Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4705
Humans suffer due to our birth
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 2,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1500
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Description
I will try to prove that without birth we won't suffer.
I'm new to debating and to this platform, point out any possible improvement.
I appreciate your time and effort.
Thank you.
Round 1
P1: Suffering includes death (S1)
P2: Humans die (S2)
C1: Humans suffer
P3: Without birth humans don't exist (S3)
P4: Humans suffer (C1)
C2: Without birth humans don't suffer
P5: By negating C2 (S4)
C3: With birth humans suffer
Alrighty here I go.
Obviously without birth humans don't suffer. Because we immediately go to Heaven. At least that is what I believe.
Without thinking about religion, People believe that I guess after death is just a black void of nothingness. Which to me is absolutely terrifying.
But suffering Suffering Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, Is also used for distress, agony, pain, and loss. I in fact have experienced much suffering, as evreyone who has ever lived has. When I don't have a cold side to my pillow, I suffer. But In more serious terms, I have seen people die. When I was staying with my great grandfather, he passed away in his sleep. And I was there. Could do nothing about it. Its horrible, you ask God why? Why do people suffer? But the reason is, there are two options when we suffer,
1: Is we run away and shut ourselves out and say nobody can experience what we have. Just being depressed in self-pity.
2: We turn to God and learn, "Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance." BibleGateway - Keyword Search: suffering
I implore you to look into this link and read through it. This might not be the argument you're looking for but it is important for you to know my side.
Round 2
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments.
P6: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (S5).
P7: Con has proved my C2 (S6).
P8: Con has proved my C1 (S7).
P9: Con has argued for perseverance however still keeping C1 valid (S8).
C4: Since no arguments of mine were countered, my arguments still stand.
I hope I have successfully counter argued all your counter arguments.
Not for the sake of argument.
Even though I don't feel the same suffering as you, I too suffer and that's why I started this debate. I also sympathize with your suffering.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
S5: "Alrighty here I go.", "People believe that … is absolutely terrifying.", "I implore you … know my side."
S6: "Obviously without birth … thinking about religion,"
S7: "But suffering ... do people suffer?"
S8: "But the reason … perseverance."
So to just start off quick and easy the first quote on S5(I believe) had nothing to do with the argument. It was just a lame opening statement because I don't really know how to start off well.
As for the actual argument:
C1 is completely valid argument that possibly nobody can beat if you think about it. If you die you dont suffer. Obviously. But I am arguing for the side of life itself and the beauty of it. I admit I do go off track sometimes as you have pointed out, but my argument is leading to the point that life is valuable and a beautiful gift of God.
C2: I think was the point that humans suffer. And that is entirely correct but as I have said in the previous argument, there are two ways of going about this suffering.
Obviously I have proved both points and there is no counter to that and no human on earth can ever say that no human has suffered. So with that, I would like to maybe shift the argument to suffering itself , not if we do, but how we do it and what it means and is about.
I will probably lose this argument just because I point out religion. So just hear me out and see my side. Thank you.
Round 3
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments.
And as the contender points out I do apologize for referencing the opening statement however I just wanted to focus on the important arguments stated by my contender. So I'm very sorry about that.
P10: Unfortunately I like to say that my contender is trying to make me into a straw man fallacy. Since I even believe that "life is valuable". Therefore I can't counter argue such a statement (S11).
C5: S11 didn't counter my argument.
P11: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (S9).
P12: Con has proved my C1 (S10).
P13: S11 didn't counter my argument (C5).
C6: Since no arguments of mine were countered, my arguments still stand.
I hope I have successfully counter argued all your counter - counter arguments.
Not for the sake of the argument.
Like my contender points out I believe all life is valuable, and I really hope my contender can prove it even in a new debate.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
S9: "So to just … the actual argument:", "Obviously I have … side. Thank you."
S10: "C1 is completely … suffer. Obviously."
S11: "But I am arguing … going about this suffering."
I'm going to try to do this differently, because I have just been doing this without actually thinking about it. So here is a better version of arguments. Hope you like them.
Point 1: The statement "Without birth, humans don't suffer" implies that suffering is a result of existence. But this assumption overlooks the fact that suffering is a experience of humans. People who were never born lack consciousness and subjective experiences. Without living, there can be no capacity for suffering. Suffering is a result of us facing challenges, pain, or emotional distress, which we need to be alive to happen.
Point 2 : We need meaning : Our existence involves seeking meaning and purpose in life. Suffering, even though it can be negative, can play a role in shaping individuals and societies, prompting empathy, and personal growth. Without the existence of people who have suffering, the opportunity for us to understand and empathize may disappear.
