The Instigator
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Andromeda_Z
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Immortality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 5 votes the winner is...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 18,125 times Debate No: 19521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

BlackVoid

Con

Resolution: Choosing to become immortal would be a logical decision


This debate is for Wierdman's tournament. Thanks to Andro for accepting. I've wanted to do this debate for a while, and look forward to it.



What this debate is about:

We're going to discuss whether becoming immortal (living forever) would be a logical decision for an individual to make. The only thing happening in this debate is one person being able to live forever. Otherwise, the world stays the same.


The definition of immortality is important, so I will try to define it to where we both have equal ground. But if Andro has any issues, feel free to mention it in comments.


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.


Standard debating rules. Shared BoP. 1st round is acceptance.


Good luck to both of us.
Andromeda_Z

Pro

This round is for acceptance, so I accept and will post my argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to Andro for accepting. This should be interesting.


Observation
:

1. The heat death of the universe (when the immortal finally "dies") will take over 10^100 years. Thats trillions of trillions of trillions of years.

2. Remember, by definition immortality cannot be given up. Even if the person becomes dissatisfied with their life, they are forced to live on. I've balanced this for Pro by ensuring that her immortal person won't get any permanent disability or illness.


C1: Infinite probability


The probability of any bad thing happening is 100% over a time period of infinity. So caught inside a tornado - 100%. Engulfed in volcano eruption - 100%. Get trapped under an avalanche - 100%. You can TRY to avoid unlucky things like this, but even if the chance of any of these things happening is 0.000000001% in a normal human life, that becomes 100% over an infinite timeline.

To show the implication, I'll specifically pick out the volcano example. Note that Earth won't be around forever (covered later), but assuming it did, over infinity the chances of being caught in a volcano eruption are 100%. After the lava cools it will form a solid cement that will seal off any exits. You would be trapped under hundreds of pounds of volcano cement which would sizzle in heat for weeks. Sleep would become impossible, and the pain and would quickly cause insanity. Apply this to any other low-probability disaster.


C2: Eternal boredom

Assume you use your immortality wisely. You've got to make the MOST out of your time, right?

So you go out, go skydiving, go see the Grand Canyon, visit the Statue of Liberty, meet the president, whatever. You fulfill your entire bucket list. Unfortunately, there's only so many things the universe has to offer. Over an infinite time period, you'll eventually do all there is to do. Entertainment is finite. How do you enjoy life after you've done everything? An immortal person would eventually go into a state of eternal boredom, as all forms of entertainment the universe has to offer have been depleted.



C3: Human extinction


Humans as a species will not survive for 10^100 more years. Scientist Frank Fenner speculates that humans might be wiped out in as little as 100 (1). Even if thats too pessimistic, anything beyond 1000 seems unlikely.

At some point, Earth won't sustain the human race anymore. This will be a big problem for the immortal person who has to live on. Almost every single thing we enjoy relies on other humans in some way or another. For instance, all our electronics rely on people working at the electric company. Most of our food is processed by machines controlled by other people. Transportation devices (cars, planes) require fuel thats controlled by industries run by humans. When humans go extinct the immortal person will have none of these. So the optimistic thought of someone living a life of luxury for all time is an illusion.

With no modern technology and no human interaction, the immortal will eventually revert back to caveman status as there will be no human race to sustain energy sources. No human interaction will quickly cause depression, loneliness, and feralization. The result will be something similar to a Feral Child, which is a human who is basically turned into a wild animal due to lack of exposure to human civilization (2). A study by the US National Institute of Health finds that face-to-face human contact with other people is strongly associated with a lower probability of depression (3). So take that away and depression becomes infinitely more likely.


Finally, someone who lives forever will be forced to watch as any person they ever love or have connections with dies around them.


C4: Planetary destruction


Earth isn't going to last 10^100 years, and neither will any other planet. There are currently 186 asteroids that have an impact risk of hitting Earth, any of which would cause a "global calamity" (4). There's also the possibility of a nuclear war, making the planet uninhabitable. Over a time period of infinity, a black hole would at some point approach our solar system and consume it. Then its really going to suck that you can't die. When the planet is destroyed then you'll be stuck floating in oxygen-less space for hundreds of years before you ever hit something. The suffering from being unable to breathe and having no food or water would drive you insane. This applies to any other method where the planet doesn't survive.

