Re3: Humans suffer due to existence

I suppose some people die to escape suffering,
But then one could argue they die to escape existence,
Then again some people think there is an existence beyond this one.

I'd probably have tried to argue that happy people are not suffering,
Argue that glass more than half full of happiness, people would more often call happiness, than sadness.

Problem with hey-yo consciousness argument, I think, is that many people view "I think, therefore I am.", Am/Exist.
ToLearn focuses on existence, more than how existence comes about.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around. . .

Hm, then again, ToLearn 'does specify "Living organisms" in their argument.
And in Round 3, states the nonconscious cannot experience suffering,
But. . . by their definition in Round 1, some of the definitions can apply to the nonconscious,
"2: to sustain loss or damage", a rock 'can be damaged.
Fact that definition is redefinable, could help out Con.

Pro saying "So like we can decide whether to be joyful or not as we wish, we can also decide whether to suffer" allows chink to argue existence not suffering, though they do say "or end it" still chinks can be wiggled.

hey-yo Round 3, continues on Consciousness argument,
Some danger though, as people disagree about what 'cause means.

Round 4, hm Qualia,
. . .A coma patient's body can be harmed, is the 'patient then not harmed unless 'awakening?
Though I suppose they 'still exist, even if their consciousness is in a shut box, exist until that box is destroyed Materialist might say, but many people believe in something more.
. . . Idea of a person, people protective even of bones, would be outraged by harm to coma patient, even if perhaps never awaken, but because 'conciousness still 'there maybe, still highest right to own body.

ToLearn argues Consciousness causing suffering, not stop one from saying Existence causes suffering.
Sadly hey-yo does not have follow up to all of this.

I'm not voting because I can't quite follow ToLearn's A,B,C logic,
Not that it doesn't make sense, but some apple trees are poisonous,
I 'do think Con needed to make some argument qualifying Consciousness as the cause, more than existence though.
Just because Material Existence Is, doesn't mean we'll 'have apple trees, Material Existence would still need to shape in a form that allows apple trees,
Mankind didn't have apple trees just because material existence, we still had to develop modern apple tree over time.
Eh, guess I will vote, Pro - Nah, tie.

Pro too accepting of Cons argument,
This allows steps between existence and suffering,
If I strike flint and steel, I not say fire exists because of existence,
Not common talk, I say fire exists because of flint and steel, sparks, tinder got hot.

Pro gives a clear case with multiple sources supporting their position. Con argues that consciousness, as opposed to existence, causes suffering. Pro argues that the statement "consciousness causes suffering" does not contradict the statement "existence causes suffering" with an analogy to apple trees. Con never responds to this point and does not provide sources, so my vote goes to Pro.