If it's not a huge problem, could you kindly overlook this. Knowing pro's arguments beforehand helped me to accept the debate. Or I probably would've rejected since I agree with the title somewhat.
Wishing good health and without suffering,
Thanks and best regards.
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.
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.
I'm new to this logic thing however I believe there is something wrong in this debate such as,
- "My beginning ... last time." However, the one who mentioned this didn't reference their points so I believe that viewers like us or voters don't know what're the points this talk about, really appreciate if it was referenced.
- Since in the first round both forfeited and according to argument #4 I think that nobody knows who has the burden of proof. So as per S1 which explains well or S2 the burden of proof lies in the one making the claim since within my knowledge there wasn't any logical proof that god exist, for example all the cosmological arguments (S3) have been proven invalid so I guess the burden of proof is in the one making the claim and in this case as mentioned in the description it's with con.
Basically I'm just saying pro can't argue the topic since it's in an unknown or unknowable state. So it can't be used as a true and valid statement. So if this goes on pro wins by default I guess.
Please let me know if I got it wrong but I thought debates are supposed to be useful to the ones interested in those topics.
Also looking forward to the debate on this interesting topic. Thank you.
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.
Hey Intelligence_06,
If it's not a huge problem, could you kindly overlook this. Knowing pro's arguments beforehand helped me to accept the debate. Or I probably would've rejected since I agree with the title somewhat.
Wishing good health and without suffering,
Thanks and best regards.
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.
Hey hey-yo,
Thank you kindly, you've explained it well.
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.
Hello everyone,
I'm new to this logic thing however I believe there is something wrong in this debate such as,
- "My beginning ... last time." However, the one who mentioned this didn't reference their points so I believe that viewers like us or voters don't know what're the points this talk about, really appreciate if it was referenced.
- Since in the first round both forfeited and according to argument #4 I think that nobody knows who has the burden of proof. So as per S1 which explains well or S2 the burden of proof lies in the one making the claim since within my knowledge there wasn't any logical proof that god exist, for example all the cosmological arguments (S3) have been proven invalid so I guess the burden of proof is in the one making the claim and in this case as mentioned in the description it's with con.
Basically I'm just saying pro can't argue the topic since it's in an unknown or unknowable state. So it can't be used as a true and valid statement. So if this goes on pro wins by default I guess.
Please let me know if I got it wrong but I thought debates are supposed to be useful to the ones interested in those topics.
Also looking forward to the debate on this interesting topic. Thank you.
S1: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
S2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
S3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
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.
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.