it is better to have never been/exist

Id like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate "Sleep is good, death is better; but of course, the best thing would to have never been born at all" - Heinrich Heine This topic many will presumably dismiss as too obscene to be true before looking at the my arguments however by the end of the debate I hope I will have put forward a strong enough case to prove that it is indeed better to have never been. For arguments sake I shall call those who take refuge in on con's side of the debate 'Pollyanna' ( which means "an excessively cheerful or optimistic person") In order for coming in to existence to be beneficial a 'Pollyanna' must take the assumption that being brought into existence is a benefit (even though not been brought into existence is not a harm). However as I shall argue this assumption is false. To varying extents bad things happen to everybody, no life is without hardship we also all face death. It should be known that only those who exist can suffer only those who exist can be harmed. Existers can experience pain, hunger, thirst, despair, sorrow, loss, guilt, shame, e.t.c the list goes on for quite a while, obviously if one does not exist one can not experience these sufferings. However the 'Pollyanna's' would be quick to note that only good things can happen to those who exist, this is true but irrelevant. This is because there is a crucial difference between harms (such as pains) and benefits (such as pleasure) this (which as I shall show below), entails that existence has no advantage over non existence but existence does have disadvantages to non existence, which must lead to the conclusion that it is better to have never been. It is correct to say that a) the presence of pain is always 'bad' b) the presence of pleasure is always 'good' As you can see there is a symmetry here however the symmetry does not follow when we replace the word "presence" with "absence" as we have an asymmetry occur. This is because it is also correct to say c) the absence of pain is always 'good' however and this is where the asymmetry occurs d) the absence of pleasure is not always 'bad' We have a duty as humans to avoid bringing suffering people into existence but not a duty to bring happy people into existence this is due to the fact that someone who has never existed cannot be deprived of pleasure because they have not existed to be deprived in the first place; and still as we now know the absence of pleasure is not always 'bad' anyway. But someone who never exists cannot suffer which is always 'good' and as we know all life comes with some degree of suffering so obviously again one who does not exist does not suffer. It should also at this point be known that one cannot have a child for the child's sake because before the child is born there is no way whatsoever to know how that childs life will turn out and again if the child is not born it is not deprived of anything as it does not exist, also it is impossible to gain consent form the child before creating it. One can only have children for one's own interests (such as wanting to start a family or become a mother) or others interests (such as grandparents or tribal strenght). The mere fact that a parent can have no idea how a child's life will turn out and still go ahead and have a child is one of many reasons I believe procreation should stop. The parent is creating a conscious being where suffering is inevitable and in many cases catastrophic. The child will most likely outlive its parents and have to endure the hardship of their death amongst all the other trials humans face. Thus the only way to stop the suffering inflicted upon us as a species is to stop reproducing, in fact i would also say It's the honorable thing for our species to do; "deny our programming walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal." - Rust Cohle This is my opening argument thank you