Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4819
Re2: 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
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
hey-yo
Tags
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
1493
rating
25
debates
60.0%
won
Description
I will try to prove that with birth we suffer.
This is a re - debate of https://www.debateart.com/debates/4705-humans-suffer-due-to-our-birth. To allow for new counter - arguments against my arguments.
I'm new to debating and to this platform, point out any possible improvement.
I appreciate your time and effort.
Thank you.
Round 1
Pro
#1
As stated here are my arguments still standing,
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
Con
#2
Thanks for debate.
We are unable to believe pro's conclusion.
Even if burden of proof (B.O.P. ) was shared, we have no evidence to support proposed logic.
B.o.p.
I am open to pro suggesting b.o.p. for this debate.
1. Debate topic & conclusion.
Referencing debate's title, " humans suffer due to our birth ."
We understand this to mean,
" Humans suffer because we are born."
Does pro agree with above interpretation?
Does this mean birth is our source for our suffering?
Could a human exist without suffering?
Does a human exist without suffering at any point in our lives?
2. Suffering because of death
P1: Suffering includes death (S1)P2: Humans die (S2)C1: Humans suffer
Why does suffering include death?
3. Birth, existing, & suffering?
P3: Without birth humans don't exist (S3)P4: Humans suffer (C1)C2: Without birth humans don't suffer
P3 pro says without birth humans don't exist.
Is ToLearn saying we do not exist prior to birth? How do you support this claim?
4. C2 & C3 paradox
C2: Without birth humans don't sufferC3: With birth humans suffer
P5 & c3 does not provide evidence for the given, understood position (1), humans suffer because we are born.
A). c2 & c3 do not have the same meaning because without birth, one often dies. This means, under pro's logic, something that does not exist is suffering.
B). To support that something, which I will now identify as a human, may die prior to birth, here are some links on still births and miscarriages to help define and explain events where a human may die prior to birth.
S5 stillbirth
5. Definitions
Pro's given definitions need clarifying. Which definition is being used in this debate?
Round 2
Pro
#3
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments.
Also that the con's arguments are really great, they question the definition precisely and made me reflect upon them.
P6: I have provided sources for all my premises (Ex: P1 was defined in S1).
P7: I have deduced out of those premises a conclusion (Ex: P1 and P2 deduce to C1).
C4: I failed to see where I didn't provide any evidence. I would love to see con explain how a successful argument looks like.
P8: Since I believe I am making the claim I shall hold the burden of proof to my argument ("I am open … for this debate.").
P9: Yes ("Does pro … interpretation?").
P10: Yes ("Does this … suffering?").
P11: Yes ("Could a … suffering?").
P12: Can ("Does a human … in our lives?").
P13: Since my S1 defines it as "to endure death, pain, or distress" ("Why does … death?").
C5: I hope I have successfully answered all of the questions and hope that none of these counter my arguments.
C6: After much consideration, even though I already have the arguments ready to be published, I most humbly beg of con to give me a chance in the next round to counter con's argument number 3 ("3. Birth, … suffering?") and number 4 ("4. C2 … paradox") since it's a very strong argument that will take a few more words than the character limit allows and for the sake of viewers and voters' clarity.
P14: I will wait for the con's argument for "We are unable … proposed logic." (C4).
P15: I hope I answered the questions (C5).
P16: I hope to have a chance next round (C6).
P17: I hope I have successfully given all definitions for con except for argument number 3 ("5. Definitions … debate?").
C7: I hope I have successfully counter argued all your arguments except 3 and 4. And will wait to have the chance.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Con
#4
Thanks again for this debate ToLearn. Thank you audience.
1. Debate topic & conclusion.
1A. Definitions and evidence
P6 & 7. We are using definitions and deductive reasoning to develope pro's conclusion. Ok.
C4: I failed to see where I didn't provide any evidence.
I do not need to show examples of a successful argument. However, evidence shows us how our premises work together and their accuracy.
Ex::
: P3: Without birth humans don't exist (S3)
Unlike P1, P3 is not based on a definition because definition of "birth" (s3) does not tell us if we exist without birth. This is some of missing evidence.
Also missing why or how birth causes suffering. There is a possibility that death causes suffering because death is by definition, suffering.
P8: I shall hold the [b.o.p.]
Ok
1B. Questions follow up
P9: YesP10: YesP11: YesP12: [humans] Can [exist without suffering]
Ok. I present a new conclusion, let me know why we should follow yours and not mine. Ok?
