Thank you, gugigor.
OBJECTION ! ! !
PRO is attempting a moving the goalpost fallacy. Normally when you try to re-define a word from the resolution (like afterlife), you provide a more credible version of the word, and one that is more applicable in the context of the debate. PRO is not doing that. He is cherry picking a singular definition of the word "afterlife" that fits his case, a definition that is almost unknown and certainly not remotely similar to the word as defined in the description.
offers the afterlife as existence after death, a later period in one's life, or the period of use/existence/popularity beyond what is normal/primary/expected
The example given for the last definition was that a TV SHOW could have a long afterlife, aka be popular longer than one expected. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it has nothing to do with the resolution. Products can be dead or alive based on their popularity, and for that reason, one could call an unexpected comeback an "afterlife" of a given product. However, humans being dead or alive has nothing to do with their popularity --- it depends on their vital functions. PRO is making a false equivalence between "changing history" and "afterlife".
- the life, for example in heaven, that some people believe begins after death
Dictionary.com, collinsdictionary, oxford languages, merriam webster wikipedia and britannica all agree that the meaning of "afterlife" is a life after death, and that it is mainly a religious concept. PRO's attempt at applying the third merriam webster definition of "afterlife" to humans simply fails, since humans are not products. Being famous after our deaths is not an afterlife, lest PRO is forced to argue that life is being famous, which would mean normal people are not even alive.
PRO's moving the goalpost fallacy in re-defining afterlife fails both logically, integrity wise and by definition! Popularity after death is not an afterlife.
Ah yeah, the PRO gamer move. It's more like the oldest trick in the book. From the dawn of time atheists have used the "history will remember you" argument to make atheism comparable to religions in providing a reason for morality and living a good life. There is nothing new to PRO's argument, though I suppose there isn't to mine either. Regardless, lets move on.
PRO attemps to reason his way to the conclusion that consciousness and bodily vitality alone is not life, because its boring. I would then argue that boredom is a basic part of human experience. "Boredom is a feeling of unpleasure arising out of a conflict between a need for intense mental activity and lack of incitement to it, or inability to be incited
. In short, boredom arises from the inability to care about the stuff you are supposed to think about. Boredoom also arises from extended periods of isolation. All humans are bored sometimes, and two out of three students get bored at least once a day [ibid]. The conclusion, then, is that life contains boredom, and thusly, being conscious and self-aware can be classified as being alive despite potential boredom. Social interaction is not a defining feature of life --- lest PRO is conceding that dead people aren't alive, as they have no social interactions. Social life is a result of life, and having friends/history remember you does not mean you have an afterlife.
PRO argues that since the effects of Albert Einsteins life can still be felt today, that means he has an afterlife. Unfortunately that isn't true. Albert Einstein might have been famous and still is, but he isn't any different from the regular Joe in that the effects of his actions continues to propagate through time. If Albert Einstein hasn't seized to exist, in the sense that we still learn about him and read his equations, then he is not as much having an afterlife as he is immortal. This song
expresses the concept perfectly: "Legends never die...they become a part of you
". They don't live on after death, they simply never die. Saying that Albert Einstein because he is a legend became immortal is far more reasonable than to say that he lives on after his death. The former suggests he lives on in this world, while the latter suggests some part of Alber Einstein moved to another place, continuing his conscious existence, which obviously isn't the case.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
PRO's argument fails because it disregards the correct definitions while cherry picking a wrong one. It contradicts logic and attempts a moving-the-goalpost fallacy, making it unsportsmanlike and intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, the argument fails to fullfil gugigor's BoP as laid out in my R1. Voters with integrity simply can't vote PRO.
There is no afterlife. My R1 evidence was not rebutted. The resolution fails by a landslide.