The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Everyone is dying

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 960 times Debate No: 46085
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This should be a fun and exciting debate

everyone who is alive right now is dying (physically )

leave the spirit world out of this im not interested

i would also like to state that this is a very easy debate i just want to see if anyone would debate this topic as it would be an easy win for me - it seems people will debate anything well let me see


To my opponent: I will only be stating my acceptance this round. I gladly accept your challenge. I will prove to you that your statement, "everyone who is alive right now is dying (physically )," is, in fact, not true. As agreed, I will not make use of "the spirit world." I will be using facts, logic, and reasoning to support my counterclaim and I sincerely wish you the best of luck in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


thank you con for accepting my challenge im excited on what information and facts you have for me i hope to learn something new

1. every second that goes by is another second closer to death for everyone whos heart is beating (alive)

i say this simply because every life has a death the moment your life begins you are ultimately destined to die and that is a fact that nobody can disprove and the burden of proof would be yours to prove that once a life begins it is not in fact dying at all.

2. scientific
evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the
life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined "moment of
conception." This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life
or of human embryos
science says that this in when a humans life starts

3. Inside the nucleus of a cell, our genes are arranged along twisted, double-stranded molecules of DNA called chromosomes. At the ends of the chromosomes are stretches of DNA called telomeres, which protect our genetic data, make it possible for cells to divide, and hold some secrets to how we age and get cancer.

Telomeres have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces, because they keep chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other, which would destroy or scramble an organism's genetic information.

Yet, each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide; it becomes inactive or "senescent", or it dies. This shortening process is associated with aging, cancer, and a higher risk of death. So telomeres also have been compared with a fuse.

this is a key point stating that you as of right now your body is currently dying or coming to an end of life


Preceding my rebuttals, I will summarize my opponents. If Pro believes that I am making a straw man argument, I sincerely hope that the opposition manages to point it out. I will try my best to make my summaries concise, comprehensive, and satisfactory to both my audience and my opponent.

Debatable Designated Definitions

In regards to the semantics of the debate, my opponent has offered these definitions in a post-initial round.

Alive (adj.) - Having a "heart [that is] beating"

Moment of conception (n.) - Birth of a zygote

My body (n.) - Dying

I refuse all of these definitions, and I will offer alternatives as well as reasons for why my alternatives are preferable to my opponent's.

Alive (adj.) - A state of being in which one has a conspicuous capacity in regards to growth and adaptation to the environment

This definition is superior to my opponent's as there are many organisms conventionally thought of as "alive," despite not having a heart to beat. Furthermore, many of the world's top biologists were called to discuss what life is.[1] While the strong consensus was and is that it is something easily identifiable, it was also that it is something difficult to define. Notwithstanding, a popular suggestion was made. I account for the suggestion in my definition while my opponent fails to.

Moment of conception (n.) - The point in time at which an entity, considered living, begins its life

While this definition may appear apparent in a self-referencing manner, it is far better than my opponent's definition as my opponent only accounts for humans. The fact is, life does not have boundaries dictated solely by humans.

My body (n.) - Not dying at any point in time

My definition is superior for reasons that I will state throughout this debate.

Copious Corrections of Callous Claims and Comments

There are various inaccuracies in my opponent's argument, which I will do my best to correct before making my own counter-argument against my opponent's (corrected) statements.

"every second that goes by is another second closer to death for everyone whos heart is beating"

This is untrue. While it may not seem so, this was proved untrue a long time ago. You see, things in the universe can't simply go as fast as they want. Everything has a speed limit: c.[2][4] The speed of light. Where it gets interesting is this: light in a vacuum travels at c, measured that way no matter what. This does not make sense to most people. Say you're staying still and you measure a baseball that's been thrown at 5m/s at you. You'd measure this as pain, as well as something going the speed of 5m/s. Now, say someone else, like my opponent, is running away from the ball at 5m/s. Measuring the ball's speed, my opponent would observe the ball as still, as they are going at the same speed.

