Instigator / Pro

ToLearn

1500

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#5006

Re3: Humans suffer due to existence

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

ToLearn

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 10.17.2023 05:34PM
Last updated date: 06.30.2024 02:15PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: Two weeks
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Six months
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

hey-yo

1493

rating

debates

60.0%

won

Description

I will try to prove that with existence we suffer.

This is a re - debate of https://www.debateart.com/debates/4819-re2-humans-suffer-due-to-our-birth. After correcting the mistake of existence before birth and 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

ToLearn

10.18.2023 03:42AM

Pro

First of all I like to thank my contender for accepting this debate. And give thanks to the readers.

P1: Suffering includes death (S1).

P2: "... all living organisms" die (S2).

C1: Living organisms suffer.

P3: Living organisms are existing (S3).

P4: Living organisms suffer (C1).

C2: Living organisms suffer due to existence.

P5: Humans are a living organism (S4).

P6: Living organisms suffer due to existence (C2).

C3: Humans suffer due to existence.

I thank my contender's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.

hey-yo

10.19.2023 03:58PM

Con

Thanks for new debate.

Thanks to readers in reading this. This will be a different format than normal.

A few questions to better understand your position.

Q&A

P1: Suffering includes death (S1).
P2: "... all living organisms" die (S2).
C1: Living organisms suffer.

All living organisms suffer.

Some living organisms have consciousness.

Is suffering dependent on consciousness?

Does non sentient or non conscious beings suffer?

Are there non living organisms, like rocks, that can suffer?

P3: Living organisms are existing (S3).
P4: Living organisms suffer (C1).
C2: Living organisms suffer due to existence.

Are these examples for suffering?

Being crushed

Flattened

Pushed

Rejected

P5: Humans are a living organism (S4).
P6: Living organisms suffer due to existence (C2).
C3: Humans suffer due to existence

Are you saying existence is the cause for suffering?

Is bellow statement true or false:

"we understand and can witness suffering because our unique human ability to comprehend suffering."

If we can witness suffering because our ability to do so.

Can suffering be independent from us and our existence?

Round 2

ToLearn

11.02.2023 03:58PM

Pro

Forfeited

hey-yo

11.02.2023 08:16PM

Con

Extend

Round 3

ToLearn

11.15.2023 06:00PM

Pro

First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers.

Really sorry about accidental forfeiture in the previous round. Totally due to my ignorance, since DebateArt doesn't reliably inform rounds I should've kept an alarm clock. Really sorry about that everyone.

P7: Yes ("Is suffering dependent on consciousness?").

P8: Only when there's consciousness, there's suffering. So it doesn't matter whether there's perception or not. For example loneliness or existential crisis doesn't depend on perception (“Does non sentient or non conscious beings suffer?”).

P9: Nope. As in P8 no consciousness (“Are there non living organisms, like rocks, that can suffer?”).

P10: As S1 defines, since it causes pain or distress, yes (“Are these examples for suffering?”).

P11: Yup, but not the root cause (“Are you saying existence is the cause for suffering?”).

P12: False since suffering is not unique to humans as stated in P9 (“Is bellow statement true or false:").

P13: I probably don't understand the question. But suffering is an experience or a feeling, same as joy. So like we can decide whether to be joyful or not as we wish, we can also decide whether to suffer or end it (“Can suffering be independent from us and our existence?”).

C4: I hope I have successfully answered all the questions.

Thank you for the wonderful argument.

I thank my friend’s time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.

hey-yo

11.23.2023 07:17PM

Con

You present some interesting comments.

Thus far we read that non consious objects or beings do not suffer. Is this correct pro?

Therefore we may produce a list. Pro, is the bellow list correct? :

Rocks get crushed = no suffering

Germs get crushed =no suffering

Jelly fish get crushed = no suffering

Fish gets crushed = suffering

Bear gets crushed = suffering

Human gets crushed = suffering

If all above is correct, appears that suffering is dependent on concsiousness.

What is preventing us from saying "consiousness causes suffering" instead of the given "existence causes sufferint?"

Round 4

ToLearn

12.06.2023 02:24PM

Pro

First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers.

Not for the sake of argument,

Wonderful, wonderful. My friend is most wise. Many, not even I could've imagined consciousness leads to suffering. Oh I'm so happy.

P14: Yes (“...non consious objects or beings do not suffer. Is this correct pro?”).

P15: Yes (“...is the bellow list correct? … Human gets crushed = suffering”).

P16: Correct (“appears that suffering is dependent on concsiousness.”).

P17: Nothing, since it's completely true.

Without existence there will be no suffering.

And without consciousness there will be no sufferable life.

(You could have a complete body but without consciousness. Through accidents, drugs, etc…)

So in a sense,

Suffering <- existence

Existence <- consciousness

Suffering <- consciousness

Alternatively,

Consciousness -> existence

Existence -> suffering

Consciousness -> suffering

In an example,

Why can we eat an apple?,

Because there was an apple.

(Cause being, apple’s existence).

Why was there an apple?,

Because there was an apple tree.

(Cause being, apple tree’s existence).

Why can we eat an apple?,

Because there was an apple tree.

(Cause being, apple tree’s existence).

Logically,

A -> B

B -> C

A -> B -> C

A -> C

So both statements are correct in different perspectives. Without contradicting each other (“What is preventing us from saying "consiousness causes suffering" instead of the given "existence causes sufferint?"”).

C5: I hope I have successfully answered all the questions.

Thank you for the wonderful argument.

I thank my friend’s time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.

hey-yo

12.19.2023 08:27PM

Con

Hey

Thanks again for this debate.

I have no follow up.

As hard as I tried to ask more questions, I think my last post presents the best case as con. Anything else is just repeat. I dont see a point in doing that - making you or others read more of the same thing is not interesting or helpful.

I will forfiet my last round to tie those up.

Voters (if any) can choose a winner if they wish.

Have a good one. Cheers.

Round 5

ToLearn

01.01.2024 01:30PM

Pro

First of all I like to thank my friend 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 my friend for teaching me a lot and making me very happy. And also I thank everyone else.

P18: I really hoped my friend could refute P17 since even I think there could be a problem there.

C6: I thank my friend for enlightening us that consciousness leads to suffering. I really learned a lot and I appreciate it greatly.

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 great pleasure having another debate with my wise friend.

Wishing my friend and everyone a merry Christmas, happy new year and a present and a future without suffering.

I thank my friend's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.

hey-yo

01.02.2024 02:15PM

Con

#10

I FORFEITED this round per previous round's post.

Extend.

Barney

03.31.2024 02:40PM

-->

@hey-yo

Minor nitpick: Here those are referred to as extensions, rather than forfeitures.

Lemming

05.31.2024 11:31PM

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:

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.

Savant

04.19.2024 03:57AM

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 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.