The Instigator
acui2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is it possible to live forever by 2100?

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 4 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 86873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

acui2

Pro

It is possible to live forever within a century with the exponential improvement of science and technology.
ssadi

Con

I accept.

I thank Instigator, called Pro from now on, for instigating such an interesting debate. I wish this debate will be fruitful.

Since Pro, as the Instigator, didn't provide any definition, didn't set debate structure etc., then I will do it instead before starting the debate.


DEFINITION

Forever:
"without ever ending; eternally"[1]
Possible: "that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc."[2]
Live (v): "to continue to have life; remain alive"[3]


BOP

BOP is fully on Pro.

Pro claims that "It is possible to live forever within a century with the exponential improvement of science and technology." BoP is fully on Pro to prove their claim. It is enough for me, as Con, to refute Pro's arguments to win this debate. Note that I may also provide some arguments for impossibility of Pro's claim, BUT I don't necessarily have to do such in this debate.


STRUCTURE

Round 1

Acceptance, definitions, structure etc.

Round 2

Pro:
Opening Arguments
Con: Rebuttals to Pro's Opening Arguments (Con can use only this round to provide any argument against debate resolution if they wish)

Round 3

Pro: Defense of their arguments against Con's rebuttals (and rebuttals to Con's arguments in R2, if Con provides any)
Con: Defense of their rebuttals (and of their arguments against Pro's rebuttals, if provided)

No new arguments in R3.


RULES

1. Follow the definitions provided
2. Follow debate structure
3. Any objection by Pro to definitions, BOP or structure should be discussed under comments before they post their arguments in round 2. Pro can automatically paste their arguments in round 2 if they agree with all definitions, BOP, structure etc. defined above.

I will wait for Pro to provide their opening arguments. Good luck dear Pro!


SOURCES

[1] Def.1 in http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] Def.3 in http://dictionary.reference.com...;
[3] Def.2 in http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
acui2

Pro

acui2 forfeited this round.
ssadi

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited round 2. According to debate structure and rule 2 they cannot introduce any new argument in round 3. Therefore, Pro has lost the debate by default since BOP was fully on Pro.

Even though I don't have BOP to prove or disprove anything, I will bring only one argument that will refute the resolution without any doubt and no matter what argument Pro provides.


HEAT DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE

The question that even a human can live forever or not is not only based on scientific and technological improvements. There are other restrictions independent of what capabilities will humans have.

According to Laws of Thermodynamics heat ALWAYS mores from hotter objects or regions to cooler objects or regions. This process continues until the temperature becomes the same in every region which is called as thermal equilibrium.

We know that the universe has a beginning (for more information see the Heat death paradox [1], Big Bang Theory[2] etc.). And according to laws of thermodynamics, as shortly discussed above, our universe will reach a thermal equlibrium, also called as heat death of the universe, where it will be impossible for any form of known living thing, including humans, to survive. There is nothing known and more likely it is impossible (as far as we know) for that to be prevented[3]. Therefore, even though that is a long period (estimated as 10^100 years), but it is not infinite (forever) and that is nothing compared to infinite (forever).

Therefore, no matter what improvements there will be in science and technology within a century, it will be not possible for a human to live forever.

This is sufficient to negate the resolution.


Note on sources

My sources are Wikipedia which is not a reliable source, but the information I used from those sources are referenced to reliable sources like published papers etc. So, I would like the voters to also consider the reliability of my sources. :)


CONCLUSION

As Con I had no BOP to prove or disprove anything. I only had to refute Pro's arguments. But unfortunately Pro didn't provide any argument, so there was nothing for me to do as Con. But still, I provided an argument that negates the resolution.

Vote Con please!


SOURCES

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
acui2

Pro

acui2 forfeited this round.
ssadi

Con

Extend.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
In eccense that is correct. Unless religion is correct. But that's an entirely different debate
Posted by PTW 1 year ago
PTW
It will NEVER be possible to live for ever!!.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well yeah. That's why my comment stated to debate this we had to first define "Life" and yes a Computer may feel, however is a computer that is made to copy your brain in the idea to make you the robot really you? A something that acts like you? Did you die the moment you downloaded into the robot and just have an fake you who doesn't even know it left? A original computer with its own programming may be alive but if you become a robot did you die and have something 99.9% like you? But not you? You see and then the problem arises Forever. Can anything live forever? And by 2100? Well we know that not even our solar system will live forever so how would we survive if the universe did not? What if you lived so long to meet another Big Bang and everything was destroyed? Because if you love forever you will encounter everything since everything has a chance of happening it will happen to you eventually, meaning no matter what you will eventually die. Lastly would you even want to be immortal? Living forever, never dying.... What if someone was buried underground all alone after they became immortal and no one ever found them.... That would be worse than hell.... eventually you will try everything become so bored that you go insane, lose all morales, then after going through a whole bunch of depression you would find your sanity again and not care about anything and possibly no longer live. As your mind would become theoretically robotic and on "autopilot" as you have done everything possible so much there is nothing more to know in all existence. Traveling it again and again until the point you become no more.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
...in my opinion of course. :)
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
You are underestimating "life" or "being alive"...
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Do you think that computers can feel pain or happiness in the same way humans do?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well Life is defined as that which differs us from Inorganic matter. So by definition and the fact organic matter decays we will never have Life forever. Now whether we will have Conscious forever is what you should ask, which I believe yes we will. Whether it is religious or not, maybe we could download into a computer however would that really be us? Or would it be something that acts 99.9% like us, or would it be something that only does what it wants because its "brain" and programming would do what it needed most. Base line is that first you have to identify if we would still be Alive when robotic. If not then no matter what we will all die one day.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
acui2ssadiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
acui2ssadiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided arguments and support said arguments with sources; Pro only posted an opening statement. Pro forfeited two turns.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
acui2ssadiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
acui2ssadiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF multiple rounds