Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.

Pro's position, as he clarifies once more, is: "Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference." Con's position is to refute the above claim. To clarify: Dead, living, or those yet to be born do have "real" or "significant" differences. I believe I had made it rather clear, but to re-illustrate, A1 was an introduction to A2. Pro's argument is that there is no significant difference between people dead, alive, or not yet living. However, if there is a significant difference between contemporaries, eg. people that are currently alive, then the argument fails before the statuses (past or future) even become relevant. In other words, if there can be a significant difference (my example was moral character) between contemporaries, then the resolution is already refuted, as it claims that there is no difference at all between contemporaries and their predecessors, not to mention those of the future. If this argument still seems to be a off-point ramble that is unfathomable, then I ask Pro to kindly explain why he finds it so, as it is, his response remains a mere plead of failing to understand. Pro then proceeds to make a correction in response to A3: "Pro is stating that there is little significant difference between the states of being Dead/Alive/ Yet to be born (except pulse)". But the states themselves are relative to individuals, eg. what life or being alive means, be it material, religious, or existential; it is relative to those that have the capacity to have the aforementioned temporal "states", you cannot separate the two from the equation. Also what "little significant difference" entails, Pro fails to elucidate. Instead, he claims, "Stating that there is a difference between being and potential will require example and clarification. Stating it does not make it true." I, then, in turn must point out that merely stating that there is "little significant difference" between the states of being dead/alive/yet to be born does not make it true. I find this to be a bit ironic, if not downright hypocritical, but I digress. To clarify, potential and being are different by their very nature and definition. According to the oxford dictionary, "being" means "existence", "alive;living", "the nature and essence of a person" [1]. According to the same source, "potential" is defined as "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future" [2]. As I explained in my introduction, I tried to keep semantics out of the debate, but it seems Pro is confused as to what the two words mean at all. I believe this is as objective and clear as I can express the difference between these uncontroversial words. In regards to his response to A4, I can only assume Pro is confused. The tautology that "life is life, and thus all life is life" is not an argument, it is an empty statement that does nothing to prove his resolution. Essentially, Pro's argument thus far can be summarized as this: P1: There is life P2: All life is life C: Thus, life is also death, and life is also that which is not yet life, and the only difference among the three is pulse The conclusion is a non sequitur. Life is not death, and if Pro wishes to argue so, then he must actually argue instead of merely making claims. And as already explained above, he must also explain how being and potential are the same thing. To be clear, I agree that the Debate Title and resolution is not ambiguous. I also believe my arguments have been rather straight-forward as well. I will make a final point in regards to Pro's "pulse" argument, before I end this round. Metaphorically, I am assuming what Pro means by pulse is "the state of being alive". And thus, he is claiming that dead people and living people have no significant difference besides being dead or alive. At best, this argument removes the "dead" and "living" in dead people and living people. What does this leave us with? That people are people. The tautology here that people are people is easy enough to accept, the question, however, is if there are significant differences between people and people, and if there are (regardless of their temporal frame), the resolution is refuted. This brings us back to A2, which to clarify, is that there are significant differences between individuals regardless of whether they are living or dead (not to mention the not yet living, which is inherently significantly different from the living and dead). Had Pro expressed what "significantly different" implies in his argument, I would be able to address it or challenge it (which is the whole point of this debate), but seeing as how he offers no arguments or clarifications, I can only argue under what seems most reasonable, even if "significance" is a subjective notion to begin with. A2 is a simple enough argument to follow. In round 1, Pro claims that there are good people and villainous people. Given that we grant these qualities to exist, we can logically deduce that they are significantly different based on the two qualities being in direct opposition. It does not matter if we are comparing a dead person like Hitler to a living person like you and me, or even an imaginary person that one assumes will exist in the future. There are significant differences between people regardless of pulse or temporal frame, and thus the resolution is refuted. [1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...