Life is fair

Thanks to Pro again for finishing the debate and being a great opponent. Judging this debateRemember the two dropped arguments I mentioned at the end of my last round. She tries to pick them back up in the last round, but by standard debating rules drops are considered concessions. I will refute the rebuttals she made, but in any case you should count these arguments as true because we are required to refute an argument the instant it is made, not 2 rounds later.1. Pro constantly brings up that humans always want more, even if they have everything. This works against her case because the implication is that even people with absolute wealth can't be satisfied with their lives. Thats unfair. Pro says that this isn't unfair because it applies to everyone; Nobody can be truly happy. But under this logic, if everyone on the world is born with AIDS, that would be fair because its happening to everyone. Clearly its not.2. The world shouldn't be "balanced" with good and evil. No evil is a much better alternative.Pro makes a similar argument as the last one, saying that the existence of Evil isn't unfair so long as its evenly distributed. But again, if everyone on Earth was born with Smallpox and died after a week, thats not fair even though the evil is equally distributed. Also remember that evil actually isn't distributed equally. The infant mortality rate in developing countries is infinitely higher than places like the United States.FoundationalismMy opponent brings this up but never actually gives a reason to reject this theory. I explained we should accept it because it solves the Infinite Regress problem, which wasn't refuted. Again, drops are concessions. The implication of accepting Foundationalism is that we have to accept certain (obvious) things as right or wrong even though we can't prove them 100%. So if your common sense tells you that genocide and child rape are wrong, then genocide and child rape are wrong and you should consider life unfair for containing them.Also, my opponent drops my turn on the subjectivity of fairness. She is making the positive claim that life is fair. But she herself says in R1 that fairness is subjective. At that point, the resolution is unaffirmable because you as the judge cannot attribute an objective standard to determine if life is fair or not.Most importantly, she had no answer to the implications of accepting fairness as subjective. If we can't objectively prove anything as fair or unfair, then we might as well legalize every crime in the book because murder and theft aren't objectively bad.Genocide, murder, etcPro makes a new argument that people dying unjustly isn't unfair, because they will be treated fairly in God's kingdom. However, the resolution questions Life being fair, not the afterlife. Secondly, while I personally am undecided on religion, this site has a sizable atheist community, so making this argument would require proof that not only does God exist, but specifically the Christian god. This is the most commonly debated topic on the site, so we can't assume it to be true for debate purposes.Because I want this to be easy to judge, and last rounds are generally summaries, I will summa-phrase the remaining issues.While many people living in poor conditions are just as happy as wealthy, the poor people still had to deal with several obstacles before they could become accustomed to their situation. Someone born into an impoverished neighborhood may have bad to deal with drug addiction and rampant crime around them before they become accustomed to it. Whereas the wealthy typically don't go through these problems and have good living conditions from the start. So you can still attribute a net difference in happiness between the two groups. And because people aren't voluntarily born into poor living conditions (sub-Saharan Africa), its something life has unfairly forced upon them.This answers my opponent's example of herself. Its great that she can be happy and live a good life in spite of her mental difficulties, but she (probably) did suffer for a long time with these issues and had to work very hard to get through them and live normally. Whereas someone born without these conditions wouldn't have dealt with the stress.Note that this doesn't mean life is bad. Life is good. Me and my opponent can agree on this. But fair? Eh...My opponent would later write "Your morality is that whatever the scenario, genocide, death, etc. are wrong. Were do you base your assumption off of? How do you know what is best for person when you don’t know how these people feel and perceive life"People killed in murder and genocide cannot perceive life, unfortunately. I'm making the drastic assumption that murder is bad because no one can rationally will themselves to die. And because of Foundationalism, whereby we assume obviously bad things to be obviously bad. Like the Holocaust.Finally, guilty people who don't get prison punishment may have to live in secrecy and deal with other problems, but it doesn't outweigh the punishment in prison they actually deserve. If it did, then we might as well legalize every crime and not throw anyone in prison, since they'll get their punishment either way.ConclusionLife may be good, but it isn't fair. Over 500,000 miscarriages happen every year, killing half a million people before they even get a chance to experience life. Even in general, too many unjustified deaths happen. Plenty of people are born to poor living conditions, and while they may get used to it and be happy eventually, there's still a transition period where they suffer from the situation they're in before they grow accustomed. This is nonexistent for other people. For this and other reasons, it should be clear that while life is good, it isn't fair.