And the sun is going out in 5 billion years (5). That means no light, no trees (and thus no oxygen), and no life, since every food chain starts with plants. But the immortal still cannot die, he is forced to live and suffer in a world with no food, light, or oxygen.


C5: Universal timeline

A planetless universe (whereby an immortal person would have no pleasures to gain and would merely be stranded in space) is inevitable. By 10^14 years from now, star formation will end. The only things remaining in the universe will be "compact stars" which already existed (6). Life on these is NOT pleasant as they are millions of degrees hot.

There are several other phases the source describes that the universe will go through before it ends, but all of them have one thing in common: no life. Which makes immortality pretty pointless as there's nothing left to enjoy, and they're just stuck floating around in space for trillions of years as the universe collapses on top of them.



Thus, acquiring immortality would not be a rational choice for an individual to make.





1. http://www.smartplanet.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov...
4. http://www.theatlantic.com...
5. http://www.universetoday.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Andromeda_Z

Pro

C1: Infinite Probablity

"The probability of any bad thing happening is 100% over a time period of infinity."
This is true. However; you neglected to mention that the likelihood of any event happenning is 100%. Run a marathon, cure cancer, date a model, travel he world, create a spaceship capable of intergalactic travel, find out where the dryer hides all the socks, anything. As you have mentioned, unfortunate things will hapen, but so will good ones.

Now, on to the volcano example. It may be extremly unpleasant, but what's a few weeks of boiling when you have until the heat-death of the universe? You're looking at this from the persective of someone who will likely die before you reach 100 years old. An immortal person would not do that. When you live for "trillions of trillions of trilions of years", you have a perspective that is considerably different from that of someone with a normal lifespan. The time spent trapped in hardened volcano could seem like it's over before it even began, compared to everything else.

C2: Eternal Boredom

Over an infinite time period, finite sources of entertainment wll be exhausted, yes. The problem here is that entertainment isn't finite. Only taking into account right now, there are over 7 billion people. That should keep you busy for a while, as people are constantly thinking of new things to do. You don't have to etertain yourself; at least until the extinction of humans, you have 7 billion people to think of things for you to do. Also, many of the activites you posted are things you can repeat. Meeting the presdent in one year is not the same experience as meeting the presdent 10 years later, for example.

C3: Human extinction

"Almost every single thing we enjoy relies on other humans in some way or another."
No, amlost every single thing we enjoy relies on time and effort put in by humans. As it is now, time is very limited and so this effort has to be divided up amongst many humans for our society to function. If you were immortal, your time would not be limited, so you would have the capability to produce all the luxuries you want. Aside from time, production now is also limited by a lack of knowledge of how to produce a particular product and inabilities to work caused by physical disabilities. An immortal person would have the time to figure out a way to overccome these.

"With no modern technology and no human interaction, the immortal will eventually revert back to caveman status as there will be no human race to sustain energy sources."
This is where we go back to C1 - given an infinite time period, there is a 100% chance of any event happening. Just as it can mean you ill be buried by a vocano at some point, it can also mean you will at some point create or find a way to provide energy and social interaction.

"Finally, someone who lives forever will be forced to watch as any person they ever love or have connections with dies around them. "
Even in normal lifespans, people experience the deaths of people they love. Given more time and more people you have connections with, you will experience more deaths. It's a trade-off, everyone has to meet people and peole tend to die. We form connections with them with full knowledge of this.

C4: Planetary Destruction

"When the planet is destroyed then you'll be stuck floating in oxygen-less space for hundreds of years before you ever hit something. The suffering from being unable to breathe and having no food or water would drive you insane."
If you ca't die, then such things as food, water, and air are no longer necessary. They may make you happy because of memories you hve associated with them from when the planet existed, but it's possible to get along without them. If it will not result in death, a lack of air, water, and food is not going to cause considerable suffering or permanent problems.

Also, I notice that mst of this argument is focused on the continued existence of our current planet. Our immortal person has until the death of the universe, which I consider plenty of time to build an interstellar (or ntergalactic) spaceship and find a new planet, possibly even one smilar to our own.

C5: Universal Timeline

This argument assumes that there is nothing left to enjoy after all the lfe (aside from the immortal person, of course) is gone fom the universe. We can't really make that assumption because there is nothing to base it on. A human has never existed somewhere where they are the only life form and there is no planet, so there is no way to know how he or she would react to it.