So, how can you go towards light with it still being measured as the speed of light relative to you? Simple: Time slows down for you. This is relativity. This means that not every second that goes by for you means a second going by for everyone. This introduces the notion that time is different from what we think. Why is this correction important? Did I just want to feel smug with my education in the realm of astrophysics?

No. This is important because a better understanding of time can give a better understanding of life.

Connected Complex Continuum Complications

Zeno of Elea proved thousands of years ago that time cannot logically exist. Because time does not exist, to say that life "ends" is inaccurate. We must look at life at a single snapshot. In each moment of time, perfectly still, life is preserved. Time cannot move on from one point to the next. With a continuous continuum, time would have to move through an infinite number of points before reaching any point. If discreet, time would not be connected. Life cannot move onto death for time does not progress.

However, when the Big Bang created time, some force ensured that it did, in fact, move along in an intuitive, connected manner. There is a force, simply named Dark Energy, that accelerates the expansion of the Universe. We know nothing of this force, save its effect, much like gravity.

So, time is not meant to move, yet it does. Being that it does, what does this make the Universe?

An Understanding of the Universe Unto Us

This means the Universe is, by definition, alive. Because Dark Energy will ensure that the Universe never stops expanding, the Universe will, in effect, live forever.[3][4] This proves that not everyone will die.


    4. Working on a Doctorate in astrophysics.
Debate Round No. 2


I will not be rude like my opponent was as to rejecting my definitions even though you rejected my definitions
i will reject nothing that you say and i will still read what you type and be respectful as (superior) as you believe yourself to be you are a human as well as i

ok "copious corrections of callous claims and comments"

a : being hardened and thickened
b : having calluses
a : feeling no emotion
b : feeling or showing no sympathy for others : hard-hearted

what my opponent is saying here is that science is CALLOUS and that i am CALLOUS - i will leave this for the voters to decide on this one

right off the bat of the baseball theory (small pun intended) my opponent is throwing out facts about the speed of light , speed limits , and distance this has nothing to do with the debate topic but lets give it awhile and continue reading

Zeno of Elea yes you read this correctly Zeno of Elea alot of you have never heard of this man and that is to be understood
Zeno lived from (430-490 BC ) Although many ancient writers refer to the writings of Zeno, none of his writings survive intact this is HUGE ! the man Zeno who my opponent is using in this debate does not have one original piece of documentation in existence today ! meaning that i cannot go back and read any of zenos findings simply because there is none to research because none of them have survived -i highly advise viewers to look at this link

moving on ,its possible we are getting somewhere relevant to this debate topic
more information about understanding the universe i find this very entertaining and good reading material buttttt still not relevant .

last fact that the opponent gave me

"An Understanding of the Universe Unto Us

This means the Universe is, by definition, alive. Because Dark Energy will ensure that the Universe never stops expanding, the Universe will, in effect, live forever.[3][4] This proves that not everyone will die."

he claims that because the universe will last forever,everyone will not die read it one more time THE UNIVERSE WILL LAST FOREVER-THIS PROVES THAT NOT EVERYONE WILL DIE . i hope my opponent understands that everyone who has EVER existed HAS DIED !
i have nothing left to say except since this is my last round my opponent has not used anything relevant to the debate topic we just get to hear about how smart he is with astrophysics congrats on working on your doctorate i hope you accomplish your goal now its pretty obvious you will use this last round to actually provide some relevant material i look forward to it


NOTE: Quotes will be shortened to save space.

I would like to take a moment to express that while I'm impressed by my opponent's usage of rhetoric, the well poisoning is not very subtle. There are clear straw man arguments put forth in order to reduce my persuasiveness, all of which I'd like to point out to my opponent for the sake of, hopefully, future improvement. For the audience, the next part of my argument can be skipped entirely.

Reading Into Rhetorical Routine

"I will not be rude like my well as i"

To my opponent: This was probably the poorest selection from the entire argument. The ad hominem was not very subtle and it all came off as very self-righteous. If you do plan on continuing this technique in the future, my advice would be to not start off with it. If you start off a round trying to attack the opponent's character, it will be to the detriment of your image. Perhaps slowly transition into it while still ensuring that it is subtle, much in the way that one would consider it a backhanded compliment. If you find this unsuccessful, then you could simply practice it more often or, like me, give it up altogether. Character attacks can be devastatingly effective, but it may not complement everyone's style.

