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

Immortality would be a desirable thing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,227 times Debate No: 19692
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (40)
Votes (3)




Resolved: An individual choosing to become immortal would be a desirable thing.

This is a debate about whether or not it would be a wise choice for an individual to choose to be immortal. My side is contrary to my true position, but I thought of interesting in somewhat eccentric arguments for Pro.

No semantics on the word "desirable" please. We all know what it means. attempting to win by twsting the defintion of desirable will result in a forfiet of all 7 points.

Immortality: Someone who is immortal lives forever (or, to the heat-death of the universe) and cannot die. They cannot suffer any fatal illness. They cannot suffer any major injury. They cannot age. Basically, anything that would cause severe permanent damage won't happen. But, they cannot give their immortality up. They are unable to die until the heat-death of the universe, even if they wanted to.[1]



Hello voters, I find immortality to be undesirable and will be giving reasons why in the second round :)
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to imabench for his acceptance. Sorry for a late and short reply. I had hoped to flesh out my arguments a bit more, but it can’t be helped.

I affirm this resolution. My reasoning lies in a few of key reasons, reasons I hope to use to convince the voters to vote Pro.


What is presumed in this debate?

1. There is no God.
2. There is no afterlife.
3. There are no extra-terrestrials.


A Pro ballot is presumed. As humans are living creatures, a desire for life is intrinsic to their nature; therefore existence is preferable to non-existence.

Further, we must take the advances of Science and knowledge into account when considering the resolution. It is not specified that the resolution must be affirmed in our species current state, rather that at some point it would be desirable for an individual to choose immortality. Thus the negative must prove universiality in his objections to immortality.


C1: An individual has a moral obligation for continual existence.

Consider the wonderment and accomplishments of the Human race. Think of our beautiful music, paintings, literature, ect. If we allow Humans to go extinct all of these wonderments perish from the Universe. Indeed, as specified in the framework there is nothing left after we go extinct, nothing at all. An individual has a moral obligation to carry on both life and the memory of his forefathers and culture. My impacts outweigh, because we’re comparing the world of the negative (a lifeless universe), to the world of the Aff (a Universe in which life exists).

C2: Omnipotence.

Technology is increasing at a near exponential rate; in fact it is estimated that Humanity will reach technological singularity within the 21st century (Kurzweil, 2005). What we are seeing is an unprecedented human influence on our environment, with plans being made to colonize both the Moon and Mars in the near future [1][2]. What does this show us? It shows us, that given enough time, humans can achieve anything. Indeed in a mere ~7000 years (post-Neolithic revolution) humanity has evolved from a race of nomads with little technology save a few crude weapons, to a race forming the beginnings of a mighty inter-planetary empire. Seven thousand years. This represents a fraction of a second compared to the billions and billions of years that the Universe has existed. These marvels were achieved on our own isolated planet, who’s resources are as nothing compared to the vast amounts of resources beyond our mesosphere. In fact, it’s estimated that our Galaxy alone has enough resources to sustain at least 50,000,000,000,000,000 humans (Asimov, 1950). Thus we can see that the resources available are enormous.


The importance of this point is that we have seen through history that individuals will exploit their resources to fit their desires. Since space has a practically infinite magnitude of resources, and an individual exists with a practically infinite magnitude of time before the heat death of the Universe that individual therefore has the power to accomplish anything. Given enough time the individual will advance and progress until they will inevitably reach omnipotence. An Omnipotent being has the power to entertain themself forever, so therefore all negative impacts are outweighed.

C3: Emotions and feelings are intrinsically good

When deciding whether something is or isn’t desirable, we must consider the alternatives. The alternative to life is death- indeed there appears to be a strict dichotomy between the two. When an individual dies, they become nothing. Every cognitive event, every emotion, and every accomplishment turns into nothing but endless and eternal nothingness. This is the result of death, and it is one that is inherently undesirable as humans are beings of cognition. Thus, an individual choosing to stay alive would appeal desirably to our nature which is highly significant. The ability to detect signals from our surroundings is one held dear by humans (evidenced how we entertain ourselves though stimuli to our senses); we know that something is intrinsically good and valuable when it works to its proper function. The proper function of a human is to survive. The proper function of our sensory organs is to detect stimuli. Death destroys these inherent goods, and therefore death is undesirable.

I have proven that sustaining life is something to be desired, and therefore you affirm.



