Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception.....One or the other will be forever.

It seems that my opponent is more interested in using this debate as a pulpit to preach his religion from than actually providing evidence for the resolution. Remember that since Pro has affirmed the resolution as fact he must prove it is fact. He is not arguing in terms of probability, and to prove the resolution he must give verifiable and empirical evidence which he has not done. He has not even begun to fulfill the Burden of Proof. Pro claims he did not concede when he said this "I did not assert that an embryo can experience suffering, I did assert that mercy and suffering both start simultaneously from the moment of conception. " Obviously for an suffering to start at conception an embryo must be capable of experiencing suffering. Pro ignores the definition of distress that is anxiety, sorrow, or pain and claims that all embryos are distressed when I have shown that embryo's can't feel pain or experience emotion at the moment of conception. "Con want's to deny the right to life during the first twenty weeks after conception, that's Con's business. If he can kill a baby before it can scream or teach others that it's ok or good to do so, that's on him. Can we get past this into the bigger question, what will eternity be for you? Will it be relief from suffering or will it be denial of mercy? "No arguments here just personal insults and assumptions that his god exists. This is ad hominem and an argument from ignorance. "The death argument is not just semantics it is a fact. From the moment you are conceived, death is working in you and yoru clock is ticking and time is running out. From the moment you are conceived, you are suffering from the death that was inherited genetically. It is not semantics. Con is trying to deny that suffering begins at conception by playing semantics and basically saying if a baby cannot scream, it is not suffering. Con is trying to make this into an excuse to kill babies before they are born. That is not what the debate is about. The debate is about eternity. Will eternity be the same as time is now, or will an individual know only suffering or only mercy. I say we each will know only suffering or only mercy, the two cannot go together. "This argument is ridiculous. All I have to do to prove this wrong is to point out that I will eventually die, and at this moment I do not meet the definition of suffering. If any voters believe that every person on this planet begins suffering at conception and will continue suffering until death, then give the argument points to Con. Unfortunately it is blatantly false and has no supporting evidence. All contradictory claims are evidence against it. "Too bad people are so hard set in rejecting God when He is trying in love to bring them back to Himself from the fire of Hell they deserve. "Still not seeing any arguments. "Ok. If you think you do not deserve to die, I guess it's hopeless to argue. If you think you do not need mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you have the right to live now but you did not have the right to live untill 20 weeks after you were conceived, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think you are not suffering if you do not feel pain, it's hopeless to argue. If you think you are alive now without mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think death ends suffering and you need no mercy, it's hopeless to argue. If you think God does not have the right to cast you away like a piece of garbage to burn in hell forever, ti's hopeless to argue. If you think God is not there, tt's hopeless to argue. If you think your uncle was a monkey, it's hopelss to argue. I'm done. Thank you very much, I hope you see that you need mercy from God to be spared from the fire of hell and get saved. .. .. .. He became a man to take your death, if that was not good enough for you I"m sorry for you. He is risen from the dead and you will see Him and you will know it's Him who I was trying to show you. I'm done. "If you feel making an assertion without evidence will win you this debate then good luck. To win this debate Pro must prove both resolutions. He has not provided any evidence other than his personal passion for his religion. Here's how the voting should go-Conduct- Me because of serious insults with no basisSources- Me since I was the only one to use a sourceArguments- Me because Pro did not even begin to fulfill his burden and did not provide real evidence to counter my arguments.