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

My opponent straw-mans me, claiming that I did not defend my definition of pleasure. However, I did this two (2) times in my last rebuttal, both in the beginning on dopamine and in the end on dopamine and opiates, in addition to refuting the base of my opponent's definition. Now, I would like to note that my opponent has conceded that his definition is invalid, formulated from common-language, and not science. We now agree here. As I have scientifically demonstrated and continue to demonstrate, pleasure is the relief of pain. My opponent makes no attempt to understand the argument from Dopamine. Dopamine is noted to grant the individual pleasure. What does dopamine do? It only releases endorphins, which only reduce pain. Therefore, reducing pain is what creates pleasure. [1 2 4] My opponent claims that my sources contradict my arguments. This is not so. Endorphins allow us to feel pleasure by relieving pain. Death relieves pain entirely, and therefore brings an entirety of pleasure. Take careful note that my opponent has made no attempt to defend his definition with science. He could not even find any hormones to defend his reasoning. He only attacks mine, with arguments based in misunderstanding, as above demonstrated. He further concedes my definition entirely, stating that "endorphins cannot additionally cause pleasure when there is no more pain to be killed", meaning that no more pleasure can come once pain is removed entirely. My opponent claims that neuroscience is too much of a mystery to make any conclusions about pain and pleasure, according to Doug Watt. However, Doug Watt only lists out "many unanswered questions" [3]. This does not mean that there is an entire mystery; there are plenty of things that we do know, like the effects of pleasure hormones, like dopamine. THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE Due to the above scientific clarifications, my opponent's entire case again falls apart. VALUE My opponent only attacks my value, saying that it relies on my own definition. Seeing that my opponent has dropped his definition and that my definition is standing, my value is also standing. My opponent also drops his value entirely and concedes that there is no such thing as deprivation of pleasure. VALUE CRITERION My opponent claims I did not state why his value criterion is wrong. I can easily disprove this claim by quoting myself: "My opponent's value criterion is an invalid means on attaining his value". This is because "it is simply a restating of his value". A self-upholding value is not a value, and a criterion that is a value is not a criterion. My criterion remains conceded, and has been conceded since round 2. A. Derivation My opponent again mentions that he cannot prove his definition. I will concede that my opponent cannot prove his definition and that it is void; however, I have defended mine with ample scientific evidence. On these premises, in the end of the debate, my definition can only be more valid than my opponent's. My opponent seems to think it is significant whether or not an individual percieves his life to be pleasurable. My advocacy claims that they would be more pleasurable dead. Jimmy Buffett is not a neuroscientist. My opponent mentions that "chemicals create the feeling of pleasure". This is false. Even the chemical that my opponent has wielded as a pleasure creating hormone only relieves pain [1 2 4]. My opponent concedes that experiences in life are not to be associated with good. My opponent wrote a long paragraph last round that I will here refute. First, my opponent's source declaring neuroscience a mystery [5] is invalid. He simply searched for "neuroscience mystery". This does not mean that there is no knowledge with which we have. In fact, nothing can be derived from this at all, for more than 20 times as many results come from "addition mystery" [6] and 7 times as many results come from "physics mystery". Clearly, there are many things we can do with addition and, further, we know just about everything there is to know about addition, and yet it comes up with more results. The same applies to physics. Following my opponent's logic, any knowledge of basic mathematics and quantitative science should be disregarded in any debate, because humans do not yet understand any of it. Second, my opponent claims that we cannot be certain of anything and then lies down a bunch of bogus mathematics. However, this would only be true if there were absolutely no known facts. It is a FACT that nicotine enhances perception of pleasure [8] and it is a FACT that nicotine releases endorphins [9] and it is a FACT that endorphins fight pain as painkillers [10]. Third, my opponent states that he'd like to go wait to go through an infinite pleasure. This argument was conceded in the second round: coercion is not a valid counterargument. Even if the individual would rather be alive due to some preconceived notion, he/she is better off dead. The coercion argument has already been preemptively nullified. The coming of nirvana should not wait, and individual objection is void. My opponent claims that it is my burden to prove that the production of the hormones of suffering is constant. However, my opponent is trying to assert something, and therefore has a burden of proof for his claims to be valid. B. Syllogism My opponent's only remaining objection to my syllogism, which affirms the resolution perfectly to a complete and total burden, is that I supposedly let my definition die. Again, I defended it twice in the last round. C. Additional Rebuttals My opponent objects to the science of endorphins. Endorphins create euphoria, my opponent says, and therefore pleasure. However, euphoria is a "feeling of happiness" [11], which is created by the killing of pain, as I have already explained. My opponent sources this reference [12] to claim that pleasure is a positive entity, like heat, but that source makes no such claim [12]. Euphoria is a negative entity, the absence of pain, existent in a natural high [13 14] caused by releasing dopamine [14], which activates endorphins [1], which reduce pain [2]. The natural conclusion is that the euphoria is only a negative experience, from a relief of pain. Opiates do the exact same thing [15], except they directly mimic endorphins [16]. My opponent argues that "most people are happy". This is best refuted by a simple restatement of my entire case, as seen in my conclusion, in addition to the following visual [17]. CONCLUSION The only way to relieve pain completely is to die. This is because pain is just part of life. Though it can be relieved occasionally during life, causing a level of pleasure, complete and perfect pleasure can only be achieved in death. Bring someone this pleasure is moral and just; therefore, murder is just. [1] . http://www.neurogenesis.com... [2] . http://www.severe-brain-injury.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.medicinenet.com... [5] . http://www.bing.com... [6] . http://www.bing.com... [7] . http://www.bing.com... [8] . http://www.post-gazette.com... [9] . http://www.jimmyr.com... [10] . http://teenhealth.about.com... [11] . http://education.yahoo.com... [12] . http://www.medterms.com... [13] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Medical Definition 2 [14] . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... [15] . http://www.addictionmedicinepractice.com... [16] . http://www.drugtext.org... [17] . http://yfrog.com...