it is better to have never been/exist

I shall start with rebuttals and then with more arguments My opponent's opening argument is stating how knowledge is preferable to no knowledge especially it would seem in relation to the cosmos. However this is false as I shall demonstrate. Take for example a child of 1 year age who has been molested but has no memory and then in adulthood is informed of the molestation it could be said the victim is better of not knowing. Or the fact that a man knows his rent is due and he cannot afford to pay which can cause undue amounts of stress on him and his family. The knowledge of the inevitability of all human life, death this often leads to enormous amounts discomfort and grief amongst all those it affects. However if one does not exist these problems do not exist. Also if one never comes into existence they cannot feel they have missed out on the knowledge of the cosmos because to 'them' the cosmos obviously do not exist. To the point "Humanity can be a benefit to all life on earth". I can only see this as a step back for my opponent it would certainly be more preferable for these matters such as the "asteroid" and "rabies" to not exist and obviously to the non 'exister' these problems do not exist. These are trials, worries and stresses only those who exist have to worry about and the debate is not if humanity is good for the world it is if existence is preferable over non existence which in this case it clearly is not. To the point "The good outweighs the bad on average" (I will refer to this at the end of this round as it is long and very important) To the point "Life is potential" "In the worse case situation imaginable, there is guarantied a chance that it will be better" this also works vice versa with the very best life it is inevitably going to get worse. Even still with my point being made my opponents point I feel is somewhat contradictory as "The good outweighs the bad on average" (my opponents previous argument) so If the bad outweighs the good (which in my opponents hypothetical it does) then it must be more preferable not to exist otherwise my opponent is using a double standard. To the point "Trying to prevent intelligent life is futile" I feel this is to an extent of topic the question asks whether or not it is more preferable to exist or not. I only talked about human extinction as an inevitability of my argument. And it is still more preferable to not come into existence, even for these other life forms that may one day reach human intelligence. Now to the point "The good outweighs the bad on average" and also my new arguments My opponent and other 'Pollyanna's' try to paint a rosy picture on the predicament 'existers' and we find this evident with my opponents "It is important to note that there is there is on average more happiness and cooperation than pain and violence". I quite frankly find this attitude similar to cheering at a funeral and I shall explain why. I shall focus here only on human suffering but the picture becomes still more obscene when we consider the suffering of trillions of animals who share our planet, including the billions who are brought into existence each year, only to be maltreated and killed for human consumption or other use. Consider first natural disasters. More than 15 million people are thought to have died from such disasters in the last 1000 years. In the last few years flooding for example has killed an estimated 20,000 anually and brought suffering to tens of millions(1). The number is greater in some years. In late december 2004, a few hundred thousand people lost their lives in a tsunami. Approximately 21,000 people die every day from hunger this is one person every four seconds(2). An estimated 840 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition without dying from it(3), this is undeniably a sizeable portion of the current population. Disaster ravages and kills millions annually. Consider plague for example. The 1918 influenza epidemic killed somewhere between 20 and 40 million people(4). In 2013 HIV killed 1.5 million people(5). If we add all other infectious disease we get a total of over 17 million deaths per year(6). Add approximately 3.5 million accidental deaths including 1.24 million road accident deaths per year(7). In 2001 with all deaths added a colossal sum of 56.5 million people died(8), and as the population grows the greater the number of deaths occur, now multiply the number of deaths by the number of family and friends who survive to mourn and miss the departed . For every death there are many more who grieve for the deceased. Although disease and accidents cause tremendous suffering now consider the suffering our species inflicts upon itself. According to 'death by government' estimates that before the 20th century over 133 million people were killed in mass killings(9), R. J. Rummel's the author demonstrates that the first 88 years of the 20th century saw 170 million maybe up to 360 million people shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, worked to death, buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed and in many other horrible ways governments have inflicted death on helpless people. The suffering does not end here. Consider the number of people who are raped, assaulted, maimed or murdered (by private citizens rather than governments). About 40 million children have are maltreated each year(10). 130 million currentaly living femals have been subjected to genatile cutting(11). Then there is enslavement, unjust incarceration, shunning, betrayal, humiliation, and intimidation not to mention oppression in its myriad forms. For countless the suffering is so great they take their own lives; suicide which kills one person every 40 seconds(12). 'Pollyannas' will think that they and their children will be spared all this. Even if there are some lives that are spared all of this suffering those relatively 'high quality' lifes are uncommon. One of these lives is so rare that for everyone there are millions of horrible ones. Some even know that their baby will be among the unfortunate, however no one can no if their child will be one of the allegedly 'lucky' few. Great suffering can await any person that is brought into existence. My opponent and other 'Pollyannas' surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm and suffering could be justified. As I have shown the con side not only play russian roulette they play with a fully loaded gun; aimed of course not only their own heads but that of their future offspring. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.theguardian.com... 2.http://www.poverty.com... 3.ftp://ftp.fao.org... 4.https://virus.stanford.edu... 5.https://www.aids.gov... 6.http://www.who.int... 7.http://www.who.int... 8.http://www.who.int... 9.http://www.transactionpub.com... 10.http://www.who.int... 11.http://data.unicef.org... 12.http://www.theguardian.com...