As for the Pro's presumptions: I agree to them only for the sake of the debate, I am only specifying that I do not believe God does not exist and that there is no Afterlife for the circumstances regarding this debate, Those are not my actual views in real life. Just wanted to make that clear.

Existence is always preferred to non existence, however I feel that among humans it is simply longer existence is preferred, not permanent existence.

Onto the case.
1) "An individual has a moral obligation to carry on both life and the memory of his forefathers and culture"
I agree however I feel that individuals only have an obligation to carry on memories and culture of their forefathers and pass it on to their offspring, not to carry it on by never dying out.

"because we're comparing the world of the negative (a lifeless universe), to the world of the Aff (a Universe in which life exists)."

The comparison being made in this debate is our current universe where life exists to the world of the Aff which would be a universe where human life never dies out.

2) " What we are seeing is an unprecedented human influence on our environment, with plans being made to colonize both the Moon and Mars in the near future"

The US has had plans and intentions of colonizing the moon ever since the Carter administration. 40 years later Obama is shutting down manned space flights so what people are seeing is an increase in time it would take for the US to colonize planets of relatively close distance. Earth to Mars and Earth to any of the dozens of other possibly inhabited planets that lie thousands of light years away. My point is when the day comes we do colonize the Moon and then Mars, it will be an even larger jump to try to colonize anything else....

The one scientist who claims that the Universe has enough resources to sustain about 50 quadrillion humans existed in 1950, a time period where humans consumed far, far less resources and electricity than they do today. An estimate from someone within these last 60 years may be a little more appropriate before we could determine just how many of us the Universe can support. Also it depends on where these resources are located because Mars and the Moon are quite literally giant rocks and any earth-like planet with actual usable resources lie thousands of light years away...

3) "Thus, an individual choosing to stay alive would appeal desirably to our nature which is highly significant"
I agree to that however I feel that humans choose a desire to stay alive longer, not forever. There is a difference.

4) "I have proven that sustaining life is something to be desired, and therefore you affirm."
I am not here to argue that we shouldnt sustain life, I however feel that sustaining life to the point of immortality is undesired, and here are my arguments why.

- 1 - Poverty
If you were a rich millionaire living on the top floor of a giant skyscraper in a beautiful futuristic city, then yeah life is looking pretty good and we could all certainly live like that forever. However we cannot all live that way, there will always be thousands of underclass workers for every one upper class worker. Some of these underclass workers though live in grinding poverty, many people in some areas in the world live on less than $1 dollar a day and barely feed themselves or their families, so why would someone want to thrust immortality onto Humans and seal people's fates of living in that wretched lifestyle forever? We cannot assume that in the future all humans live like kings, it can only be assumed that society will constantly remain in a class system of low, middle, and upper classes of people

- 2 - Disease
It was agreed upon that humans of immortality would not be able to die from a fatal disease, however that certainly does not rule out that humans can be affected by diseases. There are cases where people are born with polio, skin psoriasis, or other physical setbacks that themselves are not lethal but cause a nice load of suffering. If humans were to become immortal than these diseases would not cause death but with the burden they put on people it could give them a fate worse than death. Also there are people who are born or develop very weak immune systems, and even though with immortality no disease could kill them, they would still be almost constantly sick from a common cold that would take quite a while for them to recover from only to then catch another common cold with the cycle going over and over forever... Why wish that on anyone?

Also consider the new diseases that could come out in the future that can cause far more wretched conditions and could be inherited or caught. What if a disease came about caused people to lose their eyesight in a matter of days? even if such diseases were to affect one part of the human race why wish those humans to suffer from blindness or a different physical setback, forever?

- 3 - Planetary catastrophes

In the video above you were watching footage from a little-known European film regarding a persons life as the Earth collided with a rogue planet wandering through the universe. Earth was completely annihilated but because people could suffer not major injury, they would simply have everything they knew before be destroyed leaving just people on the new rogue planet. What if there were no resources on the planet though? nothing to use to rebuild society or rebuild anything to call home? Even then, what if the known planet began to drift into the emptiness of space away from any star that could provide any kind of heat or warmth. If humans were immortal, than those billions of people on that planet would be stranded on that planet probably frozen solid (but completely alive), starving (since the rogue planet was lifeless) and probably helpless (how could humanity evacuate billions of people from a wandering planet)?

