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

Because this is the last round, rather than going over the entire debate line-by-line, I will address the few key points. 1. The Certainty of Neuroscience Doug Watt: "What does it mean that certain kinds of neural activities are pleasurable?" WJM: "This does not mean that there is an entire mystery; there are plenty of things that we do know, like the effects of pleasure hormones, like dopamine." My opponent clearly contradicts Doug Watt by stating that we know the effects of pleasure hormones, while Doug Watt says that we don't know. The comment was fairly recent, in July of 2009. It also came from a Harvard Medical School student, who probably knows more about neuroscience than my opponent, who is a high-school sophomore wanting to be a politician, just to establish that this would not be an appropriate time to pull out the link to Appeal to Authority. Me: "However, the page on endorphins only says that endorphins have pain-killing ability. It does not say that endorphins cannot additionally cause pleasure when there is no more pain to be killed." WJM: "Even the chemical that my opponent has wielded as a pleasure creating hormone only relieves pain." The three sources cited by my opponent [1, 2, 3] do not use the word "only" in any relevant way whatsoever. We can conclude that these chemicals relieve pain, but to say that that is all that they do is not scientific. We don't know whether or not they do anything in addition to relieving pain. My opponent has no source or argument to properly contradict my argument that these chemicals might additionally create pleasure. Almost all of my opponent's sources are obsolete, because they do nothing to meet the rather high burden that my opponent must meet, as illustrated in Point 4, "I'd Like to Wait for Infinite Pleasure." WJM: "It is a FACT that endorphins fight pain as painkillers." However, it is not a FACT that endorphins do not additionally create pleasure. Me: "In conclusion, murder quite likely deprives one of pleasure as well as pain." WJM: "My opponent also drops his value entirely and concedes that there is no such thing as deprivation of pleasure." The contradiction should be obvious. 2. The Goodness of Life WJM: "My opponent makes the assumption that experiences in life are good. They are not, because life is all suffering, though to varying degrees." Me: "Most of my opponent's case still relies on his own definition of pain, which he has failed to defend. In reality, neither of us can prove that our own definitions are correct, due to the mysteries of neuroscience." WJM: "My opponent concedes that experiences in life are not to be associated with good." This is clearly false. I stated that my opponent's argument relied on pleasure being only the absence of pain. Assuming that you agree with the above point that science has not definitively established that hormones cannot create pleasure, you agree that my opponent's case fails, which means that my opponent's conclusion is incorrect. 3. Values and Whatnot WJM: "Seeing that my opponent has dropped his definition and that my definition is standing, my value is also standing." As long as you agree with me on Point 1, you agree with me here that my opponent's definition is not standing, so his value is also not standing. Me: "However, the criterion is merely his own prediction on how his arguments would work. What was I supposed to do, say 'No, you're wrong'? That would seem more than lame." WJM: "My criterion remains conceded, and has been conceded since round 2." He refuses to address my pointing out that a value criterion can only be argued against by arguing against the statements used to affirm the value criterion, because anything other than that would seem lame. Now, my opponent also seems to think that my value criterion is invalid because it restates my value. However, I wrote my value and my value criterion to mirror those of my opponent's, as I have never written values before. Therefore, if my value criterion is invalid, it only follows that my opponent's is invalid as well. 4. I'd Like to Wait for Infinite Pleasure WJM: "Third, my opponent states that he'd like to go wait to go through an infinite pleasure. This argument was conceded in the second round: coercion is not a valid counterargument." The coercion argument: "Most individuals will not decide to kill themselves because of fear of death." Me: "Personally, even if I knew that there was a 99% chance of achieving complete pleasure and a 1% chance of achieving complete nirvana, I would still rather live out the rest of my life..." You see, my paragraph has nothing to do with the fear of death. It has to do with the fact that I'd rather live in a finite state for as long as I could before entering an infinite state due to the insignificance of a few decades to an infinite state and the significance of a few decades to a finite state. This is not refuted by the coercion argument. My opponent's only attempt at this argument failed, so he concedes my argument, as there is only one round left in which he cannot put together another refutation. WJM: "The coming of nirvana should not wait, and individual objection is void." This would only be true if my opponent can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that what he says must be undeniably true, which is not the case. 5. Suffering in Others WJM: "The reason that pain cannot be avoided in life is that the pain hormones are produced consistently but not released so..." Me: "He's going to need some sources if he wants to be taken seriously." WJM: "My opponent claims that it is my burden to prove that the production of the hormones of suffering is constant. However, my opponent is trying to assert something, and therefore has a burden of proof for his claims to be valid." My argument was one that was accepted as common knowledge, that murder brings about suffering in others. However, my opponent tried to assert something new, that pain hormones are created consistently. He gives no sources whatsoever to back up this claim. As he has the burden of proof, it is his responsibility to give sources to his arguments. He has not done so. Therefore, his claims that pain hormones are created consistently are invalid. 6. Syllogism WJM: "My opponent's only remaining objection to my syllogism, which affirms the resolution perfectly to a complete and total burden, is that I supposedly let my definition die. Again, I defended it twice in the last round." However, my opponent has not defended his definition in a complete and total way, which is necessary for a syllogism to affirm something to a complete and total burden. His definition relies on neuroscience proving that endorphins ONLY fight pain rather than create pleasure, but this has not happened. 8. Visual Seeing as my opponent has made a visual to illustrate his argument, I may as well make one as well to illustrate my own case [4]. CONCLUSION Dying may or may not completely relieve pain. Because it cannot be properly affirmed which statement is true, it is impossible to know whether killing a happy man is a just action of liberation from pain or an unjust action of deprivation of pleasure. Because it is impossible to know this, it is impossible to affirm the resolution. The resolution cannot be affirmed, and as my opponent has the burden of proof, vote CON. Thank you for this debate, wjmelements. It has been great. 1. http://www.neurogenesis.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.medicinenet.com... 4. http://www.debate.org...