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

I will start with final rebuttals. 1. The Certainty of Neuroscience My opponent sources a rhetorical question that does not contradict my case and claims that it does. It most certainly does not, upon review ("What does it mean that certain kinds of neural activities are pleasurable? "), and is simply the beginning of a slew of questions with the conclusion that there is much more to learn [1]. Doug Watt does not question or contradict my case, or make any reference to it. My opponent also implies that my case is entirely based on individual speculation, stating that I am a sophomore in comparison to Doug Watt, a college student. This is in itself a triple fallacy, twice (once against me, and once for Watt) an appeal to authority [2] and a straw man [3]. My case is based on neuroscientific studies, and is well-sourced. 2. Definition of pleasure My opponent's rebuttal is based entirely on speculation, that there may exist some other, undiscovered function of endorphins. In all of the neuroscientific research on them, no such function has been discovered. Endorphins create the feeling of pleasure, and only by relieving pain. The logical conclusion is that the relieving of pain causes pleasure, and that the absence of pain is a complete pleasure. Therefore, pleasure is the absence of pain. 3. My opponent's concession of his value My opponent feels that the mentioning of his value in his conclusion is a rebuttal. This clearly cannot pass for a counter-argument. My opponent made no rebuttals to defend his value, and conceded it. 4. Goodness of life My opponent concedes that if my definition is valid, so is my entire case. His only rebuttal to my case is sourceless and unwarranted speculation. I have well established that every pleasure hormone even mentioned in this debate matches my definition. If my definition is valid, then life is suffering. My definition is valid; therefore, life is suffering [4]. 5. Value and Value Criterion My opponent does not seem to understand the concept of L-D. The case supports the Criterion and the Criterion supports the Value, and the Value supports the Advocacy. By not rebutting my criterion, he conceded it. Also, my opponent claims the my value criterion is as invalid as his because he PERCIEVED that his was in the same format as mine. My criterion, murder, supports my value, relief of pain. His criterion, "deprivation of pleasure" is identical to his value, "deprivation of pleasure". Therefore, his value criterion is invalid. My opponent states that my value is valid if my definition of pleasure is valid. My definition is valid; therefore, my value is valid [4]. And again, my opponent's value is nullified because my definition is valid. 6. Coercion Argument The coercion argument is not what my opponent sourced in the 5th round. In the second round, my opponent conceded the statement "Because the relief of suffering is moral and just, murder, voluntary or not, is just". So, the argument that the individual would rather live out his life than be killed is null. 7. Burden of Proof My opponent claimed last round that I must "prove beyond any doubt whatsoever". This is obviously false and abusive, though my syllogism achieved even this strict burden. Based off of all available information and most likely any future information, the resolution is affirmed. This, even, is a greater achievement of burden than the standard burden of proof, which holds that I must push my advocacy over the draw line. 8. Suffering in others There is no such thing as "common knowledge" in a scientific debate. In fact, most "common knowledge" is false entirely. For example, "common knowledge" once stated that the Earth was flat. My opponent's argument here lies entirely unwarranted and should be disregarded. Again, this argument is unfounded because murder only causes the relative's grief-causing hormones to be released, not produced. The Endocrine System produces these hormones regularly [5]. 9. Syllogism Again, my opponent's only objection to my syllogism, which affirms the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, is based entirely in unwarranted speculation. Based on all of the research done to this date, which is a significant amount, according to Doug Watt [1], endorphins relieve pain, creating the feeling of pleasure. My syllogism is entirely justified. 10. Visual My opponent bases his visual [6] on a definition that he dropped in round 4. There is no scientific justification for it, while mine is well-justified. CONCLUSION My opponent's last argument itself, ladies and gentlemen, was based entirely in the proposal of stalemate and then burden of proof. My argument had retreated all the way to stalemate, and his only hope of getting that was the argument that neuroscience has not done enough study on endorphins to make any logical conclusions. However, the study of endorphins has been extensive [7 (awesome link, very thorough)], and no further responsibility has been found. Murder brings total pleasure and complete removal of pain. This is moral and just. VOTE PRO. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://fallacyfiles.org... [3] . http://fallacyfiles.org... [4] . http://www.iscid.org... [5] . http://www.hormone.org... [6] . http://www.debate.org... [7] . http://aids.hallym.ac.kr...