P1: Suffering includes death (S1)
P2: ALL Humans die (S2)
C1: ALL Humans suffer
P3: Without birth humans don't exist (S3)
P4: Humans suffer
P5: humans don't suffer if they don't exist
Therefore humans suffer because we exist.
Considering your logic and then the above logic. which should we believe and why? Are there differences between the two?
I would accept if next round only covers my # 3&4 but do what you can either way. I hope this shows more into how/why evidence is missing but also asks, why don't we just conclude existence is the cause to suffering
3. Birth/existing
C6: Pro addresses number 3 ("3. Birth, … suffering?")
Ok
4. C2 & c3 paradox
Pro addresses number 4 ("4. C2 … paradox") in following round?
Ok.
P15: I hope I answered the questions.
Yeah you did fine.
Round 3
Pro
#5
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers. And it was kind of you for the compliment ("Yeah you did fine.").
P18: Con have argued existence before birth, and I have no problem with it. Even so I could've argued suffering caused by any existence, I used birth to make the debate easier. I like con to suggest how to proceed on this ("Unlike P1, P3 … missing evidence.).
P19: As my P1 states, if there's any probability of death by reason of anything such as birth or existence or anything that leads to death it would be suffering ("Also missing … causes suffering.").
P20: Correct, but I argue what causes death in the first place ("There is a … definition, suffering.").
P21: I completely agree, I started from birth because of the possibility of existence before birth. To be more accurate (existence -> birth -> death -> suffering) ("Ok. I present … between the two?").
P22: As I mentioned earlier I like my con to propose whether we exist before birth or not, and I could change the definition to like "Without existence humans don't suffer" ("3. Birth … this claim?").
P23: After many considerations I believe con's argument is in the view that between pregnancy and birth, suffering occurs if the fetus fails to develop as expected. When I started the argument, I looked at the view of mine as a living person. So it's kind of my mistake. However since suffering is an experience, I would like to learn con's thoughts whether undeveloped fetus have experiences ("4. C2 & C3 … S7 miscarriage").
C8: I hope I have successfully counter argued all your counter arguments.
Not for the sake of argument
I believe con without counter arguing, actually support it by making it more clear. And I am thankful for it.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Con
#6
Thank you everyone.
1. Debate topic & conclusion.
1A. Definitions and evidence
I like con to suggest how to proceed on this
Evidence that indicates we are not biologically living (living is opposite to death) unless we are born/birthed would align with round 1 post.
If there is another way to explain, I am open to reading it.
"P20: I argue what causes death in the first place..."
If you argue what causes death, then we be able to see a direct & literal link between birth & death.
Answer this: person A dies, cause of death on medical record says heart failure (which can occur at any age - before or after birth), why should we say person A died because of birth instead of heart failure?
1B. follow up
I completely agree, I started from birth because of the possibility of existence before birth. To be more accurate ...
I presented my logic, where my c2 contradicts ToLearn c2.
To agree with my c2 is to inherently disagree with ToLearn c2 from round 1.
ToLearn, I am asking why is your original c2 correct and my improvised c2 is incorrect. Both conflict with each other. .
3. Birth/existing
I like my con to propose whether we exist before birth or not
we can see a human biologically lives and then biologically dies with links I provided - which according to Pro indicates suffering and existence.
4. C2 & c3
P23: After many considerations I believe con's argument is.... suffering occurs if the fetus fails to develop as expected.
I am saying that the logic provided in round 1 applies to a fetus because a fetus can die without being born.
[Does] undeveloped fetus have experiences.
Reminder: Pro agreed that they have b.o.p.
I do not understand "experiences" importance.
Round 4
Pro
#7
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers.
P24: "living is opposite to death" I believe death is rather an event. I believe matter is categorized as living or nonliving by "matter that shows certain attributes" as life and after the event of death it becomes matter that doesn't show those attributes (S8).
P25: Sorry I really don't know if this is correct but please let me know if not. For example, due to gravity we get attracted to Earth. But if there's no gravity, we don't get attracted to Earth. So "A died because … of heart failure", I agree. But that heart failure happened because that person was existing in the first place. If that person didn't exist, can the heart failure of that person still happen? So I argue the reason for that heart failure is existence itself ("If you argue what … heart failure?").