"my opponent is saying...i am CALLOUS"

Most readers will be able to see the straw man argument here due to you focusing on it so much. Rather than make it a focal point, casually mention it. Instead of "Look, my opponent called me names! Mean face!" simply breeze past it. "In this quote with my opponent calling me callous, there are various logical inconsistencies..." and so on.

I will now no longer be addressing towards my opponent.

Dutifully Defending My Discussed Declarations

"the man Zeno...survived"

I am willing to accept that none of Zeno's original work was ever recovered, but that is no excuse for not analyzing what I clearly meant to put forth. I'm certain that my opponent believes that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and told his accusers the truth in the face of consequence, even if that was only a story. I'm sure that the opposition of this debate believes that Abraham Lincoln really did tell stories all the time to soothe his listeners, even if nobody ever really recorded it. These historical landmarks and personalities are captured through people recollecting and recording instances involving said people.

So, while we don't have any footage of the original event, we still know of these stories and events in History. This is the same case with Zeno. We do not have the original work, but we have people summarizing and reiterating the original work, me included. If you look at my argument, you'll find that I explained my logic. "With a continuous continuum...time would not be connected." Rather than deconstruct my logic, my opponent claims that that is not necessary because there are no documents showing that this logic came from Zeno himself. Regardless of who originally came up with the idea, an idea can still be isolated from origin and seen logically and objectively. The idea could come from someone that everyone respects, such as Mother Teresa, someone that everyone despises, such as Adolf Hitler of the Third Reich, or someone that nobody knows. How does that affect the logic? To make use of a rephrased Shakespeare quote, "What's in [an origin of an idea]? That which we call [Calculus] by any other [origin] would be [regarded] as [logical]." Does my reasoning not work out? My opponent fails to say.

"moving...buttttt still not relevant ."
"i have nothing...congrats"

In the first round, the opposition says "i just want to see if anyone would debate this topic as it would be an easy win for me," making it clear that my opponent is aware of the intuitive axiom that is the argument put forth. My opponent should know that my argument will be unconventional, and with my area of study, it should come to no surprise what I used for my argument. The info is not irrelevant, but my opponent ignores it. Pro summarizes my viewpoint (sans my reasoning), "THE UNIVERSE WILL...NOT EVERYONE WILL DIE," then says that this is not true, "everyone...DIED." There's no reasoning. No facts to back it up. Essentially "Nuh uh, you're wrong!" Ignoring my reasoning altogether. If my opponent had difficulty understanding, I would have happily explained further, but Pro disregards my argument altogether. Furthermore, my opponent's solution has what's known as a non deterministic polynomial time. To prove that everyone has died, one must analyze every life rather than using logic or reasoning to solve the problem.[1] This is typically avoided in mathematics and computation and one must try one's best to always find a way to deduce the answer without having to go through every instance in a "guess and check" fashion.

In conclusion, it would appear as though the argument I've constructed is still solid an unchallenged.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
I really don't care about whether or not your words were bold. I'm reading and I like Pro's conduct better. As for the argument itself i'm still undecided.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
Meant to do the same with "An Understanding of the Universe Unto Us." Looks like I'm slipping up on formatting.
Posted by TheShadowCupcake 3 years ago
I meant to size up, bold, and underline "Debatable Designated Definitions." Whoops.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Con's sources quite educational, though his approach and argument were somewhat irrelevant to the topic, death is a consequence of stupidity, lack of care, disease, organ/tissue failure and the deterioration of our chromosomes at each cell replacement, where Pro's argument were more valid in light of the topic, though Con took on a very tough ask and did well to at least find some angle, because I would otherwise give Pro conduct points against Con, as Con's manner was very Aggressive and overly assertive, but when the chips/topic is stacked against you, there is not really much you can do to get points. Though I liked Con's sources, but they were off topic in my opinion.