A creature can only suffer if it is self aware.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
By accepting this debate, you accept these definitions.
Suffering: 'The bearing or undergoing of pain and distress.' (oxford dictionary)
Self awareness: 'Conscious knowledge of one's own character, thoughts, emotions, etc.' (oxford dictionary)
Given the definitions in the description, this looked like a very straightforward win for Con with the examples they provided. Pro could have challenged their definition of "pain" but as it stands, Con does provide several examples of human suffering occurring without self-awareness. It's a clever route to negating the resolution. Pro argues in the last round that humans are still self-aware creatures even if they are not currently self-aware. But the resolution states "A creature can only suffer if it is self aware," (present tense) not "Only self aware creatures can suffer." Con points out that these individuals are "suffering without self-awareness," which is enough to satisfy the resolution.
Pros case falls back to special pleasing once coma patients feeling pain was brought up.
The source to support it was essential. Challenging it for not having a precise phrase, did not hold water since it had the gist of what con claimed of it.
would u guys like to place a vote