My Argument


Depending on a person's values, immortality may be the mst rational chioce he or she could make. For example, someone that values heroic acts may choose to be immortal so that he can run into a burning building to save someone's life, or anything else that would be too risky to do without knowing that you could not, under any circumstances, die from it. Or maybe someone wants to see exactly when we will have cities full of flying cars, or what will happen to cause the extinction of humans. Immortality would allow someone the opportunity to do these things.


In these circumstances, immortality alows the individual to act acccording to his or her whim while practically eliminating any long-term consequences for doing so. If someone robs a bank to pay for chemotherapy for a cancer patient and is sentenced to jail, then he or she can go to jail with the knowledge that their sentence is hardly even a fraction of their life. Our hypothetical person whochose to be immortal could go into work and knock his boss out, but in what he immortal person may view as a brief eriod of time, no one that even remembers the incient will be alive anymore.
Debate Round No. 2
BlackVoid

Con

Her case:


1. All her benefits of immortality rely on humans being around. Saving someone from a burning building, seeing future civilization, punching your boss. All of these rely on the human race existing. But remember the Frank Fenner evidence which states that humans may go extinct within 100 years. The heat-death of the universe will take 10^100 years. So over the time frame of 10^100, a period of 100 years with humans will encompass 0.000000000001% of your life. In a few trillion years, human civilization will become a mere afterthought and may be forgotten entirely. Time with humans would represent about 5 minutes of your life, in our time.

2. As such, her benefits are extremely temporary and short lived. She justifies living for trillions of years for the benefits that will happen in a couple hundred of them. What about the other eras they'd have to live through? Remember that 10^86 years of an immortal life will be in a universe with no life or planets, which will be devoid of all the benefits Pro's offered.



Con case:


1. Infinite probability

She's agreed that there's a 100% chance of any bad thing happening due to living so long. She argues that there's also a 100% chance of any good thing happening. However,

1. After the solar system collapses in some odd trillion years, what "good" is going to exist? Remember that an immortal will have to live 10^84 years in a universe with no planets. Thats the vast majority of their lifespan, which seems devoid of any form of entertainment or "good".

2. Weigh the pros and cons. We agree that there's a 100% chance that any good or bad thing will happen to an immortal eventually. So which outweighs? Ask yourself, what is the best possible thing that could happen to you right now? A lot of us would answer "win the lottery, find a soul mate, etc." Now, whats the worst possible thing that could happen, besides death? How about getting life in prison, or getting trapped forever in a collapsed mine? The possible bad things that will inevitably happen to an immortal clearly outweigh the good.

Volcano example - She says that the time period of being trapped in a volcano eruption would seem short because an immortal will live so long. But she drops my argument that the excruciating pain of being engulfed by lava would drive the person insane within a few days. At that point, even if they make it out, there's no benefits to immortality anyway since they'll be mentally deranged from the experience.


C2: Eternal boredom

My opponent makes the same fallacy of listing only entertainment sources that are available when humans are around. She says that 7 billion people on Earth can think of things for you to do so you're not bored, but humans will only be around for so long. Remember, well over 99% of an immortal's life will be without humans, so none of her benefits and entertainment sources apply.


C3: Human extinction

She has conceded that humans will go extinct at some point. Extend the National Institute of Health evidence which states that a lack of human interaction significantly increases the probability of depression.

1. She states that an immortal won't need humans when they die out because they'll have time to develop human sources of entertainment themselves. But developing entertainment sources like television and cars, and making them work without relying on other people, would be excruciatingly complicated and difficult.

For instance, electricity. It takes hundreds of people to maintain the electrical grid and power supply right now. She insinuates that an immortal, given enough time, could find a way to make it work with only ONE person. Lets look at what you would have to do to keep electricity in a world with no other people.

1. Ship several tons of coal to power plants to maintain a power source
2. Find out how to operate all faculties of said power plants.
3. Operate several electrical transformers
4. Maintain a number of electrical substations
5. Continuously perform maintenance on all power lines between you and the plant
6. Figure out how to work all the circuits
Etc.

The same would apply to fueling transportation devices, and maintaining other power sources. They would forever to figure out how to do with only 1 person in the world.

She assumes that an immortal would have the motivation to figure out all this stuff. Even if finding a way to maintain an energy source would be possible, the sheer work and time it would take actually accomplish it is far beyond what anyone would be motivated to do.


2. Pro says that an immortal would have to watch all their loved ones die around them, but that its ok because we accept this as a trade-off for living forever. But just because we accept this disadvantage doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. If I volunteer to go to war, I accept that I might die, but that doesn't mean me dying isn't a bad thing.