Point 3: The moral consequence: It is important to know that suffering is not solely a consequence of birth; it can come about from various things such as illness, poverty, or violence. Instead of focusing solely on preventing birth, we could be direct towards easing suffering through social, and medical advancements. Which we cannot solve if we confined ourselves to the idea that without birth we don't suffer. Addressing the root causes of suffering can lead to more meaningful and lasting improvements in human well-being.
Point 4: Hope in Eternal Life: As I am a Christian, I emphasize the hope of eternal life and the belief that the suffering in this world is temporary, compared to the glory that awaits us believers in the presence of God (2 Corinthians 4:17). While birth introduces the possibility of suffering, it also opens the door to the hope of salvation and the promise of everlasting joy in God's presence.
I hope I have counter- countered - countered your arguments 😉.
I look forward to your arguments, Have a blessed day.
Round 4
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments.
Also that I appreciate my contenders point 3 and point 4 due to the fact that I anticipated them and one of great arguments against my arguments.
For the purpose of clarity I have summarized my contender's arguments as follows in the hope I have not misunderstood them,
Point 1: Proved my C2.
Point 2: There are advantages to suffering.
Point 3: Prevent suffering.
Point 4: There could be no suffering.
The steps of summarization are included in the comment #5 (Even though arguments are discouraged there I only added the summarization steps.).
P14: Con has proved my C2 (S12).
P15: Con has argued for advantages to suffering however still keeping my arguments valid (S13).
P16: Since it was argued that death is also suffering, my contender's argument to prevent suffering intends to prevent death as well.
However, since I am unaware of such a method to prevent the death of a human, I shall put the burden of proof upon my contender that death can be prevented (S14).
P17: My contender argues that there's no suffering. Since I argued death as a suffering, as in the previous case I shall put the burden of proof to my contender that there's no suffering (S15).
C7: Since no arguments of mine were countered, my arguments still stand.
I hope I have successfully counter argued all your counter - counter - counter counter arguments.
Not for the sake of the argument.
I really hope my contender's next arguments will be short since this argument took many hours to analyze and counter argue.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
S12: "Point 1: The statement ... alive to happen."
S13: "Point 2 : We need ... empathize may disappear."
S14: "Point 3: The moral ... human well-being."
S15: "Point 4: Hope in ... in God's presence."
Counter arguments: "Since it was argued that death is also suffering, my contender's argument to prevent suffering intends to prevent death...I shall put the burden of proof upon my contender that death can be prevented (S14)." If you review all of my arguments, I say the word death once and reference it once again. Additionally, in no place in my arguments did I argue that you could prevent death, which you can't. I never had the intent to argue you have to prevent death to prevent suffering.
Counter argument 2: Pro said, "My contender argues that there's no suffering. Since I argued death as a suffering, as in the previous case...suffering (S15)." Nowhere in my knowledge did I say that there is no suffering. Maybe I said there is no suffering in heaven, but that is literally in another realm.
Significant flaws in my contenders points: As pro has said every argument, "Con has proved my C2." as I have already addressed, that is a fact, you cannot argue against it. Also, the repetition in the counter arguments are signs that my contender has no argument other than the fact they have stated.
Strawman Fallacy-The straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted.
This is what my opponent has been doing for the significant portion of the argument. If you review the arguments, repetitively I have had to restate my arguments multiple times (including this one) as my opponent has used this fallacy.
I would also like to include that in the first round, my opponent just wrote down words in the dictionary. And so in the second round my opponent stated " Since no...my arguments still stand.". As I am sure you have noticed, pro has been stating fact the entire debate, and then labeled them as arguments. Which is impossible to counter.
In my opponent's opposition to this round, I would like to see a real argument supported by logical reasoning.
Round 5
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments.
And since this is the last round I must say I have learned much from my contender and I wish to have another debate in the future.
P18: First of all I must apologize if I counter argued incorrectly, since this being my first debate I thought,
1: I share my arguments.
2: My contender tries to counter argue by either showing a weakness in my logic (fallacy) or any of my sources are false (trust) etc…
3. And I must counter by showing a weakness in my contender's argument.
In the end if my contender succeeds and I couldn't find a better argument to defend my position I shall concede.
Or my argument is kept and believed until proven otherwise.
If it's not the process of a debate, please accept my sincere apology and let me know the process (S18).
C8: I believe that con didn't counter my arguments.
