Child birth should be considered immoral

My forfeit of the last round wasn't a forfeit to the debate.The forfeit changes nothing the burden of proof is still on pro And she has failed to meet it. Let's examine pro's case point by point. 1. Comfort vs. discomfort Pro draws people in by asking them to come to the simple conclusion that comfort is good and discomfort is bad. This is where she draws you in. Once you agree to this simple statement then the bait and switch comes in. After and only after you agree comfort is good and discomfort is bad then you are told a new definition to these words. Definition of comfort when you agree it's a good thing. Relaxed, at ease. New definition after you've accepted comfort as good. Fulfillment of urges. something done to fill a void. As you can see this new definition the one shared with you after you've agreed comfort is good is turned from something positive to something that is at best neutral but ussually bad and only in response to primal urges. Definition of discomfort when you agree it's a bad thing. Not relaxed or at ease. Once you agree discomfort is bad new definition. Any urge you have. Any insecurities you have even your yet to be fulfilled hopes and dreams. I'm not the one playing games with semantics pro is. If I plan on radically redefining a word I will atleast give you the new definition before having you agree if that particular word is now bad. Pro's argument that any and every ambition is bad is ridiculous and unfounded. Once it's agreed that ambitions are bad it's easy to show that comfort ( things resulting in ambition according to pro) is bad because it comes from ambition. Even the fulfillment of ambition isn't good enough because then you will be ambitious about something new. 2. Random rebuttals Your argument holds no water your premises don't logically connect to each other and your conclusion doesn't neccesarily follow from your premises even if true, and your premises haven't been proven true.. " You talk about things with the word " objective " which implies you know the meaning to life" It's you pro who claim the meaning of life is to be comfortable, and label anything ambitious as bad and in conflict with that meaning. I however said the meaning to life is a very personal and individual thing. I did give scientific evidence in one source to show that nature pointed to the meaning of life being self preservation. The evidence was provided as an acceptable and alternative piece of evidence to knock down your argument that comfort is the ultimate purpose and meaning for life. When I point out that you assign value non existent pain but assign no value to non existent pleasure, you go out of your way to justify this by merely repeating what was said before. Either nonexistent things have value or they don't . You can't just assign value to something because it helps your argument. " would there be anyone in the world, that would sit in pain for the rest of his/her life, and continue to say, "this is good" You continually accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when you use examples like this. I'm showing a balanced opinion so when you say " pain is bad " and I say " not alway it ussually is a signal for you to act." " example take your hand off that hot stove" or " don't walk on that broken leg". I don't mean pain is good in all circumstances and situations typically pain is temporary. When you come back with statements like these it is proof of you as the intellectually dishonest one. Clearly pain that is permanent and torturous it is a rare thing. Clearly this type of pain is not even the pain your talking about sparing people from preventing their birth. The pseudo pain you are trying to prevent people from going through is the pain of being hungry or the urge to urinate. A lot of kids want to be president of the united states. According to you this ambition is painful and every minute the kid isn't the leader of the free world the kid is suffering. It would be better that my son wasn't born then for him to want to be the leader of the free world according to you. " try not eating for 60 hours" Once again we are talking the difference of balanced and extreme. When you are hungry it's a signal going to your brain telling you to eat. If you ignore this signal and don't eat then it turns to pain. This pain is to make sure this need is your primary focus. It's not pain until you take it to the extreme. I wonder if your the type of person who would invite a homeless guy off the street for a hot shower. Then when he exclaims " that would feel good" you would refute his statement by saying "no its painful see" and dump boiling water on him. " I'm not arguing to kill everyone" " I'm arguing that it's immoral for people to breed" I clearly never said you was arguing to kill everyone. I was arguing based on evidence that I presented showing every birth made the world a better place for current people then based on your own view of morality that preventing breeding would cause more pain on average per person then breeding would. " to get to the Olympics, after wanting it, is to fill a hole of great discomfort." This is crazy and not true. As I already have proven someone can be both content with their life and still be ambitious In pro's world there is no thing as content. In pro's world ambition is bad, and everything that you strive to do isn't because you enjoy the pursuit but because you lack in something. Everytime your not eating a pizza you are suffering from lack of pizza. Does your kid dream of being a fireman then right now your kid is in pain and suffering from not having his dream already fulfilled. Pro you have failed to meet you burden of proof despite me giving you an entire extra round to prove it.