill us if nothing else does. Eventually, the suffering that begins at conception will work death completely in our bodies, unless some miracle changes our bodies so that death is gone from us.

After birth, we are still at the mercy of somebody or something.......whether you think it's nature or God, we need provision for our bodies. Both nature and God are capably of depriving us of the provision that allows us to continue in this world of suffering until the death that works suffering little by little is finished in this world. If it's nature that is merciful to us, then it's an impersonal mercy but we still at the mercy of nature and there is nobody to thank and nobody to ask for help when the final moment of death in this world comes. If it's God who is merciful to us, then we can thank Him.

When that time comes and suffering in this world is complete, the question is does it continue forever under mercy or do we have complete relief from the suffering that was present from conception. This is the part that is more difficult for me to explain. This can only be explained by referring to God. We all know the meaning of the word God so I will not debate the definition of "God".

The atheist must believe that he either ceases to exist when he dies, or that he continues to exist with no God ruling over him. With no God ruling over him, the atheist is his own god and can no longer be harmed by death and will no longer be suffering the process of death which began at conception; so the atheist has no more need of mercy from nature or from God whom he asserted was never there to show mercy. Also, the atheist in this hypothesis would have no need of mercy since he can no longer be harmed. For the atheist, whether he completely ceases to exist or whether he goes on forever as a spark of life which always existed and always will, both mercy and suffering would have to end together. I suppose an atheist could believe that there is no God to rule over him, but there are other beings that could cause him to suffer troubles after his time in this world is over.........but then the atheist would be at the mercy of those other beings and still in a universe of suffering, so mercy and suffering would then continue to go on forever. I contend that God will not allow mercy and suffering to go on together forever. There is no way to separate mercy and suffering without God. There is no way to be free from suffering if God does not remove and confine away from us all things that cause pain and suffering.
Pain and suffering, the very process of death which begins at conception, are given under mercy. God wants us to ask Him for mercy, He wants us to see that only He can provide the mercy we need. He will not allow pain and suffering to continue forever. It is against His character to allow pain and suffering to go on forever while he tolerates it under His mercy. One or the other must end for each individual. If we will not come to God for mercy, we will never have mercy when only God can give it at the moment of death.

Ok, a very difficult topic and that's the way I wanted it. Do we deserve to suffer of do we deserve mercy. For now we have both. For forever, we will have one of the other, the two cannot go on together forever. With or without God, mercy and suffering cannot go on together forever.

My opponent defines suffering as: " The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship". While I don't think definitions of easily understood and commonly used words are necessary, I will build with this definition to show an embryo suffers from the moment of conception.

The growth process is a process of distress. The first cell begins processes with need of provision to continue. The processes begin at the moment of conception. The first time a cell divides, it is a distress caused by growth. When a child loses it's baby teeth, it is a distress caused by growth. Suffering begins at conception. It is hard for the conceived cell to implant itself in the womb so it can grow. Whether or not the conceived life feels pain as we do, it is still suffering from the moment of conception and my opponents definition of suffering still fits. The definition is "pain, distress, or hardship", any one of these three things shows suffering. If a rock falls on my computer and breaks it, my computer suffered hardship even though it did not feel it. From the moment of conception, the force of growth causes distress as the embryo needs provision of nutrients and protection for a safe place to grow. The embryo needs mercy from the mother or it will suffer complete destruction. To end the life process would put hardship.....fatal hardship...... on the embryo since it is doing nothing other than trying to survive and grow.

I really did not want to debate whether life begins at conception or not, but I guess it is debatable in the way I framed the topic.

I hope this debate will focus on the main topic........suffering and mercy will not go on together forever. One or the other must end. This debate really is my assertion against the Yin-Yang eternity idea, and against Atheism. I will try to steer arguments away from abortion. I do not want to debate abortion here.

My opponent insists suffering does not begin at conception, as the conceived life is not emotionally developed to know distress by emotion. The growth process of the conceived cell is a process of anxiety for the cell, it is anxious to divide and grow and it is anxious to implant itself in the womb. The question is not about the level of emotional experience. The anxiety is suffered because of the desire to live in an environment that could negate the growth which was implanted in the egg, the growth that needs mercy to continue through the suffering that starts at conception and continues until time in this world ends for the conceived person.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

"I did not assert that an embryo can experience suffering, I did assert that mercy and suffering both start simultaneously from the moment of conception."
This is basically a concession. If an embryo does not experience suffering at the moment of conception then suffering cannot start simultaneously with conception.
"From the moment of conception, we are in a world of suffering. We may or may not experience suffering at the moment of conception."
The resolution was that suffering and mercy start at conception. If we go by the first sentence and assume suffering starts before conception the resolution is negated. If we go by the second sentence and say suffering starts after conception the resolution is negated. There is no way Pro can win at this point. He is not even arguing his own resolution anymore.
"If you destroy an embryo at the moment of conception, it can be said that the embryo suffered damage which destroyed it, though the embryo may or may not have felt the experience. Surely it can be observed that the embryo was trying to live. It will experience suffering soon enough as we are all conceived in a world of suffering"

