Instigator / Con
1
1465
rating
10
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#3622
Living immortal is the best way to live
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
0
3
After 3 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
NerdWhoDebates
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
21
1508
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
Although there is an immense amount of people that believe a formula that would enable us to live forever would be a blessing, it is actually an atrocious curse. I would rather die after living a long, fruitful life than to live in an eternity of misery.
First, living forever would be terrible because you would be alone, not just for a period of time, but forever. Think about it. Suppose you were the only one out of your family and friends that was able to acquire this formula. You may be able to live eternally, but your family would not, on account that you were the only one that was adept to acquire the formula, and only had an ample enough for yourself. You would have to watch your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and your parents die. Even if your youngest sibling had just been born or was very young, you would still have to watch them die one day.…show more content…
If everyone took this formula that made you live eternally, there would not be as many necessities as everyone in the world would need. If a baby with cancer was scarcely clinging to life and the doctors gave the baby some of the formula, that baby and potentially other sickly newborn children would live eternally.
Even though eternal life would most likely be a curse, it could also potentially be a blessing. It could be a blessing because if you have a dying relative or friend, you could dispense them some of the potion and they would live forever. You could also give it to your dying dog or cat, and you would literally have a companion for life.
In conclusion, living forever may be a blessing for some, but inevitably it is a curse to many.
My opinion:
Let’s start with the doubtful presumption that you could live forever in rude health, rather than “sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything”, as Shakespeare had it. Even then, won’t somebody think of the children? I’m not just talking about how difficult it would be for deathless humans to live together on the planet sustainably – I’m concerned about the intergenerational aspects. Imagine attempting to get old disgracefully while your parents were still around to see it. That exposes a broader truth overlooked by those who wish to swig the elixir of eternal life. Much of human exceptionalism is predicated on our knowledge and fear of death: our hedonism, yes, but also our cooperation and altruism, our creativity and inventiveness, and much more. What would a world look like, for example, where no one were motivated today to make great art or literature, or a life-changing invention, safe in the knowledge that tomorrow will do? Dull, that’s what. Sure, I want to live a long and fulfilled life, and ideally I’d like to die with a minimum of fuss and pain – both of which are uncontroversial
Pro
#2
First I would like to thank my opponent for creating the debate and posting their opinion.
The order of my argument will be definitions, my arguments, and then my rebuttals to my opponent.
Definitions:
- As defined by Merriam-Webster, "best" means:
most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction
- As defined by Oxford dictionary, "immortal" means:
living forever; never dying or decaying.
- As defined by Merriam-Webster, "decay" means
to decline in health, strength, or vigor
My opponent failed to provide a definition for "best", "immortal", or "decay" and so they have accepted my definitions, the voters should vote based on these definitions.
Argument 1: The best way to live is by helping others
We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give — Winston Churchill
Have you ever seen the Matrix? Do you agree with the protagonist in believing the Matrix is wrong? What makes living your life in a fake reality feel empty or wrong? It is the fact that you are not making an impact on the world around you. You are not helping others. So the more positive impact you make on the world, better you live and the more happy you are. Here is something my opponent states later in their argument:
What would a world look like, for example, where no one were motivated today to make great art or literature, or a life-changing invention, safe in the knowledge that tomorrow will do? Dull, that’s what
They are saying a life where people do not make an impact is a dull life. We as humans find meaning through helping others, yet my opponent's case is largely based on selfishness of the person who is immortal. The definition of "best" is
most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction
So I must prove that a person who is immortal produces greater good or offers or produces the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction than a person who is mortal.
Argument 2: Living immortally allows one to produce greater advantage and good
If one has unlimited time, they can learn so many new things and amass large amounts of knowledge. A PhD usually takes about 4-6 years to complete.[1] Using the average of five, if a person studied for a hundred years, they could get 20 PhDs. The more well rounded knowledge people have on something, the better they can provide unique perspectives. Imagine if Einstein had just a hundred years more, would he not have made more scientific discoveries? He wrote a lot of his discoveries so future scientists could read them, but in a way, he still took knowledge to his grave that was perhaps on the brink of discovering something. Now imagine if he also had an expert understanding of medicine and space science. A person who is immortal can amass more knowledge and wisdom by unlimited time for education. They can make scientific discoveries, and they can advise others on what to do, as well as numerous other things. They can do all of these things more effectively than a person whose time is limited.
