THBT: suffering occurs due to false belief

• In order for one to have a definition preferable and more reliable than the dictionary one, one must show himself to be more credible than the dictionary.
  
• There has been no evidence listed by Ehyeh or anyone else to show that he is in fact a contributor of any dictionaries, is a scholar on such subjects or similar figures. Ehyeh has shown in no cases that he is more authentic in defining terms than a dictionary. (Please present proof if any, next round)
  
• Therefore, it is preferrable to use the dictionary definition than Ehyeh's presented in this round, for now.
  

1: the state or experience of one that suffers

2: PAIN

intransitive verb: especially : characterized by not having or containing a direct object (Which is how it is used in 1)
1: to endure death, pain, or distress

2: to sustain loss or damage

3: to be subject to disability or handicap

1a(1): a localized or generalized unpleasant bodily sensation or complex of sensations that causes mild to severe physical discomfort and emotional distress and typically results from bodily disorder (such as injury or disease)acute shooting painsalso : the state marked by the presence of such sensations

(2): a basic bodily sensation that is induced by a noxious stimulus, is received by naked nerve endings, is associated with actual or potential tissue damage, is characterized by physical discomfort (such as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leads to evasive action

b: mental or emotional distress or suffering : GRIEF

• Suffering means:
  
• Feeling of discomfort physically or mentally
  
• Having damage(unspecified whether physically or mentally)
  

• Having an arm cut off(painfully and without consent)
  
• Torture based on controlling neurons in the brain such that thoughts of self-acceptance and such are removed and the painful thoughts persist.
  
• Drinking poison unknowingly(while having no disease that renders you unresponsive to pain)
  
• Being hit by a rogue rocketship going 8km/s and having too little time to find meaning before dying
  

Is there a reason for the suffering of an innocent child? I can’t prove to you that there is, but I also can’t prove to you that there isn’t. So to me, that means it’s a personal choice that you have to make.

I argue suffering is a mental condition, not a physical one. I can get a paper cut, but I wouldn't say I was "suffering" but simply in pain.

In his book /Man’s Search for Meaning/, Viktor Frankl wrote, “in some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning”.

Therefore i will be arguing that Viktor Frankl is right, that suffering only exists, in so-far as we believe its pointless.

"If you can't endure suffering, then you aren't free, you're a slave to whatever will protect you from suffering."- Dostoevsky 

But what happens when they’re deprived of their comforts? What happens when they lose their money, their status, and their fancy food? They start to suffer, and since they have no idea how to suffer, they’ll serve any idea that offers them an escape from their suffering.

The Monk believes that freedom lies in our ability to withstand discomfort. So they spend their life mastering discomfort and overcoming the need for pleasure.

and what happens when they lose their comforts? Their money, status, and fancy foods?

and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom

Evidently based on what I have previously said, I have demonstrated that suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one. This means suffering occurs due to a fear of hopelessness.

• Since one cannot reliably detach from one's body, it is incorrect to say that suffering is never physically, ESPECIALLY physical affairs can lead to mental ones(for example, you feel hurt when you are shot by a bullet, or being crushed by an elevator).
  
• Cutting one's limb off before realizing what they can make out of it is suffering even for the perfect monk, even if it only happens for a short amount of time.
  
• Torture devices designed to only imput painful stigmas while removing fear or hopelessness(just pain, you can feel it though) still can induce pain and suffering for a biologically normal person.
  
• What finding meaning in suffering results in for Pro is not adequately justified as it is purely just an appeal to authority.
  
• In fact, suffering is still suffering even if we remove "false belief" and endure it with reason and peace with oneself. Suffering still can take place according to Pro even if there is no false belief.
  
• Pro has never proven that his interpretations are more reliable than the dictionary definition.
  
• Merriam-Webster is verified by other sites.
  
• The definition given by M-W Dictionary states that any physical or mental pain or damage is suffering, which is not only possible but possibly common.
  
• Overall, Pro has failed to prove his position to be correct. Vote CON!

• Unfortunately, a large portion of Cons's case was spent on an appeal to authority. He states my usage of the word "suffering" is incorrect as it doesn't follow the Merriam-Webster definition, yet offers no justification or philosophical dialogue as to why this definition is better than the one I offered (which did have metaphysical reasoning as to why it is better). He expects you to just believe it because "it's more trustworthy than pro". You must prove there definition more reliable, not assume it is.
  
