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

First things first: I would like to kill my opponent's definition. It comes from a website devoted to one particular philosophy, that of Epicurus. However, this debate requires a more open definition, as we, as humans, are not entirely certain just what pleasure is. I also already established scientifically what pain and pleasure are with a quote from Wikipedia: "Pain and pleasure... are respectively the negative and positive affects, or hedonic tones, or valences that psychologists often identify as basic in our emotional lives." "Hormonally, there is no such thing as 'pleasure'. Hormones can only relieve pain." False. Many hormones are connected with "pleasure." In fact, an entire set of brain structures is dedicated to receiving pleasure [2]. To say that pleasure has no scientific basis is absurd. "Suffering is in all cases a negative; the individual is burdened and hurt by suffering. We currently have a means, death, of completely guarenteeing[sic] the absense[sic] of suffering." However, at the same time, this guarantees the absence of pleasure. Nirvana is not a positive experience. It is a neutral experience. "We have no means of completely guaranteeing the existence of pleasure." However, we have a means of guaranteeing its absence. This happens to be the method you advocate. "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." Wrong. In life, there is pleasure, then suffering, then pleasure, then suffering, in an attempt to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. Death is just nothingness. "Suffering and pleasure are different entities, one positive and real and the other negative and imaginary." Suffering (or pain) and pleasure are equally real, as described in my Wikipedia quote from Round 2. VALUE CRITERION: Deprivation of pleasure and trigger of suffering; I have shown how murder is an immoral act of deprivation of all emotion, especially pleasure, and a trigger of suffering in the survivors. "It is important to note that my opponent has conceded this subpoint... He has also conceded that pleasure is ethically meaningless." I said that life is both pain and pleasure. And where did I concede that pleasure is ethically meaningless? "First, he claims that life also includes pleasure..." I already established that pleasure is not the absence of pain. Therefore, to deprive one of life is to bring them a complete lack of pain and pleasure; there is no positive or negative experience, but a completely neutral experience, non-existence. "My opponent calls my statement that we cannot accomplish anything irrelevant..." Just because we cannot accomplish anything relevant to the world, doesn't mean that we cannot experience anything. Given that these experiences are just about all that someone can ever have that actually means anything to them, to deprive them of their future experiences to replace them with a neutral state seems rather cruel. It deprives them of the one thing they can actually do. "My opponent claims that suffering comes from danger to subsistence..." From Wikipedia [3]: "Suffering, or pain, is an individual's basic affective experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm." Although, I will agree that humans have managed to expand pleasure and pain beyond things relevant to subsistence, as evidenced by pleasure from luxuries such as art and television and pain from the loss of a luxury. "If danger to subsistence were to be the sole and direct cause of pain..." True. Explanation above. However, if a human does not fully realize that their subsistence is in danger, then there is no suffering. However, the sudden realization that there is a car about to run you over causes fright, which is an example of suffering. "Pleasure comes from climbing trees, and suffering comes from having relatives die." Alright, then, I concede that I got my facts mixed up. However, this sounds like a concession that pleasure exists, if it "comes from climbing trees." "My opponent sources a Jimmy Buffet song and a Jimmy Buffet quote..." For one thing, I do have scientific evidence. For another, while science and philosophy are secondary sources, Jimmy Buffett is actually a primary source, which is generally more reliable than a secondary source [4]. He is claiming that the pleasure of his life is worth the pain. If a scientist rants on and on about philosophy and science, that would not eliminate the fact that Jimmy Buffett still wants to live, because he views his life as a positive experience, and his perception is what decides whether or not depriving him of life would be to relieve suffering or to relieve pleasure. Now, if one were to kill Jimmy Buffett while he was drinking margaritas and enjoying his life, if he had a few seconds of thought left, he'd be really mad that his happiness was eliminated forever. My opponent makes many claims rooted in the idea that pleasure is not a positive entity, clearly contradicting my first source. Pleasure is the positive force, while pain is the negative force. It is not like hot and cold. It is like one's perception of hot and cold. Sometimes, one feels hot, and other times, one feels cold. However, in the case of heat, neutrality is Absolute Zero, while in the case of pleasure and pain, neutrality is a lack of both pleasure and pain. "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." See the Wiki quote, based completely in science. "It denies the existence my argument that consciousness dies with the Nervous System, which is scientifically founded." However, my opponent ignores my argument that there is no evidence against a supernatural counterpart to the nervous system that lives on in afterlife. "Pleasure exists, all right, but it is not a facade of hormones anymore, but the real thing." No, it is not real pleasure. It is real nothingness. How can pleasure come from nothing? "It is death, not murder, that causes this suffering." Ah, but the murder brings forth this suffering when the relatives are not even prepared. Crying over a person who was shot at the prime of his life is different from mourning a man who died at the age of one hundred, already prepared for death. Also, consider John F. Kennedy [5]. Had he died naturally, after his presidency, people would be able to mourn a bit happier, knowing he had done his job. However, with an assassination, Americans were shocked, and "wept openly." People accepted Reagan's death much more calmly. "The death of a loved-one is not a threat to subsistence..." Humans have evolved beyond subsistence. This statement would only be valid if the resolution was in the past tense. "My syllogism is even further supported than in Round 1, because the individual does not lose pleasure - pleasure is gained." This is entirely refuted by the fact that nirvana is actually complete neutrality, lacking the positivity of pleasure and the negativity of pain. There is no dopamine. In conclusion, nirvana is a neutral state, lacking both pain and pleasure. Life is filled with both pain and pleasure, although most people find more pleasure than pain [6]. This deprivation of pleasure makes murder unjust. Thank you, wjmelements, for this debate so far. It's been great. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.nationmaster.com...