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
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.

-->
@ToLearn

Thanks again for debate. You will do well on this site.

-->
@hey-yo

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.

-->
@ToLearn

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.

-->
@ToLearn

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-yo

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.

-->
@ToLearn

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-yo

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.