Life is Good

This debate has been rather enjoyable as I have been able to apply Solomonion Philosophy and Determinism. While life may SEEM good, it is not. I have reorganized the structure of the debate so that it makes more sense. Every point is still adressed. CONCESSIONS/DROPPED POINTS Let us now make a list of things my opponent has conceded: -We live to toil, toil to live, and all for no reason. (Conceded, Round 2) -All we do and toil for is essentially worth nothing (except the happiness that we get from it). (Conceded, Round 2; Clarified, Round 3) -Pleasure has no source besides subsistence and reproduction. (Dropped, Round 3) -Pleasure is a hormonal and emotional facade. (Conceded, Round 3) My opponent claims that I have conceded that toils can be enjoyed. I agree that they can, but the resulting joy is not truly satisfying. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MISCELLANEOUS "We all know life is more than just toil. " That is an empty claim. My opponent claims that I conceded that toils can be enjoyed. I agree that they CAN be enjoyed, but that this joy is but a facade manufactured by the body. This joy is a facade; therefore, it is not truly "satisfying". My opponent claims that life is good because we are rewarded for our good in the afterlife. A quick examination of logic proves that this does not make life good. Though it may give life a meaning (perhaps a false one? ), this does not make life good, it only means that though life s*cks, the afterlife is good. My opponent claims that emotional facades can make something satisfying. However, emotional facades make things SEEM satisfying, though (as I have argued) they are not. "My point was that not all pleasure comes from subsistence and reproduction, which you still have not proven. " I refuted every single one of my opponent's examples, and he could not provte than any pleasure doesn't come from subsistence and reproduction. There is no counter-example; therefore, my statement is true. My opponent may not have "conceded" that pleasure has no other source, but he has dropped this point. My opponent claims that toil is but the price of maintaining subsistence. I do not deny this (for it was my point and my opponent has conceded it). However, my opponent tries to use this to claim that there are other parts of life that are not toil. However, this does not give those points meaning and does not make life good. My opponent claims that he feels joy all of the time. This does not make joy good. Again, joy is a hormonal facade created by the accomplishment of our subsistence through meeting meaningless goals and by reproduction. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MY OPPONENT'S CASE FOR WHAT MAKES LIFE GOOD "The good in this life is worth the struggle to survive, for it is GOOD. " AND "To LIVE is worth it all. " AND "They get to live and know life. " This is circular reasoning: 1. There is good in life. (False Assumption) 2. Therefore, life has good. 3. Therefore, life is satisfying. (False Derivation) 4. Therefore, life is good. Anyone can look and see that these are not logical arguments as to why life is good. MY OPPONENT'S OTHER CASE "To experience emotion is worth it all. To feel, touch, taste, smell, and hear is worth it all. " This relies on the false assumption that what we are percieving it indeed satisfactory. Emotion, again, is a facade. Though it may feel satisfactory, it is not. Also, the ability to percieve life does not make life good. That is also circular reasoning. 1. Perception is good. (False Assumption) 2. Perception is good because what we percieve is good. (definition of perception) 3. Therefore, life is good. My opponent's case is based on a false assumption; perception is not good. Perception is only good because of hormonal facade. MY OPPONENT'S THIRD TYPE OF ARGUMENT DECLARING LIFE GOOD "It could be so much worse. " AND "You cannot compare life to anything, for there is nothing comparable to life. You have no set standard of goodness to determine that life is otherwise. " While the second quote is contrary to the nature of the burden of proof in this debate, this argument doesn't make life good either. Daytime television could be so much worse; however, that doesn't make it good. 1. Life could be worse. (Axiom) 2. Therefore, life is better than it could be. 3. Therefore, life has good. (False Derivation) 4. Therefore, life is satisfying. (False Derivation) 5. Therefore, life is good. More simply, this is false. MY OPPONENT'S FOURTH ARGUMENT: TO BE OR NOT TO BE? "[That it is better to not exist than to exist] is nonsensical. To not exist means that you DO NOT EXIST. There is absolutely no feeling, good or bad, anywhere outside of existence. It is impossible to say that non-existence is better or 'preferable' to life , as there is no comparison. " Actually, 0 is always greater than -5. Explaining my mathematical metaphor: = 0 is the nothingness of not existing = 0 is the good of life = -5 is the toil and evil of life So, the first side for comparison would be 0 (the nothingness of not existing). The other side would be the sum of all the components of existing (the good, the bad, etc. ). This is -5. Contrary to my opponent's something, nothing is comparable to something. MY OPPONENT'S FIFTH ARGUMENT: MY HYPOCRISY "By the way, if you really believe that non-existence is preferable to life, why don't you commit suicide? " The answer to this is the answer to another one of my opponent's questions. "If what you say is true, why don't any of us commit suicide? Why do we try so hard to stay alive? " All we do is influenced by hormones. Why would hormones tell us to commit suicide? How would such a trait be passed on to offspring? Natural Selection answers my opponent's question. MY OPPONENT'S FINAL ARGUMENT "The things that determine goodness, by the definition given at the beginning of the debate, are relative. They are determined by the thought patterns and viewpoints of the person living. Happy people are happy because they choose to be so. " Let us examine the logic here: 1. Good is "agreeable", "pleasant", "adequate", and "satisfactory". 2. Good is therefore subjective. (False Conclusion) 3. Subjectiveness is reliant on human perception. (False Assumption) 4. Therefore, if humans percieve life to be good, then life is good. 5. Humans percieve life to be good. 6. Therefore, life is good. Satisfaction and pleasantness, as well as agreeableness and adequacy, are capable of being judged without emotional perception. Science has shown that there is a more objective way of inductively viewing things. An orange was once judged as satisfying based on its taste. It is now also judged on its nutritious content. In the same way, life can be judged logically, without including emotional facade. When viewed logically, life is not good. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ON AN OFF NOTE "I was joking, but in my defense Solomon did have a messed up young life, what with his older brother trying to usurp the throne and all. .. " That happened all of the time with monarchies in which the king died before he declared an heir to the throne. It's not like it would be something to scar him for life. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CONCLUSION Life is neither agreeable, pleasant, adequate, or satisfactory. Satisfactory- Life is never truly satisfying (CONCEDED by PRO, 2nd round). Adequate- We are never truly satisfied in life. (CONCEDED by PRO, 2nd round). Pleasant- We toil to live and live to toil. All pleasure is a facade. (CONCEDED by PRO, 2nd and 3rd rounds) Agreeable- Life is neither satisfactory, adequate, nor pleasant. What is agreeable about it? So, life is not good, under any definition. I now await a final response.