In this debate I will be arguing that radical life extension is good for society. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1723/radical-life-extension-technologies-would-be-on-balance-beneficial-to-society
It is my opinion that arguments against it, are really no different than just rationalizations because people have accepted death as inevitable, and now cope with death by pretending like it is a good thing. Copes occur everyday and for a variety of reasons. Arguing against radical life extension would be similar to arguing against something like childhood leukemia, which a cure for would also increase some people's life expectancy.
Some argue that death is good because only the rich would benefit at first, but this is equally as silly and for similar reasons. It would be similar to discouraging the invention of a home based PC, just because it is only available to a select few to begin with. Or saying we should not drink fresh safe water, just because there are portions of the world, without access to it.