• If I choose to even admit my usage of the word "suffering" wasn't in alignment with what people generally mean by it, that fact in itself doesn't mean my usage of it isn't more precise or more accurate (based on my philosophical justification as to why). Yes, I believe my definition is more precise than the dictionary's. Now you have to debate it with me, and see if I'm more precise than these scholars or not.
  
• Con spent the majority of the round simply copying and pasting the Merriam-Webster definition of suffering, with no philosophical justification for why this definition is superior to the one I presented. His argument was a complete nonsequiter and added nothing to the discussion nor disproved my interpretation of what suffering should mean and entail.
  

1. you can have pain without suffering
   
2. you cannot have suffering without pain
   

• If I simply said "a sheep is white" to someone who has never seen a sheep, but I have. Should they believe me just because I said it? The obvious answer is no. Listen to me and believe me, just because I said it would simply be an appeal to my authority based on the fact that I've seen a sheep. Con does the exact same thing here, but with definitions and scholars.
  

Debunk this definition if you can.

With this definition, these are suffering without false belief.

• Having an arm cut off(painfully and without consent)
  
• Torture based on controlling neurons in the brain such that thoughts of self-acceptance and such are removed and the painful thoughts persist.
  
• Drinking poison unknowingly(while having no disease that renders you unresponsive to pain)
  
• Being hit by a rogue rocketship going 8km/s and having too little time to find meaning before dying
  

Not quite. It has been scientific consensus that babies can feel pain(before they know any better to find peace within, of course). In fact, the fact that fetuses feel pain BEFORE birth has lead to various US states illegalizing abortion. In fact, we can't prove anyone is suffering at all if dig deep enough and question the existence of everything, so there is no point in using this as a supporting proof.

we can't prove anyone is suffering at all if dig deep enough and question the existence of everything, so there is no point in using this as a supporting proof.

 argue physical pain can lead to suffering. I can get hit by a 18-wheeler, but I would say that is both pain and suffering. Also, anecdotal evidence like this is not reliable.

Without further proof, this is an appeal to authority fallacy.

This proof originate from one aspect of existence. Obviously you can be detached from wealth and posessions, but there is one thing you can't reliably lose: Your body, which is a living set of sensors. Please, per my request, justify the reason why being stabbed in the lungs not suffering for any biologically regular person. What about being hit bullseye by a heavy cannon? Being blasted the radioactive shockwaves of an atom bomb? Being Darth Vader in This scene? I would argue that in normal purposes of argumentation, if one is conscious enduring any of these, it is considered suffering.

If I chop the leg of a monk off on public street without guard up, pretty sure he will be suffering for at least a few moments. The mind is not infinitely speedy and the pain leads to the brain for a shorter amount of time before realizing what this could mean consciously.

When someone stabs their chest, their lungs, hearts, guts, resulting in lost blood and oxygen supply. If that is not enough, try kicking them around five times or more, might as well cut all four limbs off. How would they reliably still be comfortable?

When someone stabs their chest, their lungs, hearts, guts, resulting in lost blood and oxygen supply. If that is not enough, try kicking them around five times or more, might as well cut all four limbs off. How would they reliably still be comfortable?

• Since one cannot reliably detach from one's body, it is incorrect to say that suffering is never physically, ESPECIALLY physical affairs can lead to mental ones(for example, you feel hurt when you are shot by a bullet, or being crushed by an elevator).
  
• Cutting one's limb off before realizing what they can make out of it is suffering even for the perfect monk, even if it only happens for a short amount of time.
  
• Torture devices designed to only imput painful stigmas while removing fear or hopelessness(just pain, you can feel it though) still can induce pain and suffering for a biologically normal person.
  
• What finding meaning in suffering results in for Pro is not adequately justified as it is purely just an appeal to authority.
  
• In fact, suffering is still suffering even if we remove "false belief" and endure it with reason and peace with oneself. Suffering still can take place according to Pro even if there is no false belief.
  
• Pro has never proven that his interpretations are more reliable than the dictionary definition.
  
• Merriam-Webster is verified by other sites.
  
• The definition given by M-W Dictionary states that any physical or mental pain or damage is suffering, which is not only possible but possibly common.
  
• Overall, Pro has failed to prove his position to be correct. Vote CON!
  