Argument 3: A person living immortally uses minimal resources
The definition for "immortal" states a person never dies or decays. This means a person would not need to consume food or water, as they would never die or decay from starvation or thirst. The person could live in a small room surrounded by books, and only take up a small amount of space. the world's most populated building, Sillon de Bretagne, has housing and offices for 3,500 people.[2] A person doesn't need a lot of space or resources to live if they are immortal.
Rebuttals
First, living forever would be terrible because you would be alone, not just for a period of time, but forever. Think about it. Suppose you were the only one out of your family and friends that was able to acquire this formula. You may be able to live eternally, but your family would not, on account that you were the only one that was adept to acquire the formula, and only had an ample enough for yourself. You would have to watch your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and your parents die. Even if your youngest sibling had just been born or was very young, you would still have to watch them die one day.…show more content…
You would not fully be alone. Yes, your family and would pass away, but you would have your grandchildren, you could have new friends, you don't need to stick to your original friends. This argument is selfish. As I said in my first argument, the meaning of life is to help others. This also is under the assumption that immortality would be achieved with a formula, and there would not be enough for everyone. This argument is flawed because the debate is about immortality as an idea not as a practical implementation because we have no idea what a practical implementation would look like. The resolution does not state what the practical implementation of immortality would be.
If everyone took this formula that made you live eternally, there would not be as many necessities as everyone in the world would need. If a baby with cancer was scarcely clinging to life and the doctors gave the baby some of the formula, that baby and potentially other sickly newborn children would live eternally.
Refer to my 3rd argument. If every human became immortal, humanity would be using less resources, not more.
Even though eternal life would most likely be a curse, it could also potentially be a blessing. It could be a blessing because if you have a dying relative or friend, you could dispense them some of the potion and they would live forever. You could also give it to your dying dog or cat, and you would literally have a companion for life.
Two things about this argument:
1. Again, this is using the assumption that the key to immortality is some sort of potion or formula. How the immortality is acquired is completely irrelevant to the debate.
2. This argument is for PRO, not CON.
Let’s start with the doubtful presumption that you could live forever in rude health, rather than “sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything”, as Shakespeare had it.
As per the definition I provided for "immortality", which CON accepted by not providing one of their own, a person who was immortal would not decay. The definition for "decay" I provided, which again, was accepted by CON by not providing one of their own, if a person does not decay, they don't decline in health, strength, or vigor.
I’m not just talking about how difficult it would be for deathless humans to live together on the planet sustainably
Once again, refer to my 3rd argument.
I'm concerned about the intergenerational aspects. Imagine attempting to get old disgracefully while your parents were still around to see it. That exposes a broader truth overlooked by those who wish to swig the elixir of eternal life. Much of human exceptionalism is predicated on our knowledge and fear of death: our hedonism, yes, but also our cooperation and altruism, our creativity and inventiveness, and much more. What would a world look like, for example, where no one were motivated today to make great art or literature, or a life-changing invention, safe in the knowledge that tomorrow will do? Dull, that’s what
So it now seems we are under the assumption that every person is immortal. Humans will still seek invention and creativity if it brings them happiness. Humans want to feel happy and fulfilled, so if invention and creativity bring them those things, they will continue to do it. Cooperation will be more prominent and conflict will be less prominent. Many resources won't be necessary and so people will be less likely to fight over them. The immortality will mean people don't need to fear death, and so they don't need to fear others either, so cooperation will flourish. Most conflicts in human history come from fear, which would not exist to the same extent in a world of immortality; or is driven by resources, which would be practically unlimited because there would be no resources necessary for survival (besides space, which would not be a problem, considering how large the earth is).
Conclusion
I believe I have shown in this argument that "Living immortal is the best way to live" using the definitions I provided which my opponent accepted by not providing definitions of their own. For PRO to win, I must show that a person who lives forever; never dying or decaying produces greater good or offers or produces the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction than a person who is mortal.
I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Sources
Round 2
Pro
#4
Con forfeited the final round. By failing to contend the Pro arguments, Con has accepted them.
I extend all my arguments. Vote Pro
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con forfeited 2nd round.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
FF f
@ Wylted , Yes I am active sometimes but I dont do debates as I can't find 1 that interests me. Hope that helps:)
Are you guys still active?
FYI, that would not be considered a concession. Concessions admit defeat and are actually good conduct, unlike the null they submitted.
No problem! Once you get back, you could challenge me to rematch if you would like.
Living forever would stop evolution.
sorry couldn't debate had to go to a school international trip...
Eventually, Kars stopped thinking.