First of all I have already proven an embryo is incapable of suffering at the moment of conception. Second of all even if you were right that doesn't mean all embryos experience suffering at the moment of conception.
Mercy and Suffering
An important thing to note is that only a living being is capable of showing mercy. While you can be "at the mercy of" something this is not a correct definition of mercy. Nothing else can make the choice. The mother shows no mercy during the moment of conception as usually she is not capable of inflicting punishment or pain. A mother's body does not show mercy. All that it does is inevitable. The death argument is just semantics. According to that we are all suffering all the time. This does not fit the definition of suffering. Anything after conception is irrelevant as your claim was that suffering and mercy start at conception which there is no evidence of.
Afterlife
I am not aware of any atheists that believe they will exist forever. Either way to uphold the resolution you must prove this is true. I believe that death is final and you have shown no evidence to prove otherwise. Pro keeps referencing god but has yet to prove he exists.
Distress
The growth process is not a process of distress and there is no evidence that it is. The need of provision does not indicate the lack of it. Distress is a lack of provision. The computer example is laughable. Your computer is incapable of experiencing anything. If you believe otherwise I would recommend a High School level Biology or Computer class.
Pro's argument is that although an embryo cannot experience anxiety... it is anxious. There is no logic here.
Conclusion
There is literally zero evidence supporting Pro's claim. Any Middle Schooler could look through Pro's argument and realize it does not use logic, but pleas to an authority he has not proven exists. He makes circular claims and does not understand the resolution he is defending. The Burden of Proof is still unfulfilled.
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Con wants a concession, I gave none. A conceived person suffers distrss as it strives to survive, and it needs mercy to survive. Con's own definitions support what he is try to deny. Con's denial of the embryo's distress as it tries to survive does not relieve it's suffering. If Con wants to kill it before it can scream, that's Con's business. This is not what the debate is about.

I have carried my argument and continue to do so in saying suffering and mercy start at conception and only one or the other can continue forever. Death is prgrammed into the person from the moment of conception. to survive is a battle and suffers loss from the start.....time is lost as the battle is fought, the conceived cell battles to survive and it suffers the loss of time, each moment from the time it was conceived is lost as it suffers in distress depending on the mercy of it's mother.
I'm being repetitive, conceding nothing to Con in this debate. Con want's to deny the right to life during the first twenty weeks after conception, that's Con's business. If he can kill a baby before it can scream or teach others that it's ok or good to do so, that's on him. Can we get past this into the bigger question, what will eternity be for you? Will it be relief from suffering or will it be denial of mercy?

The death argument is not just semantics it is a fact. From the moment you are conceived, death is working in you and yoru clock is ticking and time is running out. From the moment you are conceived, you are suffering from the death that was inherited genetically. It is not semantics. Con is trying to deny that suffering begins at conception by playing semantics and basically saying if a baby cannot scream, it is not suffering. Con is trying to make this into an excuse to kill babies before they are born. That is not what the debate is about. The debate is about eternity. Will eternity be the same as time is now, or will an individual know only suffering or only mercy. I say we each will know only suffering or only mercy, the two cannot go together.

The Aheist expects to find mercy withoutt suffering because they think God is not there so death is merciful to them in relieving suffering. For the atheist, both suffering and mercy cease, they cannot go on forever because the atheist hopes he will cease to exist when his time is over. My arguement is based on logic With or without God, suffering and mercy cannot continue forever together. Death proves that there is an end to mercy if there is not an end to suffering.

Too bad people are so hard set in rejecting God when He is trying in love to bring them back to Himself from the fire of Hell they deserve.

Ok. If you think you do not deserve to die, I guess it's hopeless to argue. If you think you do not need mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you have the right to live now but you did not have the right to live untill 20 weeks after you were conceived, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think you are not suffering if you do not feel pain, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you are alive now without mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think death ends suffering and you need no mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think God does not have the right to cast you away like a piece of garbage to burn in hell forever, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think God is not there, tt's hopeless to argue. If you think your uncle was a monkey, it's hopelss to argue. I'm done. Thank you very much, I hope you see that you need mercy from God to be spared from the fire of hell and get saved.......He became a man to take your death, if that was not good enough for you I"m sorry for you. He is risen from the dead and you will see Him and you will know it's Him who I was trying to show you. I'm done.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

It seems that my opponent is more interested in using this debate as a pulpit to preach his religion from than actually providing evidence for the resolution. Remember that since Pro has affirmed the resolution as fact he must prove it is fact. He is not arguing in terms of probability, and to prove the resolution he must give verifiable and empirical evidence which he has not done. He has not even begun to fulfill the Burden of Proof.

Pro claims he did not concede when he said this "I did not assert that an embryo can experience suffering, I did assert that mercy and suffering both start simultaneously from the moment of conception." Obviously for an suffering to start at conception an embryo must be capable of experiencing suffering. Pro ignores the definition of distress that is anxiety, sorrow, or pain and claims that all embryos are distressed when I have shown that embryo's can't feel pain or experience emotion at the moment of conception.