Before a discussion can be had on whether suffering is strictly caused by a wrong belief, we must first question what suffering is, where it lies, and where it ends. I argue suffering is a mental condition, not a physical one. I can get a paper cut, but I wouldn't say I was "suffering" but simply in pain. Therefore, suffering is not caused by physical distress but a mental interpretation of physical distress.

This dictionary only cites the definition of a desert being a hot biome.

Pain and suffering are both the same, except pain is a broader experience than suffering.

Pain is different but related to suffering. He likely would feel suffering due to the fact that he wouldn't expect that to happen to him. Buddhist philosophy is predicated on the idea that expectation leads to suffering. I support this ideology. Our expectations lead us to hopelessness and then suffering.

In my ideology, there is such a thing as people dying with a smile on their faces even while in pain.

I never said suffering is always avoidable. You will always suffer as we always have expectations. My argument is simply that suffering comes about due to the mind, not the body.

1. my kamikaze example is a good argument against that.

2. my argument isn't that suffering is avoidable therefore irrelevant.

• Pro has never actually defined what "suffering" is, he merely brought distinctions and attributes, which is not enough for definitions.
  
• I have presented proof of MW dictionary being an authentic source by people, including that their defintions collect how people use terms like "suffering".
  
• Pro has never defined what "false beliefs" are or what is "false" about anything.
  
• Every kind of "belief" Pro has brought up can be argued to be true, not false, because they exist in humans and rightfully so from evolution, satisfying none of the descriptions by the term "false".
  
• Suffering can exist without beliefs.
  
• People can go expecting nothing, and an assasination attempt on anyone would come as surprise, mostly. If the pain collected by the nerves reaches our brain faster than our brain can calm ourselves with it, that is where suffering exists, without the need of expectation or belief.
  
• Obviously, Kamikaze pilots are just ready beforehand and expect themselves to die before they actually do. Most deaths are painful and unexpected, and they induce suffering before we can think about it.
  
• Not all suffering occur due to false belief. Vote Con.

This is a philosophical discussion. It's wholly impossible to prove we all experience things the same way. I have no idea if you actually experience the taste of a pizza the same way I do (i assume you do).

• Whatever "philosophical discussion" actually means in this exact location, this phrase or any phrase in similarity was absent from the description. Or, in short terms, I did not sign up for this.
  
• As a result, I will(and I have) treat(ed) this this topic as any other: a topic written in words and shall be interpreted in words, as opposed to arbitrary ideas of clarivoyance. My argument reflect this as they clearly stress on what some key words mean, given the grammatics and context.
  
• We do not have to "discuss" what "suffering" or even "pain" means during this debate due to that both terms are already in circulation with commonality commonly among the communities. Highly-organized constructs/organizations such as Merriam-Webster Dictionary have collected definitions and interpretations of terms like this for ages among the citizens within the world. In this case, people do in fact use the two terms possibly interchangeably, as a noun, in its correct place. Ehyeh is not a more qualified scholar on words than those hired at Merriam-Websters, at least not with any proof here.
  
• Thus, this sentence amounts to basically nothing here.
  

In this same manner, I would assume you're being dishonest if you don't believe there's a difference between suffering and pain (unless English isn't your first language).

I've lost interest in continuing this discussion, in part because it seems like you will just play the ultimate skeptic. That or we just have fundamentally different biology which processes things differently (I think you're being dishonest if you said that were the case).

• Pro has yet to clearly establish what "false belief" exactly is, making so that Pro did not actually fulfill his BoP.
  
• Assasinations are examples: You don't have to expect anything to suffer, just as you would suffer when you get suprisingly stabbed from the back before you make up your mind about what it is. You would be hurt and you would sense it before your thought catches up. In this timeframe at least, you suffer without the need of any belief at all.
  
• False beliefs are nonexistent due to tautology. Based on Con's source from M-W Dictionary, the topic is essentially impossible to prove.
  
• M-W is a more authentic source on what a word means than Ehyeh, and M-W states that "pain" and "suffering" can be used interchangeably, which pain is obviously common.
  
• Pro admits that suffering can be felt without the clear inteference of any belief at all.
  
• Kamikaze pilots are special cases where they do know what they are doing. For people being assasinated, they would absolutely suffer before knowing what has been done to them.
  
• As a result, Pro's proposition is not proven true but proven to be untrue by Con as of this point. Vote CON if you find my argument to be the more convincing out of the two.