It doesnt even have to be a rogue planet many times the sizes of Earth, what if some asteroid struck? the last major asteroid strike that killed off the dinosaurs blocked out the sun because of the amount of dirt and ash it kicked up into the atmosphere. Imagine living on a planet where everything around you was dying, no food could be grown, and food would run out. With immortality people would starve for centuries before they could either colonize another livable planet within close distance, and even then you must deal with the logistics of evacuating billions of people from a planet, no feasible task. Why take that risk with universal immortality?

I can introduce many other scenarios, but they all relate back to one thing in particular, suffering. There are dozens of things out there that cause suffering to people and immortality would only grant that these things would not kill you, however it would not mean suffering will not go away. Such suffering could be quite extensive and in some cases completely unavoidable as some of them occur strictly through random chance, however with immortality these things that cause suffering a) now have a larger chance of affecting you, and b) affect you for a much, much longer period of time. Whether or not it can be remedied in a particular person is debatable but it cannot be denied that in the future many humans will go through times of extreme suffering and can only endure through it before others help them out of it, if they help at all. If people were immortal why concern yourself with helping them out of it when you have billions and billions of years to do so later?

I will end here for now but would like to reinforce the fact that immortality solves death, but there are many fates that are worse than death, and with immortality those fates worse than death would grow worse even more since they could affect people until the end of time itself...
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks imabench.

I already see a Pro ballot for this round. I will explain why.

First, he concedes that existence is always preferred to non-existence. You can vote pro. This concession is HIGHLY significant, because it totally affirms the resolution and causes you to drop his entire case! (which I will now move on to)

1. Poverty

There was a misunderstanding regarding the resolution (see comments) and I told Con that I would argue his contentions regardless. However with this one, its essentially impossible to relate to the actual resolution (specifying only an individual) so we cant consider it. Further, in every country there is some upward mobility so there is no reason to think people will be trapped in poverty for all time.

2. Disease

I have a few responses to this argument.

Our technology has advanced so far, and will continue to advance and make disease a thing of the past. Already Small pox and Rinderpest have been eradicated nine other diseases (including polio mentioned by my opponent) are in the process of being eradicated [1]. Recall that the resolution does not specify the status quo.

→ The resolution specifies "an individual", meaning that we must evaluate this from the standard average citizen. Most people do not have these diseases my opponent specifies.

The benefit of omnipotence outweighs all else.

→ His new disease argument is flawed, as A) Under our current society, new diseases could be quickly contained (refer to the Swine Flu) or eradicated, and B) there are no new diseases if humans no longer exist, so this argment only applies on a short time scale. Also Turn: If a super disease comes and wipes out all humans, the immortal individual would be the only one to carry on humanity which he has a moral obligation to do (Con conceded to this).

3. Planetary catastrophe

I'm not going to watch a video arguing Con's position for him, so anything he claims comes from the video should be ignored.

→ He's given no empirics as to the likelihood of this or the timescale. If this rouge planet strikes Earth when humans are already settled in other areas his disadvantage is nullified.

A lot of Cons arguments stem from his misentepretation of the resolution. I really dont want to be a prick, but it's really impossible to answer some of his attacks that dont fall under the scope of the resolution.

In the end Con argues that it all leads back to suffering, but as you can see with the Omnipotence point this suffering is obviously well worth it.

Now I'll defend mine.

Moral obligations

Con concedes that we have an obligation to carry on. Great! Pro.


Cons sole objection to this is one based off of historical precedent. Con says that we've wanted to colonize for 40 years and havent been able to. The problem however is not that we have a lack of technology or ingenuity, but rather that international law (via the outer space treaty [2]) currently prohibits colonization from nations. Since private sector investment in space is increasing massively [3], so his objection is both no longer current, and does not meet my framework of universiality. His only other objection is that my stat for resources is outdated. Yeah, he's right, there are probably many more resources in space than previously estimated. I could look for a source on this, but honestly it's just a waste of time. We all know that space has near infinite resources.

Therefore you can totally extend my impact, and more importantly extend my analysis that this outweighs all other points. Remember, drops = concessions[4].

Life intrinisically good

Con only says that humans have a desire to live longer not forever, but not only has he not justified this what so ever, he has not shown death to be an intrinsic good, nor has he met my framework of universiality. I have shown life to be so.

Thus you must affirm.



"Existence is always preferred to non existence, however I feel that among humans it is simply longer existence is preferred, not permanent existence." - my original statement

If the Pro would listen to my points rather than cutting them blatantly short then his argument of my concession might be valid.

