Procrastination is not generally benefical
This debate is for a friend. Good luck! You're the best!
First round is acceptance only.
Procrastination - the avoidance of doing a task which needs to be accomplished.
Beneficial - favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.
Generally - in most cases; usually.
Good sir, thank you for initiating this debate. I accept and look forward to debating with you. This is a very fitting resolution for my first debate on this site.
Thanks Con, and good luck!
Procrastination affects everyone and can show up in many different ways. For instance, when a student procrastinates, it not only affects his grade and the quality of his content, but also the teacher’s opinion of him as a student. I believe procrastination should be carefully documented before we say that it is beneficial.
Argument 1: Breathing is a task which needs to be accomplished.
According to Ann Brown, the average person takes between 17,280 and 23,040 breaths a day. Not only do we breathe constantly, but it also seems that we need to breathe to stay alive. For these reasons, I believe that breathing is, for all practical purposes, necessary.
Holding one’s breath in can result in brain damage, temporary blindness, and even death. While certain forms of holding air in can have some temporary soothing effects, there are usually other long term problems involved.
For instance, according to Breathing.com, “Breath holding can give some relief from hyperventilation but at the cost of tightening the stomach muscles, worsening the startle response and over time inviting shallow breathing.” I believe it follows that not breathing, or avoiding breathing, is bad.
We can now structure a syllogism from the scientific evidence and definitions provided at the beginning of this debate.
1. Breathing is a task which must be accomplished.
2. Avoiding the act of breathing is bad.
C. Therefore, in this way, procrastination is bad.
This argument shows that procrastination is bad for something that we do constantly. I challenge my opponent to find something we do more than breathing which would be beneficial for us to procrastinate.
Argument 2: Types of procrastination.
According to Joel Brown, there are 6 different types of procrastinators, and only one type is said to feel that they work best when under pressure. Unless there is a huge inequality in the population, I assume that procrastinating is only very useful for (roughly) 1/6 of the population. But for my opponent to win, he has to show how procrastination is beneficial (at least) 51% of the time.
Even websites that emphasis the good traits of procrastination always have to remind us of all the bad forms it can easily become. Chrissy Scivicque, who wrote an article claiming that procrastination isn’t always bad, said, “Procrastination becomes a problem, however, when it’s not being used productively or when it becomes a mindless form of escape.”
We can organize each form of procrastination based on this statement.
• Procrastination that is productive and is not a mindless form of escape – good
• Procrastination that is productive and is a mindless form of escape – problem
• Procrastination that is not productive and is not a mindless form of escape – problem
• Procrastination that is not productive and is a mindless form of escape – problem.
If these forms of procrastination are relatively balanced, it follows that procrastination is generally beneficial for only 1 out of 4 cases. This would indicate that procrastination is not generally beneficial.
Argument 3: JUST DO IT
GET OFF OF YOUR BUM AND JUST DO IT!!!!!!
Shia LaBeouf is a famous motivational speaker who has affected the lives of many individuals. His motivational speech “Just Do It” received over 13 million views and 200,000 likes on Youtube alone. His message is targeted towards people who want to procrastinate.
Recently, Shia LaBeouf helped Goku to turn Super Saiyan. Without Shia’s help, Goku might have procrastinated and never got around to turning into a super powerful blonde. This is extremely important to everyday life because Goku is pretty cool. Also, good anime role models help inspire younger kids to find true meaning in their lives.
For instance, a user posted this message on an anime forum: “I would say Luffy from One Piece has been one of my biggest role models in my life. I keep a one piece symbol on me pretty much 99% of the time. kind of obsessive but it reminds me to keep chasing my dreams.”
It seems, based on the testimony, that anime characters can inspire people to do great things. Who knows how many kids will feel inspired by Goku’s magical transformation, all thanks to Shia LaBeouf.
JUST DO IT!!!!!!!
Argument 4: Procrastination is not possible.
Procrastination is not possible because time is an illusion. We cannot prove that the past ever existed, or that the future will exist. In fact, according to Josh Richardson, Quantum Theory proves that time does not exist.
He states, “There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously. Barbour’s Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time.”
To illustrate the impossibility of time, ask yourself whether you were the same person you were five minutes ago. How about five years ago? What gives a person their individuality throughout time?
The only sensible answer is that we are actually different people for each ‘second’ of our existence. This makes sense if every ‘second’ is actually a parallel universe, and there are multiple versions of me, each having a different experience. With so many parallel universes, it is no wonder that in some of them, I might have the illusion of a memory (or different thoughts which I falsely believe are memories). But for each universe, I have a different understanding, a different thought in my head, and I am even composed of different atoms.
This hypothesis has a bonus of nicely answering Meno’s Paradox (how can one learn what he does not know). The answer is that we are not learning; we are inherently static.
Now this shows us that time does not exist. But is time philosophically possible?
Let us turn to Zeno’s famous paradox to consider the answer.
A runner is racing a tortoise, who receives a 10 meter head start to accommodate for its slow pace. The gun goes off. The runner fully expects to catch up with the tortoise, but each time he approaches his opponent, his opponent has moved a short distance. So the runner has to match that short distance. But each time he does, the tortoise would have moved an even shorter distance, which the runner again has to match. In the end, the runner cannot ever catch up with the tortoise.
