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

As Pro did not take the liberty to define any relevant terms, I will waive the liberty to do so as well. As "significant difference" is also subjective, I will be assuming we are trying to avoid semantics and tackle the essence of the question at hand. As there were no rules as to the format of the debate, I will continue on with my arguments and rebuttal. - A1 - ::The Irrelevance of Moral Character:: I find it curious as to why Pro emphasizes "good people" in his argument. It has nothing to do with the "debate question", or rather, it does nothing to prove his case. In fact, I would like to point out that people choosing and making certain moral choices in life is a significant difference in and of itself regardless of its temporal proximity. Notably, this debate is not about significant differences of human being's moral character, but this brings me to my next argument. - A2 - ::The Significant Difference between Human Beings Regardless of Time:: Let's take the above example of moral character. If people, for the sake of simplicity, can be labeled as "good" or "evil", we can deem this a significant difference based on the very nature of what a significant difference entails. By definition, good and bad are opposites. And significance is that which is great in capacity (relative to a given standard). Based on the standard of morality, there can be no doubt that the difference between good and evil are significant. Thus, if there are people that can be qualified as "good" or "evil", we come to the natural conclusion that there is a significant difference between them. If people of the same temporal frame can have a significant difference, there can be no question that people of separate temporal frames also share this difference. - A3 - ::The Difference between Being and Potential:: There is a significant difference between being and potential. Being is what is, while potential is merely what could be. The potential of life does not equate to life itself. Thus, the human being in the present moment is significantly different from the human being that may potentially exist in the future. The same logic applies to the dead person and the living person now. Essentially, Pro is stating that there is no difference between life and death. - A4 - ::The "Pulse" Argument:: Pro seems to be making the argument here that living beings live and die, and thus, there is no significant difference between other people that have lived and died, or will live and die in the future. This tautology, however, is linear, to say the least, and says nothing as to what it means to live or die as a human being or an individual. Thus, Pro is blanketing life and all its facets as "life" without actually taking the time to explain what life (or death) implies. We can deduce his argument as this: "Life is life, therefore, all life is life, no matter what time it happens to take place. " While true, this argument has no meaning, and is itself devoid of significance. - A5 - ::Perception and Being:: Pro mentions "perceived states of being" to illustrate, presumably, the three conditions: dead (past), living (present), and will (maybe) live (future). Excluding the "living" category, the dead and the not yet living both have no capability for perception. The former has lost the capacity to do so, while the latter has yet to exist to develop such a capacity. This is an obvious, and I daresay, a significant difference. I will make additional arguments in the next round after giving Pro a chance to rebut my arguments and better clarify his position.