TOC Round 2: Murder is, in general, just.

First, I would like to point out that my opponent's entire case now rests on a scientifically incorrect definition of pleasure. My opponent's claim that hormones are associated with creating pleasure as opposed to relieving pain is baseless and unwarranted by any evidence or sources. My opponent's case regarding the pleasure center is outdated, and all evidence for its existence has been heavily defeated[1]. Modern research points to the probability that the ventral pallidum is simply a center for processing motivation[1]. The talk for my opponent's source for definition of pleasure claims [2] that the definition used is not scientific, proving yet again that Wikipedia is not a reliable source to base philosophical and scientific debates on. I have just shown that my opponent's Wikipedia sources do not refute genuine science, which my opponent did not rebut last round. My opponent mentions, unwarrantedly, hormones connected with pleasure as evidence for his case. These hormones, as I have already shown and my opponent did not rebut and therefore conceded last round, do not bring pleasure; they simply reduce pain. Again, Dopamine, associated with pleasure[3], only serve to release Endorphins [3], which are painkillers that suppress pain [4]. I have clearly shown why my definition of pleasure is based in science and why my opponent's are entirely invalid. THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE My opponent has based his entire rebuttal on an unscientific definition, so rebuttal will be blunt, repetitive, and predictable, but here it is: VALUE I reassert that my opponent's value is inconsistent with science and reason; murder does not bring forth a deprivation of pleasure, it guarantees it. My value, therefore, is inherently preferable to my opponent's when in conflict. All of my opponent's rebuttal falls with science: There is no such thing as deprivation of pleasure, for pleasure is like cold; it is simply a negative and imaginary entity. Deprivation of pain occurs along with unprecedented pleasure and can be achieved with death. VALUE CRITERION My opponent's value criterion is an invalid means of attaining his value. It is simply a restating of his value, which is also invalid. He has also not refuted my VC, which stands conceded. A. Death brings forth nirvana; the individual is no longer subject to pain, and therefore feels complete pleasure. Death, and only death, remains the only way to ensure complete nirvana, and to bring it to an individual is a moral action. My opponent has incorrectly stated that nonexistence is not pleasure. It is, for nonexistence is the absence of pain, and therefore complete pleasure. My opponent makes the assumption that experiences in life are good. They are not, because life is all suffering, though to varying degrees. My opponent concedes that his Wikipedia quote on the cause of pain is inconsistent with logic. My opponent claims I concede the positive existence of pleasure. I mentioned that it exists, though it exists as a negative entity, like cold. My opponent's Jimmy Buffett quote is an example of an argument from authority, a logical fallacy [4]. So, while his source is a primary source, it backs a fallacy. My opponent makes a large amount of unwarranted claims about pleasure being a positive entity. Disregard them. The "absolute zero" of pain is as pleasureful as the individual can be, because pleasure is the absence of pain, as scientifically demonstrated. My opponent claims that his Wikipedia quotes are based entirely in science. This is hilarious, for the Talk section openly admits otherwise [2]. My opponent asks the silly question, "how can pleasure come from nothing? " Pleasure doesn't "come" from nothing; pleasure IS nothing. My opponent again brings up the suffering caused by murder, that it is a greater suffering than that of natural death. This should be disregarded. The reason that pain cannot be avoided in life is that the pain hormones are produced consistently but not released so. If pain hormones are not released when an individual witnesses death, then they will be released later. Pain can only be increased by something if that something causes increased production of the pain hormones. Murder does not do this; therefore, my opponent's objection should be disregarded. B. Syllogism My opponent's only objection to the logical case is that death ends pleasure. I have shown this to be false. My case stands. CONCLUSION Pleasure is the absence of suffering, as demonstrated by study of endorphins [5] and opiates [6], which deliver "pleasure" by reducing pain [7 8 9]. Murder brings the "victim" to a state of permanent and perfect nirvana, a freedom from suffering, consistent with perfect and permanent pleasure. Such an act is therefore just, as demonstrated by deductive syllogism. I would like to thank my opponent for another great round and ask that he either post tonight (Sunday) or on Tuesday night so that I can respond. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Doug Watt, of Harvard Medical School) [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.neurogenesis.com... [4] . http://fallacyfiles.org... [5] . http://www.severe-brain-injury.com... [6] . http://www.medterms.com... [7] . http://clubtnt.org... [8] . http://www.medicinenet.com... [9] . http://www.opiates.org...