P19: A straw man fallacy … is … an argument different from the one actually under discussion … (S20).
P20: I didn't intend to misrepresent, only stating that I couldn't counter different arguments.
C9: I believe that con didn't counter my arguments.
P21: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (S16).
P22: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (S17).
P23: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (C8).
P24: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (C9).
P25: I omit these to the belief it doesn't counter my arguments (C21).
C10: Since no arguments of mine were countered, my arguments still stand.
I hope I have successfully countered all counter arguments.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And I will reinstate this debate again to anybody who is interested to debate this again.
S16: "Counter arguments: ... prevent suffering."
S17: "Counter argument 2: … in another realm."
S18: "Significant flaws in … they have stated."
S19: "Strawman Fallacy-The … used this fallacy."
S21: "I would also … by logical reasoning."
Forfeited
Hey Intelligence_06,
It's my intention to put everything I know to the test so that I may remove false beliefs and accept new ones.
Thanks and thank you for the compliment.
This is a truism.
Here's a analysis of my contenders argument #6 for the purpose of understanding the argument.
I hope I successfully considered all my contender's arguments. I apologize if I didn't.
Point 1:
1: "The statement "Without birth, humans don't suffer" implies that suffering is a result of existence."
2: "But this assumption overlooks the fact that suffering is a experience of humans."
3: "People who were never born lack consciousness and subjective experiences."
4: "Without living, there can be no capacity for suffering."
5: "Suffering is a result of us facing challenges, pain, or emotional distress, which we need to be alive to happen."
Summarized as:
1: Omitted.
2: Suffering is an experience of humans.
3, 4, 5: Without life, no suffering.
Argued and more summarized as:
2: Discuss suffering as an experience while still keeping the fact that there is suffering.
3, 4, 5: Since without birth no life, no birth means no suffering.
Keeping: Proved my C2.
Point 2:
6: "We need meaning : Our existence involves seeking meaning and purpose in life."
7: "Suffering, even though it can be negative, can play a role in shaping individuals and societies, prompting empathy, and personal growth."
8: "Without the existence of people who have suffering, the opportunity for us to understand and empathize may disappear."
Summarized as:
6: We exist to seek meaning and purpose.
7: Suffering leads to change, growth, and empathy.
8: Without suffering we may not empathize, and understand.
Argued and more summarized as:
6, 7, 8: All discuss the advantages of suffering.
Keeping: There are advantages to suffering.
Point 3:
9: "The moral consequence: It is important to know that suffering is not solely a consequence of birth; it can come about from various things such as illness, poverty, or violence."
10: "Instead of focusing solely on preventing birth, we could be direct towards easing suffering through social, and medical advancements."
11: "Which we cannot solve if we confined ourselves to the idea that without birth we don't suffer."
12: "Addressing the root causes of suffering can lead to more meaningful and lasting improvements in human well-being."
Summarized as:
9: Many reasons for suffering including birth (... not solely a ...).
10: Can ease suffering.
11: Omitted.
12: Prevent suffering.
Argued and more summarized as:
9: Birth is a reason for suffering (Proving my C3).
10, 12: Since prevention is better than easing. Therefore the 12th summarization is kept.
Keeping: Prevent suffering.
Point 4:
13: "Hope in Eternal Life: As I am a Christian, I emphasize the hope of eternal life and the belief that the suffering in this world is temporary, compared to the glory that awaits us believers in the presence of God (2 Corinthians 4:17)."
14: "While birth introduces the possibility of suffering, it also opens the door to the hope of salvation and the promise of everlasting joy in God's presence."
Summarized as:
13: Suffering is temporary after which there's eternal glory.
14: Possibility of suffering. After death there's joy.
I like to point out that in 14th summarization,
My contender argues there's only a possibility of suffering. Meaning that there could be no suffering.
Argued and more summarized as:
13: There's suffering even temporarily.
14: There could be no suffering.
Since my contender argues after death, there is still suffering until death.
Keeping: There could be no suffering.
Hey, thank you for being my contender.
Generally you can think of any sufferings you like.
But as my source suggest it could be death, pain, loss, etc.
However I used death since it's seems solid and agreeable.
Which could also be physically and emotionally suffering.
Feel free to use anyway you like.
Thank you.
Thanks for reminding me, is this debate for physical or emotional suffering? Or both?
Well, the babies cry, so I am pretty syre humans suffer as they undergo birthing.
Hey I'm really new to this as well so I'll see how this goes. How do you post for the round?