C4: Planetary destruction

She concedes that Earth will cease to exist at some point. This kicks all her arguments that have anything to do with humans and entertainment sources that exist on Earth. Thats her entire case.

Pro argues that, when Earth is destroyed, an immortal won't suffer without oxygen or food because they can't die. However, not needing food or oxygen was not mentioned in the agreed definition of immortality. Still, to avoid a debate about definitions, I'll drop this.


Then she says you can just build a Millennium Falcon and move to a different planet when this one is destroyed. This fallaciously assumes that we will develop hyperspace travel before the Earth is hit by an asteroid/nuclear war. There are no assumptions in debate. If Earth is destroyed prior to the development of intergalactic space travel, the necessary resources to build such a space ship won't exist. Thus my disadvantage applies.

More importantly, extend the Universal Timeline argument. 10^86 years of the universe's lifespan will be without planets, making space travel worthless.


C5: Universal Timeline

Remember the argument. Most of the universe's lifespan will have no planets or stars, which means an immortal would simply be floating around in space for 10^86 years. Pro says that we can't know that an immortal wouldn't enjoy this because no one has been in this situation before. This is highly fallacious. While we can't know some things for certain, we can use logic to make educated guesses. I'm making the drastic claim that a planetless universe would be boring, because there would be no resources left in the universe to sustain any form of entertainment.

The problem will be even worse in another timeframe in the universe. In 10^40 years from now, all nucleons will have decayed (1). Nucleons make up literally every object in the universe. Ipods, TV's, chairs, even my opponent's hyperspace shuttle are all made up of nucleons. When they've decayed there will literally be nothing in the universe except the immortal and black holes. Since the universe's end will take 10^100 years, and this phase begins in 10^40 years, an immortal would have to live through 10^60 years in a universe with nothing but themselves. Extend eternal boredom argument.


I patiently await my opponent's response.



1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Andromeda_Z

Pro

1. It may be a relatively shrt amount of time, but that has no bearing on its importance. According to Albert Einstein, "When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." Yes, it may be only the equivlent of a few minutes, but depending on the worth of that time to the particular individual, the downsides of immortality may be worth it for those 100+ years.

There's no guarantee that the memory loos you mention would hapen anyway. In the definition, you statedthat our immortal person would not be afflicted by major injuries or severe permanent damage. Memory loss in which th most important phase of someone's life (which this would clearly be if someone were to choose to be inevitably buried in lava for it) is both severe and permanent.

2.
"What about the other eras they'd have to live through?" What about them? If the other years aare so important, then it's worth it to put up with the other trillions of years. Let's use a root canal for an example. No one seems to like them, but people do it anyway - because it's worth it.

Infinite Probablility



1. The fact that there are no planets could in itself be considered "good". Good and bad are subjective qualities, there is no way to say that there will be no good simply because there are no planets.

2. How do they clearly oueighthe good, exactly? If you get life in prison, there is a 100% chance that before too long there will be no one left to keep you in there. If y get stuck in a cave, then the planet will eventually go away.

Volcano - Your argument here seems to rely on the volcano causing you to go insanee. Doesn't insanity fit the definition ofa major injury or severe permanent damage? If it does, that won't happen.

Eternal Boredom


They do if those 7 billion people can think of things to do without planets. Instead of relying on your own creativity, you ca use that of 7 billion people. If you know there will be a tie when there are no planets, then you can plan for that.

Human Extinction


1. " It takes hundreds of people to maintain the electrical grid and power supply right now." That's because these people are working part of the day and then going home to do all the other things they have to fit into a day. An immortal person would have all the time in the world (and quite a bit more) in which to do everything they needed to do.

"She assumes that an immortal would have the motivation to figure out all this stuff. Even if finding a way to maintain an energy source would be possible, the sheer work and time it would take actually accomplish it is far beyond what anyone would be motivated to do. " Again, this all goes back to "is it worth it?". If the immortal person wants to use electricity bad enough, then it will be worth it to operate the power plant. If the individual is not motivated to do it, then I fail to see the problem because the electricity is not worth it to them. If they are not concerned with the lack of elecricity, and there is no one else that needs the electricity, then a lack of it is not an issue.

2. You're right, it still is a bad thing. My arguument was that immortality be be worthwhile to someone anyway. No decisionis without its share of downsides.

