Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#4819

Re2: Humans suffer due to our birth

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
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
23
debates
60.87%
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 suffer
C3: 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: Yes 
P10: Yes 
P11: Yes 
P12: [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 birthS9  
 S10  

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.