P26: I believe you say ("B). To support … S7 miscarriage"), existence (fetus/developing cells) -> birth -> death. So if there is no birth there will be no death after birth (I mistook all types of death, without realizing the death of the fetus). And if there's no existence, then any type of death will not occur. So yes, your conclusion is completely correct, my conclusion had a definition problem which I apologize for. The definition of death I used is death after birth, but if you prefer we could stick with any type of death ("I presented my … with each other. .").
P27: I agree "we can see … and existence").
P28: Thank you for the clarification, I have learned my lesson ("I am saying … being born.").
P29: I thought until the fetus is completely developed, it can't experience feelings of pain/death as stated in S1 I just mentioned because of this, but I really don't know anything about bio science ("I do not … "experiences" importance.").
C9: I hope I have successfully counter argued all your counter arguments.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Con
#8
Thank you everyone.
1. Debate topic & conclusion.
1A. Definitions and evidence
P24: I believe death is - an event. (S8).
Ok. I dont see how this changes anything.
1B. Questions follow up
P25: Sorry I really don't know if this is correct but....
Maybe I did not explain well enough. If you are changing your position then you inherently disagree with your first post (& position). As such, that is a forfeit of debate.
P26: . The definition of death I used is death after birth....
Stuff like that can be explained in post 1 so everyone knows. More than a 2k word max would help. Ha ha.
if you prefer we could stick with any type of death....
Im not sure how to word the issue in changing from all death to death after birth only. However there seems too little time to cover a new direction as well.
3. Birth/existing
Extend
4. C2 & c3 paradox
P29: I thought until the fetus is completely developed, it can't experience [because] of this.
A fetus can hear before 25 weeks. Also our organ(s) that let us hear do not stop developing until 5 or 6 months after birth. S9
When fetuses develop different attributes (i.e. pain, hearing, etc.) the given dates are averages and can occur before, after, or not develop according to on given dates.
To "develop" is not exact. This article helps explain the perspective on fetus development. S11
We look at pregnancy length and if the baby is ready to be born (can survive) when saying "fully developed."
Fetuses can be born prior to 25 weeks as well. . S12 And 25 weeks to 26 weeks is considered (late) premature s11.
Therefore, we exist before birth and before 25 weeks of pregnancy. That means post 1 is incorrect.
Round 5
Pro
#9
First of all I like to thank my contender for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers. And this being the final round, I thank all who took this journey. And I thank con for teaching me a lot and helping me let go of false beliefs.
P30: I tried to refute "living is opposite to death". As S8 defines living as "matter that shows certain attributes", then as per con's argument, I like to ask con since rocks don't show such attributes are they considered dead? Then I like to ask whether there are dead rocks, dead air? If so, when did they die? R.I.P. rock. ("Ok. I dont see how this changes anything.").
P31: I like to ask how accepting the mistake and updating the argument accordingly would lead to forfeiture (Burden of proof). If there was just a simple spelling mistake will that also conclude to a forfeiture? How about grammatical mistakes? False premise? False conclusion? ("Maybe I did … forfeit of debate.").
P32: I realized my mistake after the first post. However I believe for the third time I'm explaining my mistake since I guess con is unable to respectfully understand my mistake ("Stuff like that … would help. Ha ha.").
P33: I will put the burden of proof on con regarding how a fetus died before birth could die after birth also. I didn't know a person could die more than once. Since I will renew this debate again which I cordially invite con, I believe only time limit is our death ("Im not sure … as well.").
P34: Countered on P27 ("3. Birth … Extend").
P35: I thank my contender for the info. I really learned a lot and I appreciate it greatly. Will update the next debate accordingly ("A fetus … of pregnancy.").
C10: I hope I have successfully counter argued all your counter arguments.
I really enjoyed this debate and I will reinstate this debate again to anybody who is interested to debate this again. And it would be a pleasure having another debate with my contender.
I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Con
#10
Thanks for interesting debate ToLearn.
Thanks to all for reading.
Previous round is my conclusion round. I will reply to questions but most seems to be non related.
P30: since rocks don't show such attributes are they considered dead? . ("Ok. I dont see how this changes anything.").
They are non-living objects. Inanimate object.
P31: how accepting the mistake and updating the argument accordingly would lead to forfeiture?
Im just providing info based on experience on debate art
P32: con is unable to respectfully understand my mistake.
I argue the debate not redos.