Planetary Destruction

"She concedes that Earth will cease to exist at some point. This kicks all her arguments that have anything to do with humans and entertainment sources that exist on Earth. Thats her entire case. "

You're missing my point. I never claimed that the Earth would be around forever. I claimed that there may be things to do that don't necessitate the Earth, and that the downsides (such as not having a planet) could be worth not having the Earth.

Univesal Timeline

"I'm making the drastic claim that a planetless universe would be boring, because there would be no resources left in the universe to sustain any form of entertainment."
There's a difference between "no planets" and "no resources". Maybe our hypotheticl person is a fan of science fictin, or is a scientist. In that case, a universe without planets would be farily interesting itself and would not need the additional sources of etertainment.

"When they've decayed there will literally be nothing in the universe except the immortal and black holes."
Which ma be a form of entertainment and fascination in itself. Based on the numerous theories about what exactly happens inside a black hole, we can assume at least some people find them interesting. Mybe even interesting enough that, if in a situation like his, you would enter the even horizon of a black hole gain some firsthand experience.
Debate Round No. 3
BlackVoid

Con

First I thank Pro for this entertaining debate. She's offered a good perspective of her side and brought up points I hadn't thought of, though she apparently forgot to run the spell check in her last round. Its still been a good clash.



In compliance with tournament rules the last round is a conclusion. I'm keeping this under 4000 characters and ask my opponent to do the same.



I'm gonna make this easy for the judges and just state the main points you should vote on.


1. Vote on universal timeline

Remember the argument I brought up last round, that after 10^40 years, all nucleons will have decayed. Nucleons make up almost everything in the universe. With no nucleons there will literally be nothing except you and black holes. Because our immortal must live 10^100 years, that equates to 10^60 years you have to live, with essentially nothing. No Internet, no electricity, no nothing.

My opponent says that it wont be all bad because we can actually go into one of those black holes and see whats inside them. This is probably the strangest argument I've ever seen. First off, the gravity inside a black hole is so strong that you would literally be immobilized the second you entered and would never be able to move again due to the gravity weighing you down. Second, seeing whats inside a black hole would only fascinate you for so long. After a few days you'd want to leave, but you couldn't because the gravity is too strong. Seriously, voluntarily going into a black hole makes no sense.

This means there's really nothing for you to do for 60% of your "lifespan". A universe with no sustainable objects puts a new meaning into sensory deprivation. 10^60 means 10 with 60 zero's added onto it. Thats how many years an immortal would have to live with basically nothing in the universe. Prefer mortality. Its not even close.


2. Vote on human extinction

Her argument for immortality that she introduced in R1 is entirely predicated on humans being around. She's conceded that an immortal will live so long that life with humans will equal .000000001% of their life. This is extremely negligible, making Pro's benefits minuscule.

Pro also straw man's my Memory argument. I never said the immortal would forget life with humans due to psychological memory problems (or amnesia). I said that they just might naturally forget over time. Just as we all probably forgot what happened on our 5th birthday party, because it was so long ago. We forget things all the time. This is no different.

Finally, she says that if an immortal isn't motivated to maintain energy sources (like electricity) by themselves. then they just don't want it enough. This is absurd. An immortal is going to want electricity. They'll want the internet. They'll want sources of entertainment. But look back at all the things I listed last round, that are necessary to keep things like electricity, when all other humans die out. No one would be motivated to do all those things no matter how much they wanted to keep energy sources. The fact is that we need other humans around to keep our electricity running, to keep our cars working, and to keep updating our iPods. When they finally go extinct, someone who lives forever will not have access to these and will not be able to do the abundance of tasks necessary to maintain them. Its common sense.


3. Vote on planetary destruction

Pro drops my argument that we may not develop advanced space travel before earth is destroyed. This is huge. If Earth were to collide with another planet, be torn up in a nuke war, or be hit by an asteroid, she cannot guarantee that an immortal would be able to escape the devastation. The most likely scenario is that because they wouldn't die in the explosion, they'd simply be thrust into space where they would float meaninglessly for who knows how long, before they run into another celestial body. Which probably is nothing like Earth, and likely is just a large barren rock, on which life is pretty meaningless.



Immortality has short term benefits but is not worth it in the long run.




Andromeda_Z

Pro

I did forget to run the spellchecker in the last round. Voters, please give s/g points to Con for my round of spelling errors and typos.