1) " However with this one, its essentially impossible to relate to the actual resolution (specifying only an individual) so we cant consider it"

Oh it certainly applies.
What if you were granted immortality while living in grinding poverty? If you became immortal but you were living in the poorest conditions imaginable then that would be a fate worse than death. It would be nice to be immortal if you were filthy rich living in luxury, however most of us live in the middle class constantly worrying about whether or not we can pay the next bills, and some of us live in sheer poverty where the only hope of escaping such conditions is death itself. Immortality would be very undesirable if until the heat of the universe killed you you constantly had to pay bills and taxes your whole life just trying to make ends meet....

2) Diseases
Im sure that in the future society will develop cures for future diseases, however part of my argument was what if you already HAD the disease and then became immortal, only to be forever handicapped by the disease you had beforehand. The resolution states that the person who is immortal cannot suffer from any FATAL disease, so diseases that cause vomiting, dizziness, severely painful headaches, maybe hallucinations, what if you were schizophrenic or mentally insane and you were immortal. You would end up spending your life strapped up in a mental hospital, forever.

" If a super disease comes and wipes out all humans, the immortal individual would be the only one to carry on humanity which he has a moral obligation to do (Con conceded to this)."

Yeah but you still would be the last human on Earth, and could you imagine how miserable it would be to live for quadrillions of years as the only human left, the Pro seems to not address this.

3) " I'm not going to watch a video arguing Con's position for him, so anything he claims comes from the video should be ignored."

Ignoring my arguments doesnt make them go away.... If there were to be a catastrophe where a large object, whether it be an asteroid or a Saturn-sized planet of rock that struck the Earth the results of such a collision would be the end of all life as we know it, that is all forms of life minus the one individual person. What if you had to live on Earth all alone as the last of your kind but now everything is just smoldering ash, omnipotence wouldnt get over that...

Ill introduce a new point here that will surely show how individual immortality would be bad.


Imagine marrying someone, having children with them, watching them grow up, but then have to sit by and watch each and every last one of them die while you could not help them or grant them immortality. How depressing would that be? first your parents then your wife then your children then your next wife then your other children, followed by your grandchildren, their grandchildren. The emotional toll on any individual who until the end of time must always watch their own family and friends die out over and over is unimaginable and would eliminate any kick out of being immortal.

As for the Pro's final arguments:
Moral Obligations: I concede that it is important for people to pass down the legacy their forefathers left onto the next generation. However watching that generation, along with the next one, the one after that, etc. constantly die out then the emotional toll it would take on you would be insurmountable

Omnipotence: Space probably does have a near infinite amount of resources, but the problem is that space is so vast that humans may never be able to have access to those resources so only if the all the universe was available to human colonization (which if its even possible sure as hell wont come about for a long time) then the true number of resources available for humans to use is considerably smaller that the Pro hopes...

life is intrinsically good: "he has not shown death to be an intrinsic good"
Death can be naturally good in a number of ways. 1) that person no longer consumes resources allowing for another to do so. If people didnt die competition for resources would be so vast that no one would be able to enjoy life as we do right now. 2) death is the number one way to be alleviated of all your problems and sufferings, there is no other single thing that can lift the burden of suffering, poverty, horrible memories, etc. from so many people than death. 3) legacy, when people die their living relatives usually give a Eulogy to your other close ones so that you can see what all you have done in your life and how you have affected those you love.

list of other reasons why immortality would be undesirable:
1) Nations never last forever, living to see the day your home nation imploded would be damaging
2) Forced into battle, if the government figured out you could never die they might force you into the military
3) Experimentation, if scientists devoted their entire careers to studying samples of you. Imagine being a lab rat forever.
4) Human Rights, If a particularly corrupt government got a hold of you they could argue that since your immortal and cant die you cant be human, and then you could become a lab rat forever but be subjected to torture
5) Taxes, If you never age and become immortal at a young age, you would have to pay taxes forever.
6) Retirement, you would never be able to retire since you can never harness enough wealth to live off of forever
7) Unable to age, if you were stuck aging at 8 years old then nobody would take advice from you for your entire life.
8) Death of celebrities, those you look up to always die and you always live through their deaths.
9) Evolution? What if humanity evolved over time to become smarter and more beautiful while you were constantly stuck with the parts of your body you would consider unattractive
10) Ugly, this kind of falls under evolution, but if you were horribly ugly and you had to live forever with everyone else judging you that wouldnt exactly be considered as "desirable"
11) Style, imagine if just to fit in you had to go with every fad that society clings to for the rest of your life, that would take the zing out of immortality knowing you would always be playing catch-up to blend in.
12) Loss of memories, time causes all things to fade, what if you lived so long you began losing all of the memories you treasured because of the sheer number of all the new ones being made.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for debating this topic with me imabench. Sorry about my late replies..real life gets in the way at times.

