TOC Round 2: Murder is, in general, just.

I welcome him to L-D format. First, I would like to point out that my opponent has forfeited his opportunity to present a negative case and a value criterion. Second, I would like to present a definition: pleasure: the absense of suffering [1] Hormonally, there is no such thing as "pleasure". Hormones can only relieve pain. [2, 3, 4] VALUE My opponent wields pleasure as if pleasure and suffering are morally equal. Suffering is in all cases a negative; the individual is burdened and hurt by suffering. We currently have a means, death, of completely guarenteeing the absense of suffering. We have no means of completely guaranteeing the existence of pleasure. At a different angle, even if life were to contain two, opposing, equal entities being suffering and pleasure that either must exist together or not at all, then there is no difference between life and death. However, as I have shown, suffering and pleasure are different entities, one positive and real and the other negative and imaginary. From a scientific perspective, there is no such thing as "deprivation" of pleasure. There is only deprivation of pain. Therefore, to go even further, my opponent's value does not even exist. VALUE CRITERION My opponent has not presented a value criterion. He has also conceded mine. We can therefore conclude that there is no way to uphold his value, that his value is unattainable through his (literally non-existent) case. THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE Contention A. Derivation of VC I. To live is to suffer. It is important to note that my opponent has conceded this subpoint ("My opponent's first argument is that to live is to suffer. True, but. .. "), though he has objections. He has also conceded that pleasure is ethically meaningless. First, he claims that life also includes pleasure. Note: this does not negate my point. Pleasure being the absense of pain, to deprive one of life is to bring them pleasure to a level they have never even experienced. My opponent calls my statement that we cannot accomplish anything irrelevant, but if nothing can be achieved or accomplished, then life is meaningless and has no value. My opponent concedes that we cannot accomplish anything. My opponent claims that suffering comes from danger to subsistence. This claim is false and further unwarranted by his sources. If danger to subsistence were to cause suffering, then suffering is indeed existent at every moment of life. Further, if danger to subsistence were to be the sole and direct cause of pain, then getting a hair pricked and having a loved-one die should not hurt and standing in the middle of the road and climbing trees should. Quite contrary to my opponent's point, pleasure comes from climbing trees, and suffering comes from having relatives die. My opponent also protests, claiming my arguments are too "pessimistic". This should be disregarded. My opponent sources a Jimmy Buffet song and a Jimmy Buffet quote. This should also be disregarded. Music and glittering generality cannot be said to be greater than science and philosophy. The claim has been made that it is possible to have more pleasure than suffering. This, of course, is hilarious, for pleasure is not a positive entity that can be comparable to suffering. My opponent asks me if murdering is just again, and I reply that to bring a man pleasure and eradicate pain is generally a great thing. AII. Ending suffering is morally right My opponent cannot "turn this [point] around", because my opponent's case is scientifically baseless and his premises, therefore, void. Pleasure cannot be eliminated in the same way that cold cannot be eliminated, for it is simply the absense of pain, as cold is the absense of heat. Killing, therefore, brings forth the greatest pleasure concievable. My opponent's argument, therefore, supports my case. AIII. To murder is to relieve life, and therefore relieve suffering Again, my opponent's premise fails, and with it, his rebuttal. Pleasure cannot be relieved. My opponent calls suffering and pleasure "two sides of the coin of life". Based only in music and glittering generality, my opponent's case collapses under the revelation of science, which says that pain is like heat and suffering like cold. There exists an absolute zero found only in death that can be achieved. My opponent's rebuttal to my case pertaining to the non-existence of an afterlife has itself, again, no scientific evidence. It denies the existence my argument that consciousness dies with the Nervous System, which is scientifically founded. [5] My opponent's objection to Nirvana has the same falsehood: that pleasure "no longer exists". Pleasure exists, all right, but it is not a facade of hormones anymore, but the real thing. My opponent offers mourning as an awful side effect of murder. However, mourning occurs under murder and natural death, so this point is irrelevant. It is death, not murder, that causes this suffering. Further, murder ends life much quicker than natural death, and is therefore preferable. Interestingly and ironically enough, my opponent's argument here contradicts his source's claim that suffering originates from threats to subsistence. The death of a loved-one is not a threat to subsistence, and in ancient times, it should have been a source of food and "one less mouth to feed", and should therefore, according to my opponent, bring joy. Contention B. My Syllogism I believe it stands, and my opponent's has been rendered entirely null. Murder is undeniably just. My syllogism is even further supported than in Round 1, because the individual does not lose pleasure - pleasure is gained. Contention C. Pre emptive arguments My opponent has conceded that coercion is not an argument against murder. The resolution is affirmed. Thank you. [1] . http://wiki.epicurus.info... [2] . http://www.neurogenesis.com... [3] . http://www.neurogenesis.com... [4] . http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...