Life is fair

Thanks for the response. Don't worry about any of your arguments sounding "ridiculous". We have communists and anarchists on this site and we tolerate their views just fine.Death statisticsPro starts by saying that just because millions of good people dying seems unfair, that doesn't mean that it objectively is. I have a few responses:1. If you accept this argument as true then it basically makes it impossible for any Con to win. I can point out that 70,000 people die each day (fact) and my opponent can just be like "Yeah well you can't prove that people dying is a bad thing". Well, if mass murder and genocide aren't legitimate arguments in this debate, then what is???2. If you can't objectively prove something unfair, then you can't prove it fair either. My opponent herself would even say that fairness is subjective. How then can she prove that life is fair? Thats the resolution after all. 3. If people dying can't be proven right or wrong, then we might as well legalize murder and every other crime out there. After all, killing someone who donated 5 million dollars to charity can't be objectively proven to be unfair, right?Finally, Foundationalism:Foundationalism is a theory of epistemology which states that we have to accept certain things as true even though we can't objectively prove them. For instance, we should assume that murder is wrong, child rape is wrong, stealing is wrong in general), even though they can't necessarily be proven as such. The things we assume are right or wrong have to be based on common sense, or natural intuition. The reasoning is that not accepting these "basic beliefs" leads to the Infinite Regress problem. Infinite Regress is basically where you keep asking "why" when someone tries to argue something is right or wrong, and the end result is that nothing can be proven. For example:"Murder should be illegal"- "Why""Cause killing is bad"- "Why""People don't want to be killed, we should respect their wishes"- "Why""Cause we need to acknowledge human autonomy and the right to life"- "Why"And so on and so forth. This is a problem because if we just keep asking "why" an infinite number of times then it becomes impossible to prove or know anything, because at some point we won't be able to answer one of those Why's. In other words, knowledge is impossible, even if something seems obviously true. And if knowledge is impossible, then you have no way of proving that life is fair because I can just use Infinite Regress and keep asking "why" every time you make an argument for the resolution.Thus, to avoid this problem we need to accept foundationalism, and acknowledge certain things, like the Holocaust and child rape, as objectively wrong and unfair. Life includes the Holocaust and child rape. Therefore life is unfair.Happiness level"These people that are victims of rape, murder, etc. Don't have the "same" happiness we do"I'd certainly hope not. You can't be happy if you're dead ://Anyway, Pro again refers to people who have everything they could possibly want being depressed because they have nothing to strive for, and they don't value the things people with less do. Well now, that seems pretty unfair now doesn't it? I have absolute wealth and still can't be happy? Again, this is a reason life is unfair, not fair."A girl who died in the Holocaust may also live with depression"Lolwut? I'll assume this is a typo or something.Dishwashers vs video game testersPro says "The happiness that dishwashers exhibit is just as high as that of any other jobs." I beg to differ. Most people hate their jobs, including dishwashers. Whatever occupation people have, its usually not what they want to do. Even Pro's father she mentioned who's a dishwasher, he doesn't enjoy washing dishes. He does it because he has to, to make money. But then some people make hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit and type on a computer. Or to play video games.There's also plenty of people stuck on manual labor. They aren't voluntarily choosing that over an easier occupation either. They're forced to do it because life's circumstances have put them in that situation. Life is unfair.The lazy, new guy who's been working for 6 months gets the promotion over the hard-working, 2-year vet because he knows the boss.Pro writes, "That doesn't mean he is happier, he may seem happier, but he just gets to place his worries somewhere else." Apparently people don't get happy when they get a promotion? While he does have other worries, getting the promotion takes one of those away. And the man who was unjustly denied the promotion is going to be hella-mad. So yes, there is a happines disparity going on here.Innocents convicted, guilty being equatedPro writes that "Guilty people have to run, hide, lie, in my opinion that this worse than living in prison." This is only true of the minority of court cases that go public. There are thousands of trials each year and only a small portion are publicized. The criminals aquited in the non-publicized trials don't have to worry about hiding from the public because we haven't heard of them. Pro says that innocent people being sent to prison is OK because they may have "lived the life they were suppose to live" or maybe deserved some sort of divine punishment. These are both just speculation.Africa!My opponent brings up Nigeria and Uganda, which have oppressive governments but still have a happy population. This ignores the thousands of innocent people who have died in their genocides. Likewise with Haiti. Yeah, people there might be happy. The thousands killed in the earthquakes aren't.Lastly, my opponent makes a puzzling statement: "Happiness is equally accessible to people all over the world"Three words. Slavery, miscarriage, human trafficking. So not necessarily :)To close, lets look over dropped (not refuted) arguments.Pro does not respond to a key argument against her case. If human nature is to always want more, then that means we can never be truly satisfied with our lives. Thats unfair. This turns her argument about a Happiness Level because it just creates a system where no one is actually happy with what they have.She also doesn't refute my argument about the world being "balanced" with good and evil. Why does it have to be balanced? Why can't there just be no evil in the first place? This easily negates the resolution because the mere existence of evil implicitly proves that life is unfair. I patiently await my opponent's response.