P33: I will put the burden of proof on con regarding how a fetus died before birth could die after birth also.
I did not say it that way. Extend.
P34: Countered on P27 ("3. Birth … Extend").
Extend.
P35:...
I look forward to reading it.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro gets very close to slam-dunking this debate. His definition of suffering includes death, and it is not hard to argue that if a human is born, they will inevitably die. This argument does indeed accomplish the task of proving that suffering will always occur if birth occurs. Where Pro's argument loses its power is in the case that a person dies before they are born. If this can be shown to happen, which Con does, then there is really no way to prove that birth is the origin of suffering. That word ORIGIN is very important here. If the debate resolution was simply that a person who is born will always suffer, I probably would've voted Pro in this debate. However, the inclusion of the word "due" implies that being born and suffering are causally linked. What Con was able to prove was that existing is the true origin of suffering, and because existing precedes birth, a person born will always suffer, but a person who suffers is not necessarily always born.
Basically, Pro's conflation of existing with being born is a critical error that he accepts as such. He asks Con to reinterpret the resolution, but Con does not do so. Given that Pro himself was the one who equated being born with existing, I think this debate should be redone with a resolution that better describes Pro's beliefs.
For a debate like this, a higher character count is really needed. The use of ellipses throughout the debate made it quite illegible. Other than that, I am glad Pro decided to join the website, and I hope to see more of ToLearn's debates in the future.
Thanks again for debate. You will do well on this site.
Hey hey-yo,
I thought that "B). To support that something" provided evidence that we exist before even birth. In the sense that fetus or developing cells can also die and suffer. And I don't see this as a refutation of my argument, rather an improvement. Because even I forgot about this when starting the debate.
So I just wanted to ask you,
- should I keep my definitions so that first I could argue birth is the cause of suffering happening after birth;
Or
- should I change my definitions so that the existence itself (fetus or cell(s)) developing in the fetus is the reason for all types of suffering.
Anyway, your preference.
Also I thought of numbering each premise, so that it's unique in the debate so that you and I can reference them simply by (P13). Or in a different debate and there would be no confusion.
And if any of the premises was successfully refuted, I know that the conclusion from it and anything else preceding become invalid.
I thought of this method because each premise contains a source as evidence of its validity. Each conclusion (C2) has premise(s) for its validity. Kind of like this Source -> Premise -> Conclusion.
But please if you prefer, I can do it in a different method. Do let me know.
I hope I answered the questions successfully.
Thanks and best regards.
Also.
As I read your posts, I notice you increase in "p" - I must ask you to consider formating and readability.
I know some on this site do not like how I format my posts. Also seems like you are numbering each paragraph.
However, please consider how easy is it for a reader to look at content and connect content between each round.
If you are talking about a topic on p18 which is also in p10 or p 5, why give the topic a new title or identifier?
For example, anyone should be able to point to the same identifier in any round from any round for my formatting system. Part 1 "bees" should always reference bees. Talking about bees in p5, p10, and p18 in different ways may get readers lost.
But thats my opinion on it. Others may disagree.
Hi.
To confirm. . .
"I like con to suggest how to proceed on this..."
You are asking how to proceed in providing evidence for p3&p4 to get c2???
Hey hey-yo,
Thank you kindly, you've explained it well.
I think all parts have no evidence. So yes, you have not provided sufficient evidence. If you think otherwise, you may explain or point it out. Again this is for all points given - primarily looking at how or why things are connected.
hi.
So I think thats first paragraph. I am speaking to audience to say we (the audience included) are unable to believe your position because some things are unexplained .. . or the premises do not line up with the conclusions.
B.o.p is usually described to identify who needs to win over the audience. Like in a debate about "does unicorns exist" the person making the claim "unicorns exist" has b.o.p. because they have to show evidence a unicorn actually exists. Where as an opponent's position does not need evidence to say unicorns do not exist (at least in same way).
B.o.p. shared means you and I would have to explain our positions to gain support from the audience (readers & voters). So in this instance I am saying, even if I needed to prove my case, we have yet to see how your side can be proven.
Hey hey-yo, before I publish my argument could you be kind enough to explain "We are unable … b.o.p. for this debate." since I didn't understand that well and I really apologize for that.
Specifically the phrase "we have no evidence to support proposed logic.". Is it that I failed to provide sufficient evidence? If so, I would like to know which one?
Thanks and I am looking forward to the debate with you.