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

Thank you for your response. Firstly, my opponent has not provided any defense for his own definition of pleasure, which I claimed came from a poor source, a philosophy. Therefore, my opponent no longer has his own definition. He links to the lengthy talk page about the pleasure center, claiming that it has been "heavily defeated." However, upon checking the page, after thorough scanning, I found this: "This is not at all obvious, and hardly self-evident. What does it mean that certain kinds of neural activities are pleasurable? When you start thinking about this, you have to concede that this exposes a core mystery in neuroscience, namely that within a conscious system, certain kinds of neural 'resonances' are somehow positive, while others are negative?..." [1] Basically, Doug Watt is saying that the science of pleasure and pain is a mystery, far from a sound science that has reached any definite conclusion whatsoever. My opponent claims that dopamine only has the ability to kill pain, and not the ability to cause pleasure. However, the page on endorphins only says that endorphins have pain-killing ability. It does not say that endorphins cannot additionally cause pleasure when there is no more pain to be killed [2]. Additionally, the dopamine page [3] contradicts my opponent's statements, saying, "Dopamine is believed to release chemicals that allow us to feel pleasure (e.g., endorphins)." If it is chemicals that allow us to feel pleasure, then it only follows that a lack of chemicals (nirvana) would be a lack of pleasure. My opponent's value still relies on his own definition, which he does not defend. In addition, there is no way we can come to a definite conclusion on how neuroscience works within this debate (see Watt's quote). More on that later. My opponent claims that I have conceded his value criterion. However, the criterion is merely his own prediction on how his arguments would work. What was I supposed to do, say "No, you're wrong"? That would seem more than lame. He also claims that my criterion is invalid, without saying why, which is a very important part of the accusation. Most of my opponent's case still relies on his own definition of pain, which he has failed to defend. In reality, neither of us can prove that our own definitions are correct, due to the mysteries of neuroscience. Again, more on this later. He calls my video an appeal to authority. However, Jimmy Buffett is a bit of an expert on whether or not Jimmy Buffett's life is pleasurable. My opponent makes a few more arguments against my definition. Good for him. He left his definition to rust. He then claims that "pleasure IS nothing." For one thing, this completely relies on his rusted definition. For another, chemicals create the feeling of pleasure, so nothing is neither pleasure nor pain. My opponent's paragraph about suffering caused by murder relies on the idea that pain hormones are consistently produced. I cannot find any sources that can verify anything that my opponent says. He's going to need some sources if he wants to be taken seriously. Now, back to what I was talking about. Neuroscience is largely a mystery so far [3]. See how many mysteries of neuroscience have been solved only recently. Now, it is practically impossible for science to arrive at a definite conclusion on the neuroscience of pleasure and pain by the time this debate ends. Now, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a bit of a gamble. Perhaps murder relieves all pain to grant eternal pleasure. Perhaps murder relieves whatever state the victim was in to replace it with total neutrality. However, for one thing, my opponent has the burden of proof, as stated in Round 1. As he cannot prove his case, which relies on a definition that he cannot prove to be true, as there is no true scientific definition of pleasure [4]. For another, let's say that there's a 50/50 chance of me being correct or he being correct. That leaves us with impossible statistics. We don't know how my idea of complete neutrality would compare with my opponent's idea of complete pleasure. So, it would be completely unjust to leave this 50/50 possibility to the hands of a murderer. Why risk it? Personally, even if I knew that there was a 99% chance of achieving complete pleasure and a 1% chance of achieving complete nirvana, I would still rather live out the rest of my life, as infinite pleasure can wait, and I'm sure my average pleasure would have averaged very high by the end of infinity, with more pleasure being hardly worth it, while if infinite neutrality awaits me, I would have given up all possible emotion of life for nothingness. And then there's the fact that I want to watch the complete Season 6 of NCIS. As for my opponent's syllogism, he claims that he has shown life to be only suffering, although he let his own definition die and has not definitely proven his own case. My opponent's conclusion uses a whole string of sources, although they do not actually show his case to be correct. Endorphins may "have pain-relieving properties" [5], but that does not necessitate a lack of pleasure-creating properties as well. In addition to relieving pain, endorphins "leads to feelings of euphoria, modulation of appetite, release of sex hormones, and enhancement of the immune response" [6], euphoria obviously being a positive experience brought about by chemicals [7], not a lack of them. Opiates also lead to euphoria [8]. "Murder brings the 'victim' to a state of permanent and perfect nirvana, a freedom from suffering, consistent with perfect and permanent pleasure. Such an act is therefore just, as demonstrated by deductive syllogism." Again, this statement relies on the definition that I challenged last round with no response and the scientific "facts" that are really just conjectures over the uncertain mysteries of neuroscience, which my opponent cannot prove. Additionally, my opponent ignored my link to the chart that showed how most people are happy. Here are more statistics: "Americans are, on average, only 69 percent happy" [9]. That's better than 50%, which means that murder is still unjust. Many more Americans are happy than unhappy [10]. In conclusion, murder quite likely deprives one of pleasure as well as pain. Combined with the fact that most people are happy, murder quite likely usually unjust. Therefore, the resolution cannot be affirmed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.neurogenesis.com... 3. http://www.bing.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.severe-brain-injury.com... 6. http://www.medicinenet.com... 7. http://www.medterms.com... 8. http://www.addictionmedicinepractice.com... 9. http://thehappinessshow.com... 10. http://astrohow.org...