Blake and Cally’s Epic Death Good File

Kill all people, epic gamer moments await

 In the debate you have to prove 1 thing to win: Life is suffering.

They have to prove that there is a justification of existence.

TL;DR:

- Humans want things

- “Suffering” is when humans want what they don’t have
- Therefore, wanting creates suffering
- “Happiness” is when we get what we want
- We’ll always want something, even after we get it
- Therefore, we can never be happy
- Life is bad, mkay

Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer follows in a philosophical tradition of asceticism that’s advanced by other schools of thought like the Epicureans (in the West/Classical Greece) and Buddhists (in the East).

begins with the notion that all life is an expression of “Will” which , for the sake of the kritik, may essentially be
understood as “desire”. All human action (action being defined in the traditional sense as purposeful behavior) is “willed” by human beings,
and action, Schopenhauer and praxeology teaches us, is purposeful insofar as it is the use of man’s
means to gain a desired end. That is to say, action and desire are essentially two sides of the same coin (men act
towards ends because men desire these ends). And, regardless of the particular circumstances of the situation, the end at which all men aim is “contentment” (“happiness”). Men only take action

because they are discontent with the status quo, and they wish to attain a different state of affairs .

The state man finds himself in when he desires that which he does not have is one of “lack” , and we
commonly call this “suffering” (though a better term, and one used by many who study human action, is disgruntlement or discontent). In this sense, “desire”
generates “suffering” – we only suffer because we are discontent with the now and want to achieve our objective. Here is the real problem Schopenhauer finds in aesthetics: there is no
final state of contentment that we can achieve. Man will always want (lack) something, so he will always
be locked in a state of perpetual discontent . Even when he achieves his desire, he will want something
else – this is evident by the fact that all men act (in a world in which men could achieve contentment, nobody would act, because nobody would be fleeing a dissatisfactory state of affairs for a satisfactory one). In this
regard, life is suffering because all of life consists of a drive to fulfill all possible desires, and an incapacity

to fulfill these desires. Life is pain, joy is impossible, and desire is at the root of all of this .

Util is not responsive if you win the K (you win that life is a form of negative utility that we can only
make up for through the renunciation of life/the will, means you maximize utility. More accurately,
you minimize suffering, because positive utility is only measured through the elimination of pain )
AT stands for Answer To
 AT: Suicide
Suicide is a desire to end the pain of life. Therefore, because it is a desire, to eliminate
oneself is to will the will. Therefore, it is a contradiction and cannot free us from the
horrors of life, BUT making the decision of death for others, i.e. death penalty, solves
this moral issue.
 AT: Value To Life
Existence is suffering that nonexistence negates – death is preferable.
Troxell 11 – Boston College, writing for peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Mary, “Schopenhauer, Arthur”, 5/11/11; <
http://www.iep.utm.edu/schopenh/#H3>//Beddow

Schopenhauer’s pessimism is the most well known feature of his philosophy, and he is often referred to as the philosopher of pessimism.
Schopenhauer’s pessimistic vision follows from his account of the inner nature of the world as aimless blind striving.
Because the will has no goal or purpose, the will’s satisfaction is impossible. The will objectifies itself in
a hierarchy of gradations from inorganic to organic life, and every grade of objectification of the will,
from gravity to animal motion, is marked by insatiable striving. In addition, every force of nature and every organic
form of nature participates in a struggle to seize matter from other forces or organisms. Thus existence is marked by conflict,
struggle and dissatisfaction. The attainment of a goal or desire, Schopenhauer continues, results in
satisfaction, whereas the frustration of such attainment results in suffering . Since existence is marked
by want or deficiency, and since satisfaction of this want is unsustainable, existence is characterized
by suffering. This conclusion holds for all of nature, including inanimate natures, insofar as they are at essence will. However, suffering is
more conspicuous in the life of human beings because of their intellectual capacities. Rather than serving as a relief from suffering, the intellect
of human beings brings home their suffering with greater clarity and consciousness. Even with the use of reason, human beings can in no way
alter the degree of misery we experience; indeed, reason only magnifies the degree to which we suffer. Thus all the
ordinary pursuits
of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an
insatiable, blind will. Since the essence of existence is insatiable striving, and insatiable striving is
suffering, Schopenhauer concludes that nonexistence is preferable to existence. However, suicide is not
the answer. One cannot resolve the problem of existence through suicide, for since all existence is
suffering, death does not end one’s suffering but only terminates the form that one’s suffering takes.
The proper response to recognizing that all existence is suffering is to turn away from or renounce one’s
own desiring. In this respect, Schopenhauer’s thought finds confirmation in the Eastern texts he read and admired: the goal of human life
is to turn away from desire. Salvation can only be found in resignation.