Death is Fine

Thank you, D4RTH, for instigating this debate. My opponent has the burden of proof of showing that death is fine, meaning that if I show an instance of death not being fine, the resolution is negated.Negative CaseFirstly, the definition of fine needs to be established. Based upon Pro's opening round of arguments, I will take fine to mean:"satisfactory; acceptable" [1]This would be taken in the sense of "that's fine by me", similar to how "death is fine". In other words, there is nothing too wrong with death.A1: Child loss effects on parentsIt should be rather intuitive, but the effects of death on the people still alive are largely very negative.According to a mass study by Rogers and Floyd of Georgia State University, and Seltzer, Greenberg and Hong of the University of Wisconsin (2008), the results found that the effect the death of a child has on parents found that parents had longer lasting difficulties than originally suspected [2]. Quoted in the source, the American Psychiatric Association (2000) found that these parents experienced depressive symptoms in their grief (this is abnormal). Li et al (2005), again quoted in the text, found that "depressive episodes tend to follow the death of a child, Finally, another quote from within the text referring to Bohannon (1991) and Parkes (1998) found that parents who lost a child were at a greater risk for health and marital problems.Perhaps the impacts which really demonstrate how brutal child loss is comes from the work Lindemann (1944), who is also cited in my 2nd source. From Lindemann's work, he saw that, "neither traditional conceptualizations of grief [meaning despite the way you look at it] as having a time-limited impact followed by a return to normal functioning". In other words, parents never return to "normal functioning" after the loss of a child. Later in the century, Prigerson et al. (1999) contributed to this understanding by adding that persistent, long-term difficulties never receded. There are many more conclusions to be extracted from this source that would further negate the resolution, but that is enough to make my point. Based on this particular source, the impacts of child death on parents are: harsher grief when it arises, depressive episodes, greater risk for health and marital problems, never returning to normal functioning and permanent, long-term difficulties.A2: Effect of parental death on childrenIn a study by Maier and Lachman (2000), titled 'Consequences of early parental loss and separation for health and well-being in midlife', wherein in was found "that loss or separation from parents in childhood [has] a negative impact on health problems and psychological adjustment in midlife and that the effects are more pronounced for divorce" [3]. Moreover, the study elaborates to conclude that "parental death [for children] was also related to lower educational attainment". Another relevant point was that, "the relationship between parental death and depression for young women found in other studies (e.g. Brown, 1981) was replicated in this study". Those specific effects that are being cited in Brown were as follows, "[young women whom] reported severe loss events [i.e. death] were likely to have precipitated onset of a depressive disorder (within 1 year)" [4].So, the impacts of parental death found in this research were: negative impact on health problems and psychological adjustment in midlife, lower educational attainment and for young women, depression and development of a depressive disorder.Counter-arguments"Death is nothing to be afraid of. I'm not"What happens after death is relatively unknown. According to the extensive work of Mary Baxter, "Hell is a real place of burning torment" [5]. I believe the potential for a place of burning torment makes death something to be afraid of."those who love life are greedy and selfish. If you have lived beyond your lifespan you'll agree with me. If you don't, you're a coward."The first part of my opponent's argument here is a bare assertion. In form, there is merely the statement of "those who love life are greedy and selfish" is not back by evidence, sources or anything. Hence, it is a logical fallacy [6].The second part is saturated in logical fallacies: (1) there's no proof that anyone will agree with my opponent, so this is another bare assertion, (2) this is an appeal to authority, as only those who have "lived beyond your lifespan" are apparently capable of understanding the argument my opponent is making [7], and (3) "lived beyond your lifespan" is internally contradictory, as if you've lived beyond your lifespan, then that wasn't your lifespan! Your lifespan only ends when you die!The third part is an insult to opposition, of which includes me. I urge voters to consider penalising my opponent for calling me "a coward"."The love for our own lives brings fear, which can control us. All love is destruction, because we will be prepared to do anything for who or what we love. That's the conflict."More bare assertions. Besides, even if I conceded all this, the resolution would not be affirmed.ConclusionI have shown two clear instances wherein death is not fine (i.e. something that is acceptable or satisfactory). Death has a crippling, permanent effect on the lives of people around and is clearly anything but fine. I have also negated my opponent's arguments. Therefore, as it stands, the resolution is negated.References[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.waisman.wisc.edu...[3] http://ncfm.org...[4]http://tinyurl.com...[5]http://www.divinerevelations.info...[6] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...[7] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...