Universal Timeline

My argument was that black holes provide a source of entertainment, not that you should immediately proceed to enter one simply because they are all that is left. Take a look at the comments on the debate; clearly thinking about what would happen inside a black hole is at least somewhat interesting.

Human Extinction

The time is negligible, yes. My argument was that the worth of that time to the individual as not negligible.

"Finally, she says that if an immortal isn't motivated to maintain energy sources (like electricity) by themselves. then they just don't want it enough. This is absurd. An immortal is going to want electricity. They'll want the internet. They'll want sources of entertainment."
And I want a lot of things that I could have if I was willing to work hard enough for them. I'm not. These things are simply not that important, compared to other things I could spend my time doing. An immortal person would have all the time in the world and quite a bit more, so that's not an issue.

Planetary Destruction


I'm not going to post anything regarding this because Con is correct that I dropped it. If I post an argument now, that isn't fair because he can't respond to it.

Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
I think the debate was rigged, in the sense that
The one constant of change in our world was ruled out.
"The only thing happening in this debate is one person being able to live forever.
Otherwise, the world stays the same."

If Pro took the position that "The world staying the same" meant infinite variety and infinite pleasure they may have won.

If the took a theistic point of view that eternal life is a gift of God, and that God is benevolent they may also have done better.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (sorry couldnt resist)
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I enjoyed reading this debate. I don't know how I stumbled upon it. For me, the primary appeal of immortality is to see all the awesome things that humans can do 100,000 years from now, build spaceships, reach distant stars and galaxies, and see civilization evolve and change. I don't buy that humans will become extinct in a 100 years or a 100,000 years. I think in 5 billion years, humans will move onto different planets of different stars and be able to colonize them. So, if the sun dies, it isn't a big deal. Humans may also evolve into stronger, smarter species that can adapt to these new environments better. I don't have research to support it but then - yet. But then, this is a debate for a different topic.
Posted by absolem_12 5 years ago
absolem_12
"Immortality has short term benefits but is not worth it in the long run." (Blackvoid)

This is no more than a faith and not a scientific one. Given the chance, life wants itself to perpetuate endlessly. There is no logic to defy the desire of life's perpetuating endlessly. Modern scientific theories state that thsi universe(ours) is not the only universe. There are greater realities, so as they say. There are multiverses, parallell universes, and omniverse and so on to infinity. If physical reality is infinite in scope, so what defies the desire of life to perpetuates itself to infinity (to become immortal)? If physical reality is infinite in scope, there is no trouble for an immortal being to know and entertain itself throughout eternity/infinity.
Posted by fezz349 5 years ago
fezz349
i had hoped to see the idea argued that the immortal human would eventually progress through evolution and perhaps become a super-human or a human-like being that far exceeds anything we could quantify today. Great debate!
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
o.0! And perhaps come out of a white hole...
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
that would be interesting, spicen up your existence a bit lol
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Voluntarily enter a black hole? xD
Posted by caveat 5 years ago
caveat
The problem here is that there isn't enough physical specification for what immortality implies.

For example, the reason why being trapped under tons of lava would cause excruciating pain is because it would normally burn through your skin, muscles, and flesh. However, as we're only given that "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.", this essentially implies some variant of super strength. :P
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Steve221 5 years ago
Steve221
BlackVoidAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con made a much better argument and I would have to agree that if someone lived forever it would turn out to be a devastating experience
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
BlackVoidAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: An enjoyable debate. Pro deserves more credit than they are recieving, they put up some interesting points, if only they hadn't tapered off at the end... I'm giving Pro the conduct point for putting up a decent fight that many couldn't have given.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
BlackVoidAndromeda_ZTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Both sides put up a fantastic debate however Pro dropped off a little at the end. Really fantastic but the win goes to Con.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
BlackVoidAndromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G for Pro's R3. She admitted that she forgot to run spell check and forfeited the S/G vote to Con. On arguments, I think the debate became muddled with both debaters more arguing whether or not immortality would be conductive to happiness/ welfare rather than the logic actually put behind the decision. But then again I guess someone who would voluntarily choose to spend 10^60 years in total solitude and darkness cannot be said to have made an entirely logical decision.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
BlackVoidAndromeda_ZTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Working from Con's sourced arguments, immortality is made to seem an unbearably lonely, maddening experience. Continued human interaction is the primary appeal of immortality, which Con completely devastated with his information regarding just how comparatively fleeting this time would be. The mere memory of past interactions, finite happiness, and the novelty of black holes hardly make up for an insufferable, isolated existence.