Our existence on Earth is pointless.

Con Argument 1: A. If our existence was useless then why are we here? B. It was not an option for us to exist. C. That does not make our existence useless; just harmful. D. Everyone on this earth has a destiny, a place to make a metaphorical footprint on the face of the earth. Pro Response 1: 1A - Useless is definitely not the same word as pointless. My conclusion states that we have no point to exist and we are more harmful than "useless" as you choose to assert. It would be different if we "just existed" and didn't hurt the Earth, each other, ourselves, didn't do anything, etc. That would be the definition of a "useless existence. " Clearly, we do not live a useless life but a pointless one as I established in the resolve and in my case. 1B - It was not an option to exist for ANYTHING that currently exists to our knowledge. I agree with that point but it doesn't really do anything to dismantle my case. Not choosing to exist is NOT equal to having a point of existence. You are presupposing the opposite in your following arguments. 1C - Again, the resolve states pointless, not useless. So, the only thing you've really proven thus far is that our existence is not only pointless but harmful too; sounds like a double whammy for your argument. 1D - Regardless of our destiny, our life will end and so will the lives of those affected by our own destiny and so forth. At the end of our existence, every destiny is in vain and every "metaphorical footprint" will be washed away. The cumulative results of such "metaphorical footprints" even in the best case scenario will hold testament to nothing when our existence ceases. Con Argument 2: A. By saying that there is no afterlife, you are also implying that there is no God. B. If there is no God, explain the bible. C. There is also the "ghost" theory, that your spirit either goes to hell, heaven, or remains here on the earth. There is reasonable proof of a said "ghost" or spirit. There are demonic possessions, haunting, so on and so fourth. D. There is also a lot to see in the world, a lot to be happy about, and a lot of lessons to be learned E. What happens to you in your afterlife is based on your actions as a human on Earth. That alone could be the reasoning for existence. Pro Response 2: 2A - Strawman argument. I never said there wasn't a God but you've acted as I have and continued with this argument. An afterlife can exist without God. If there is an afterlife, it is beyond our understanding and recording because we'd have no window to see into such a realm without dying. Therefore, we can't reasonably say whether or not a God is necessary to maintain such a thing. However, you presuppose this. As I stated in my first contention, human life is finite. In simpler terms, there's no coming back after we die. If an afterlife needs a deity though, why must it be your deity? Why can't it be Allah or Zeus? 2B - Logically false. If there is no Allah, explain the Koran. Tell me why your religion is more right than another religion and why the book written about your religion serves as proof for the existence of your deity while other pieces of literature for other deities do not. 2C - That's cool and all, what relevance does it have towards the RESOLVE? We are not arguing whether or not afterlife exists, we're talking about whether or not existence is pointless. You have pulled a red herring and lost complete track of the argument. Regardless, in order to make it look like I do not concede, I will refute your points. The strongest evidence demonic possessions, ghosts, hauntings, etc have is personal anecdotes. However, things like that are unexplained. We try to use what we already know to put a label on what we do not know. The supernatural is not equal to the unexplained nor is a personal anecdote evidence for something. 2D - You have now completely lost track of the argument. All of what you said is true but the resolve is that our existence on Earth is pointless. Even if we do have things to be happy about, lessons to learn, and such, you have not applied this towards the resolve. You have also not shown this in a light to support the validation of our existence. 2E - You have provided no proof for an afterlife but you have based almost half your argument around it. In fact, your whole argument is based upon the metaphysical. I stated in my first contention that to our knowledge there is not an afterlife. It is your job as con to falsify that; you have not done so yet you've based your argument around it. I cannot consider it valid if you fail to provide proof or reasonable arguments. Conclusion: Con has hardly refuted my points thus far and continues to rely on baseless claims and assertions. I have provided reasonable explanation for my claims and assertions. Con has also not argued towards the resolution while I have fully.