It is better to have never been

Thanks Pro.I. PrefaceGiven the rules and structure of this debate, I will only be making summaries, conclusions and pleasantries. It shouldn't be required as the content of this debate has already been given in the previous six rounds.Pro had to demonstrate only one thing in this debate, which is that it is better that we (humans) have never been. Pro needed to give good reasons for accepting this pessimistic outlook on life is either logical or preferable. I maintain that Pro has failed spectacularly on all accounts. II. Debate OverviewPro's most substantial and most accurate/relevant argument was her argument that life produces lots of discomfort. Before that though we need to consider exactly where her other arguments puts this into context.First she affirms that life has no intrinsic value/meaning. Fine, I had absolutely no intention of arguing for this anyway, however that doesn't make it any more plausible that life is negative, it only mitigates common notions of intrinsic worth. In fact I affirmed that it fits in very nicely with nihilistic existentialism, which is not a red herring as Pro seems to argue, since it allows for both positive and negative live outlooks.More 'good stuff' is preferable to 'bad stuff', and life is not inherently good or bad, it is dependant in how each life is lived.I argued that given the times in which we live in, that even if live was overall bad NOW, it doesn't necessarily hold that it will be bad in the future, since advancing technology can very conceivably change how we perceive 'bad stuff', whether it be human life or some other artificial fabrication. Pro has not justified why this very plausible future is not going to happen, and in fact drops the main points here with her handwaving.Furthermore Pro has skipped the point on humans being good for eradicating stuff if life is inherently bad, contrary to Pro's rebuttal, this is directly relevant to the resolution, since humans possess the intellect to make these happen, and without humans life would continue on in the way in which Pro asserts is sufferable..... But she hasn't even gotten that far!Most of Pro's other points have completely missed the mark as far as the resolution is concerned, with her arguments against the effects of overpopulation presupposing the conclusion to be relevant, and her arguments over the 'real impact' with examples such as the holocaust etc. only able to demonstrate there are instances where life is sufferable, and does no more to demonstrate the resolution than a single flat note demonstrates a bad singer.Pro had to go a lot further than just stating the 'bad stuff' in life, she necessarily needed to make a case that life AS A WHOLE was 'bad'. I argue that she has only done this through her discomfort arguments, which I will conclude in the next section.Lastly, Pro's 'Unintelligent Design' contention was a mixed bag. Moreover I cannot see how it possibly supports the resolution and still seems to be largely irrelevant, much less relevant than her attacks in intrinsic value. Especially considering they are just as effectively used to argue that there is no reason for life not to exist, given that everything is naturalistic. There is nothing 'inherently bad' if we are just molecules or 'self-sustaining entities' as they depict. Wants are only 'wants', and are not by themselves a negative thing, how could it be negative?Essentially, this argument just defeats itself when it wasn't even compelling in the first place. So what if we cannibalize, reproduce and have addictions, Pro needed to actually demonstrate why this is all 'bad' outside of subjective emotional appeals. In fact, I cannot see how she could ever affirm they are bad without shooter in herself in the foot.III. Discomfort argumentsSo after much squabbling we have an argument which looks something like this:P1. All states of discomfort are badP2. Life perpetually produces states of discomfortC. Life perpetually produces bad statesWhich leads to the conclusion that it would be preferable if life did not exist. This is literally her only on-target contention as far as I am concerned. Pro's literally only logical support for this contention is that discomfort is bad because comfort is preferable to discomfort.However, as I hope I have thoroughly shown, the dichotimy is oversimplistic and a false one, moreover it doesn't follow that 'comfort being preferable to discomfort' means that discomfort is bad. It has been a non-sequitur from round 1, and Pro's defence of this has become weaker and weaker as the rounds have progressed.In my original reformulate of Pro's argument (below), she might have been justified in her conclusion that life is bad given that discomfort is logically equivalent to the annihilation of that state if discomfort. Since she has changed her arguments however, not even this applies. Her most significant point, that discomfort seems to precede comfort is rendered irrelevant when we realize that pleasure and happiness exist separately from just the annihilation of a state of discomfort. I.e. Even if 'discomfort is bad', it doesn't follow that the 'relieving of the discomfort' is equivalent to never having that state of discomfort in the first place. We have both the pleasure, satisfaction and memories if the event.To this, Pro has failed spectacularly to address with any precision.Pro drops most my points that voluntary creating of 'discomfort' seems to falsify 'discomfort is bad' by only attempting to convolute the arguments, and she also fails spectacularly to address my satisfaction/dissatisfaction dichotimy which is made with essentially the same justification as her discomfort/comfort dichotimy:P1*. Life is a state of dissatisfactionP2*. Dissatisfaction is not badC*. Life is not badPro seems to place a lot of emphasis in the neutral state, but she has missed the point. Of it is possible for a state if discomfort to be preferable to the neutral state, then her entire argument goes up in smoke. I gave numerous examples and reasons in this debate as to why some of these states are preferable to the neutral state. If they pass (and they should), then it also passes that discomfort is not necessarily bad, and her argument fails.IV. Borderline Arguments:Pro seems to make a new argument in R3 (which would be against the rules) about 'boredom', which is why I am not addressing it, nor do I see it could be relevant without compromising her own position, and she seems to add material to her 'life is imposed argument', which seems borderline.To clear this last argument up, Pro has not justified why bringing in life without consent is inherently any worse than bringing in life with consent. In fact if she were to do so she would undermine her comfort/discomfort dichotomy by proposing additional relevant factors outside of it. Not that she hasn't done that enough already!! I demonstrated by gamblers analogy why this is a poor argument anyway. Pro needed to demonstrate with confident why the gamble would most likely lose... today and also in the likely future.V. ConclusionI haven't seen a clear, coherent argument from Pro as to why 'It is better to have never been', and none of her arguments have soundly reached this conclusion. Either they were off-target, irrelevant, or unsubstantiated/false. An unsound argument is a bad argument, and a bad argument is not good enough to affirm the resolution. As such, the resolution is negated. VI. ClosingI am glad this debate is finally over, and I thank the readers for getting this far. I also am very grateful to Zarroette/Cassandra for agreeing to stick her neck out and for providing stiff competition, and I wish her best of luck in the voting.I would like to leave you with a couple of quotes and a reminder to never, ever, think about pressing this button: click="document.location='/Envisage/photos/album/3882/25074/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3882/156777-3882-94nyx-a.jpg" alt="" />"Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value." - Albert Einstein“Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.” R13; George Bernard Shaw