"Con want's to deny the right to life during the first twenty weeks after conception, that's Con's business. If he can kill a baby before it can scream or teach others that it's ok or good to do so, that's on him. Can we get past this into the bigger question, what will eternity be for you? Will it be relief from suffering or will it be denial of mercy?"
No arguments here just personal insults and assumptions that his god exists. This is ad hominem and an argument from ignorance.

"The death argument is not just semantics it is a fact. From the moment you are conceived, death is working in you and yoru clock is ticking and time is running out. From the moment you are conceived, you are suffering from the death that was inherited genetically. It is not semantics. Con is trying to deny that suffering begins at conception by playing semantics and basically saying if a baby cannot scream, it is not suffering. Con is trying to make this into an excuse to kill babies before they are born. That is not what the debate is about. The debate is about eternity. Will eternity be the same as time is now, or will an individual know only suffering or only mercy. I say we each will know only suffering or only mercy, the two cannot go together."

This argument is ridiculous. All I have to do to prove this wrong is to point out that I will eventually die, and at this moment I do not meet the definition of suffering. If any voters believe that every person on this planet begins suffering at conception and will continue suffering until death, then give the argument points to Con. Unfortunately it is blatantly false and has no supporting evidence. All contradictory claims are evidence against it.

"Too bad people are so hard set in rejecting God when He is trying in love to bring them back to Himself from the fire of Hell they deserve."
Still not seeing any arguments.

"Ok. If you think you do not deserve to die, I guess it's hopeless to argue. If you think you do not need mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you have the right to live now but you did not have the right to live untill 20 weeks after you were conceived, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think you are not suffering if you do not feel pain, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you are alive now without mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think death ends suffering and you need no mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think God does not have the right to cast you away like a piece of garbage to burn in hell forever, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think God is not there, tt's hopeless to argue. If you think your uncle was a monkey, it's hopelss to argue. I'm done. Thank you very much, I hope you see that you need mercy from God to be spared from the fire of hell and get saved.......He became a man to take your death, if that was not good enough for you I"m sorry for you. He is risen from the dead and you will see Him and you will know it's Him who I was trying to show you. I'm done."
If you feel making an assertion without evidence will win you this debate then good luck.

To win this debate Pro must prove both resolutions. He has not provided any evidence other than his personal passion for his religion. Here's how the voting should go-
Conduct- Me because of serious insults with no basis
Sources- Me since I was the only one to use a source
Arguments- Me because Pro did not even begin to fulfill his burden and did not provide real evidence to counter my arguments.
The only way to vote is Con!
Debate Round No. 3
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
yes, go talk to others, I really feel bad watching you dig yourself into a hole deeper and deeper as you keep swallowing your foot more and more.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
ray ray ray........you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole here.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
You're hopelessly ignorant. I'm gonna go talk to some people who actually have IQ's higher than houseplant.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
willfully ignorant and putting on a show of superiority pretending that ignorance is intelligence.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
scoreboard shows a lot of ignorance and bias......I expected that before i made the debate challenge, it's the way of the world
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
your whole argument was nothing but systematic ignoring of mine and lying saying mine had no substance or logic.....then putting up lengthy and distracting arguments against the logic and substance of my arguements while saying I had none. and all the time insulting my intelligence. Get your foot out of your mouth and make some jokes about your pants.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Scoreboard speaks for itself. You're in denial. It's pretty common for the close minded
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you claimed my arguements had no logic or substance, then you put up lengthy denials of the logic and substance. you know it. you are only putting your foot in your mouth deeper now. you'll do better making jokes about your shorts
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
I never remembered claiming ignorance. I'll leave that area to you and your (apparently) mute pants.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
that's ok Ray........you finally admitted that your whole argument was total ignorance of mine......go ahead and be funny now. I do find you funny.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Pro's arguments only demonstrate no knowledge of biology and the purpose of pain, Con made the only rational statements in this debate. No sources to back Pro up, so Pro's argument is entirely subjective and extremely Irrational, and that is being kind to Pro.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Pro did not fulfill his BoP. If you want a debate kept in a religious framework, you must specify that from the beginning. Otherwise, you will have to prove the existence of God, heaven, hell, etc. Con rightly pointed out the lack of evidence from Pro.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Embryos cannot feel.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: CON pointed out that an embryo is incapable of experiencing suffering (as an embryo is incapable of feeling) thereby negating the entire resolution. I could simply award arguments to CON based on that one contention because PRO bound himself to the two beginning at conception. PRO therefore limited them to the individual being conceived and not the world around the individual. In the future, PRO, be careful with how you set up your resolutions. By binding yourself to conception, you allowed CON to dismantle your entire case by pointing out that embryos do not suffer.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Pro's case was based entirely off of bare assertions, including the existence of God, and Con called him out for that, effectively showing that Pro did not meet his BOP with his argument.