I'll just clear up a few things in this round.

First, extend all my arguments. He hasn't made any substaintial attacks against them. I will reply to the ones he had made of course, later on in my round.

Con concedes that existence is always preferable to non existence. He argues that that it's not a concession because he "feels" like a longer existence is preferred not a permanent one but for one thing he's never elaborated on what length of existence is preferred, and further there IS an end to the immortality specified in this resolution the heat death of the universe. Prefer my case: I argue an extended existence that meets his criteria, he does not.


Again, this is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to believe that one would be stuck in poverty literally forever (plenty of people pull themselves out of poverty in a single lifetime) nor has he even argued any reasoning. Dont even consider this point, not least because humanity likely wont even be around eternally.


Con continually argues non-topical things. He makes NO RESPONSE to my analysis that we ought to judge the round from the perspective of an average individual. Drops = concessions, which makes his argument irrelevant. Further he makes NO RESPONSE to my attack on how diseases would likely be cured from technological advancements (and recall, I cited historical precedents) so extend that. Extend that omnipotence outweighs, he has dropped that attack; therefore you're voting Pro simply on that.

Finally, Con starts to argue that it would be "miserable" to be the last human on Earth...why? What standard are we using to judge "miserable", and how about all my impacts (the majority of which have been dropped)? You have to ignore this statement because it's merely an assertation.

Planetary disaster

He has answered literally NONE of my attacks on this argument, extend them ALL. He's never addressed the timescale objection, the lack of empirics objection, or the fact that its outweighed. He merely restates his flawed argument.


His entire argument is turned because he's conceded that we have a moral obligation to carry on the memory of our families. Remember, after we die there is nothing. If we truly love them, and truly care about them, than we should want to keep their memories alive. And he's argued no weighing mechanism, remember ALL impacts are outweighed by omnipotence.

My Case

Moral obligation

Again, he never argues the crux of the argument that we have an obligation to carry on our family and humanity after everyone else is gone. He has never addressed this, and it can be completely exended.


His only argument to this point is that space has vast distances and we likely can't access all the resources...ok... practically limitless time = limitless ability to harvest and use these resources. No response t that logic which has been present since the beginning of the debate. Extend it. He concedes that all impacts are outweighed by this, and thus I win.

Intrinsic goods

I argued that feelings and reaction to stimuli are intrinsic goods and hes dropped it. Extend and vote Pro. He argues that death can be good, but his reason 1 fails because at some point there will be NO OTHER PEOPLE. His reason 2 fails because I previously stated and he conceded that feelings are intrinsically good! So his reasoning is turned. 3. Simply has no substance. A euology cannot outwiegh omnipotence and intrinsic goods.

Other reasons (all of which are outweighed by his concessions)

1. No impact argued, no warrant argued, and cannot outweigh.
2. So what? No impact argued at all.
3. No reason to believe that the rights of an individual who is immortal would be violated.
4. No proof, no logic, no empirics of likelihood, and outweighed.
5. No impact. True only as long as other people still exist
6. No impact. True only as long as other people still exist
7. Who says they're unable to age? Certainly not the defintion provided.
8. No impact.
9. Omnipotence outweighs, and evolution is a process that takes thousands and thousands of years, my opponent has not argued how long humanity will last.
10. No impact. Beauty is relative. Only impactful as long as humans are around
11. I cant tell if this is a serious argument or not..but anyway no impact at ALL. So what? Honestly, this is so incredibly and absurdly outweighed.
12. He's bsically saying that we'll only remmeber the important things in our long lives...that is a Pro argument.

Please vote Pro.


Last round Ill make this quick :)

Poverty: Poverty is relevant when dealing with immortality because far more people are born into poverty than in the upper class, and if one were to suddenly become immortal while living in poverty it would be undesirable. Millions of people are born into and die still within poverty, depending on the circumstances a person with immortality could be born into poverty and it may take them decades perhaps centuries to get out of it since there is no easy path from poverty to wealth, or even from poverty to middle class.

