If you could easily modify your life to become perfect, you should not do it

 A perfect life doesn’t have to be boring. Life will give you so many things that you can learn, you just have to take advantage of them. A perfect life doesn’t have to contain you knowing everything, what a perfect life can do is guarantee you enough time and money to do whatever you please. So as an example that from me, I am trying to learn to debate, if I could have all the time in the world I would be much happier and would achieve my goal much quicker. A perfect life is not boring unless you make it boring.
    You don’t have to take away from people to have a perfect life, instead of duct taping your neighbor’s mouth, why don’t you move to a place where you don’t have neighbors, if you have a butler, pay them a ton of money (assuming you have as much money as you want). Why take away from people in your perfect life instead of giving to them?
Why does a perfect life have to mean that we make no mistakes? If we were to make no mistakes it might not as well be a perfect life. Mistakes are one of the most important parts of our daily lives because we can learn from them. In a perfect life there is no point in taking away mistakes. Mistakes are a good thing so why would we have them taken from our perfect life?

Con argues that perfect doesn't mean boring, but gives no support for this. Consider a finished puzzle. You are done. You have no more left to do. If someone gave you a finished puzzle, the only thing you can do is to mess it up and restart. Similarly, if your life goals are all accomplished, then your life is perfect and there is nothing else, no more stimulation, and hence, you would be bored. Con brings up giving himself more time to debate, but firstly, having infinite time to improve oneself can lead to procrastination and gives excuses to be lazy, as the argument "I can always do it tomorrow" would always be true, and hence you would likely stagnate and never improve. Keep in mind that your average human wants to take shortcuts and find and easy way through, that's why we think so many people are addicted to our phones and computers, as we are sucked into what we believe is "perfect" for us, but takes away from social interaction and actual life. If your life was so perfect, then you would likely be less productive to society as a whole. And wouldn't making yourself the best debater in the world instantly fix your problem of wanting to debate? (This, ironically negates the need for you to improve, which proves my point)

Now con brings up the possibility to help others improve their life as part of your perfect life. However, it requires a very generous person and being able to judge what is right and what is wrong. Most people are selfish and don't care about 7 billion people asking to have a perfect life. It would simply take too much of a mindset to be able to gather everyone together and mutually agree on a perfect society; with 7 billion different view points, a perfect world is far more impossible than the perfect life for yourself. 

Finally, con admits that mistakes are crucial for life. That then brings a slippery slope, which mistakes are actually necessary and which are not? This becomes incredibly vague to define and hard to say which one you're willing to accept and which one you think would be merely a plot device to make your life more realistic. Consider hacking a game, you can easily defeat it and you can make it very easy. But almost all cases you should not do this; a game is meant to be fun and challenging. Being able to perfectly do everything easily means the game just becomes a relaxing breeze that loses its purpose and its challenge. How can con know for sure that the frustration caused by a small mistake won't deteriorate the "perfect life"? Con's case contradicts itself.

    A perfect life doesn’t mean knowing everything. I think a perfect life would be an entryway into learning many new things, this is what suggests that a perfect life wouldn’t be boring. Though the excuse “I can do it tomorrow” would always be viable, you wouldn’t use it. In a perfect life if you started to get bored you would try to think of things that would make it less boring, if you kept using the same excuse eventually you would realize that that excuse is what is making your life boring. My problem isn’t that I don’t know how to debate, it’s that I don’t have enough time to learn how. In my perfect life I wouldn’t want to be the best debater in the world, it’s about the journey not the destination.
    Being generous isn’t a problem if you have infinite of whatever you need. If someone asks for an apple and you have infinite apples why would you say no to them? 
You wouldn’t be the person deciding which mistakes are crucial or not, the perfect life that would come to you would already know that without you having to think about it. Your perfect life would know if a mistake will stop you from having a perfect life since after all it is perfect. The analogy pro used has nothing to do with the conversation and seems to just be filler text. I would agree that if you were able to complete the game in a breeze that wouldn’t make the game fun, but in a perfect life you wouldn’t want to do that.

in the end, con's argument only works in hindsight and with extremely wise people who are very self-introspective. Consider the richest men in the world, they have everything they ever wanted but they are just not grateful, and they feel their life is not perfect, despite being able to manipulate the world with vast power and influence (as they are trusted in their fields of industry and are CEO's, businessmen, etc). In the end, being merely satisfied with the life you are already given is good enough for the vast majority of people. There is little need to change your life to become absolutely perfect and as good as possible. Remember Buddhist monks who transcend enlightenment merely by being calm and meditating. Everyone can do this, if they let go of material desires and wants. But with this limitless power, you contradict the pure nature of what truly makes people happy, and tempt even the most selfless person to become corrupt should they use this power. Con advocates that he wants merely a "little more", but how can we be so sure people won't be greedy and keep striving to use their omnipotent level of power to achieve pure perfection, only to realize, that ironically, no change just might be "perfection" already?

Vote for pro.