Disease: Disease is still a factor because like I said (and not refuted by the Pro) If a person was born with a debilitating disease and then granted immortality, that person would forever suffer from the ailments brought on by the disease... If someone were born with Aids for example and then granted immortality they would not die (as agreed) but since Aid's cripples a body's immune system an immortal person would be constantly catching and suffering from common colds, which is something that immortals without aids would have to fact to

As for the rest of the debate:
- Pro has forfeited that being immortal while living in poverty would not be desirable
- Pro has forfeited that being immortal would mean enduring death of family members and loved ones and friends over and over
- Pro has forfeited that being immortal and the last person on Earth would be a bad thing since the immortal would not have the company of any other human for the rest of his life, which again is forever.
- Pro has forfeited that being immortal means paying taxes for the rest of a persons life, something that in all circumstances would be undesirable
- Pro has forfeited that if an immortal were to stop aging after becoming immortal, but the person was only say 9 when they became immortal, would thus stop aging and never be able to be taken seriously by society would be undesirable
- Pro has forfeited that if a government were to find that you were immortal that you might become a top secret lab rat for the rest of your life (forever)
- Pro has forfeited that if an immortal was ugly that they would forever be looked down upon by society and that would be undesirable
- Pro has forfeited that an immortal person would be unable to retire since you could never acquire the wealth to retire until the end of time itself
- Pro has forfeited that an immortal person would go through a great emotional toll watching the deaths for celebrities and other people the immortal person looked up to and respected would cause a great deal of emotional suffering
- Pro has forfeited that a government might force the immortal into the military since they cannot die would be undesirable
- Pro has forfeited that an immortal person over time would lose valuable memories of their early life
- Pro has forfeited that an immortal person would live to see the fall of their nation would cause emotional suffering
- Pro has forfeited that society would evolve over time while the immortal person is unable to age and would eventually be an outcast from society which would be undesirable
- Pro has forfeited that death can be a good thing

There are many other woes that an immortal person would go through during his lifetime (pollution of the Earth, a fair share of ethnic cleansing's, never seeing the end of war for example) and my point is that over time all these factors over an infinite amount of time would begin to outweigh the benefits of living forever and the Pro could not over come this.

I thank the Pro for a very interesting debate and I would also thank the voters for reading.

PS: I ask that voters gave conduct to the pro, even though he dropped or ignored about 70% of my arguments he did allow me in the second round to tweak my arguments since I myself misunderstood the original resolution, and that is something that takes a great deal of tolerance and conduct to do....
Debate Round No. 4
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
Yeah I think thats what messed me up here...
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
PS I think that was one of your biggest problems in this debate (the part of a couple dozen reasons). Making many points as opposed to strong points will more often then not cost you the debate. It is hard for readers to keep up with your contentions when you have so many of them, and without proper focus on them none of them become impactful.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
If you didn't notice, my opinion is the same as yours. As far as taxes go, why do you consider paying taxes a bad thing? I never understood why people make such a big deal out of it. No one complains about paying for an Ipod, but when it comes to paying for everything that we take for granted in our lives (like water, and electricity) people sure do complain about that.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
I dont actually think its a valid reason but that reason, along with a couple dozen others, may sway your opinion about immortality
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
the point was to show that all of the minor inconveniences of living forever (such as paying taxes) would outweigh any benefits of living forever in the end....
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
imabench, what was with your taxes argument? Do you really feel that paying taxes is a valid reason to not want to live???
Posted by Jon1 4 years ago
Indeed, but as a joke I chose not to. Problem is, one word does not invite such a response. A block of text in Spanish does.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Pro, can you challenge me to this debate?
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Sorry con, but I must give this point to pro. The resolution is immortality would be a desirable thing. The debate is not about if it is desirable in EVERY circumstance. Although PRO did concede bad things that could come from immotality, con conceded that existence>non-existence, thus immediately giving the vote to pro.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
anatidaephobian could have easily been replaced with the words pro, instigator, one for immortality, etc
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 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: Cons arguments lacked potency and just got more bizarre as the debate went on. I don't quite feel he understood the concept of immortality, made obvious by his taxes and poverty arguments among many others. Con argues that Pro conceded his points but Pros points were far more relevant, and made more convincingly. Pro wins sources for providing them (I especially like his drops = concessions source ; ) and Con made many assertions that should have been factually supported.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately, neither side presented a compelling case. The resolution concerns human desire, so Pro's case for moral obligation is irrelevant. His next point - omnipotence - is a stretch of logic to say the least. Similarly, Con's various arguments (taxes? celebrities?) were simply out of place. It came down to whether human experiences, be they good or bad, are worth immortality. Here, neither side could offer more than their opinion on the matter. All categories are tied.