Here is a chart to help us visualize this idea.
1 step ½ step
½ step ¼ step
¼ step 1/8 step…
And so on… And so on…
But if this can be applied to a full step, then it can also be applied to a ½ step, and a ¼ step, and a 1/8 step…
Dr. Grimes has this to say. “So it sounds like I’m saying that you can complete an infinite process. Now an infinite process doesn’t have a last step. So how can something without a last step be completed?”
In short, motion is moving between an infinite amount of distances. Therefore, motion is a supertask, which is logically impossible. In the same way, moving through time, forwards or backwards, is logically impossible. Therefore time is impossible.
So if time is impossible, then procrastination is also impossible. For what static individual needs to accomplish certain tasks?
And if procrastination is impossible, how can it be beneficial? I take it that impossibilities cannot exist. Therefore they cannot be beneficial.
Note that this is about something which inherently CANNOT exist, not just something which does not exist. For instance, a 17$ bill could be beneficial if it existed. But if a 17$ bill could not exist, then it could not produce anything good in any possible universe. Ergo it is not beneficial. My arguments are the best.
When you hear the word procrastination, other words might come to mind as well, such as lazy, irresponsible, or reckless. But in truth those traits are misconceptions developed by our culture and have nothing to do with procrastination in its essence. That being said, I ask that you keep an open mind and look deeper than the stereotypes that may at first cloud your vision.
Before I begin I want to remind the audience that the definition this debate is using to define procrastination is; "the avoidance of doing a task which needs to be accomplished."
I also want to clarify a little bit on what the burden of proof is.
My opponent's job is to prove the resolution, "procrastination is not generally beneficial," to be true.
My job is to prove that the resolution is false. In other words, I do not have to prove that procrastination is generally beneficial rather that it is generally not non-beneficial. A subtle difference, but a difference none the less and the importance of this will be shown in one of my rebuttles.
I will now present my arguments, and then address my opponents arguments.
Argument 1: Procrastination can benefit us in our everyday lives
It gives us an energy boost. The most common tasks that people procastinate on are tasks that are intimidating or cause a kind of fear due to the size and weight of a project. "As a deadline approaches, we fear the consequences of not getting it done on time. That fear releases adrenaline, a natural pain killer, and feeling less pain makes doing difficult or less desirable tasks easier. Energy is the strongest benefit of procrastination." -Steve Mcclatchy 
Without procrastinating, completing the same task would be a lot more difficult.
It helps us focus and save time. When one procrastinates and waits till the last possible moment to complete a task, their focus will be unwavering. Things that would have normally distracted them, emails, facebook, youtube videos, the possibility to go out for lunch with a friend, are no longer an option because they know it's either now or never. This also saves them the time that they would have spent doing all these things if the deadline had not motivated them to avoid distractions. They also save time because they finsihed the task quicker; They gave themselves a tight time frame that they had to complete the task resulting, finshing in record time.
It allows fresh and creative thinking. Procrastination is the process of leaving a task till a time that would be more ideal to complete it. Many times someones mindset might not be right for a certain task at the moment and if they were to not procrastinate and try to complete that task right then and there, then they would most likely do a minimal and uncreative job. Procrastination allows one to clear their mind by doing other more simple tasks or by taking a nice long break. Although they may spend a lot of time do "nothing," when they do get around to completing the task they do it faster and with more creativity. 
Recent studies reveal that the trick to creativity often lies in walking away from a problem, giving the mind the freedom to wander and the space to make new connections, an idea explored in a Wall Street Journal article. 
It allows us to complete smaller tasks easily. When someone procrastinates on a large task, suddenly all the smaller tasks that need to get done as well seem easy and one will complete those smaller tasks while they procrastinate on the bigger task. 
It motivates us to work with passion. "If you work on something you can finish in a day or two, you can expect to have a nice feeling of accomplishment fairly soon. If the reward is indefinitely far in the future, it seems less real." 
Argument 2: Procrastination is not only beneficial, lbut nescisary
For every task, in order to do it well there must be some extent of procrastination before hand; you must avoid doing a task enough to prepare to do it. If you rush into trying to complete a task before you"ve even thought through how to do it, more often than not it won't end with good results.
Argument 3: Procrastinating is like eating carrots
There once was a young girl who lived in a village far away from civilization. Around this village in the open fields grew thousands of wild carrots. Sadly, when the villagers tried to consume these carrots they tried to swallow them whole and choked on them. From then on the people of the village thought that carrots were from the devil. All of them except the young girl; She gave the carrots another try and found that they go down a lot better when you chew them first.
The moral of this tale is, there"s a right way to eat carrots and a wrong way just like there's a beneficial way to procrastinate and there's a non-beneficial way. But most people would agree that carrots aren't bad, in fact, most would say they are generally beneficial and it's about time that the misconceptions of procrastination be abolished as well. Carrots are not from the devil, neither is procrastination.
Argument 4: Whether we like it or not, we all are constantly procrastinating.
We all constantly have multiple tasks that need to get done but that we are avoiding in order to complete other necessary tasks. If you don't procrastinate at all that means you have no life; You have no schedule or agenda or responsibilities.
My opponent argues that I'd you prastinate breathing aka hold your breath long enough it would cause a negative result, maybe even death. My opponent then claims that because of this, procrastination is generally non-benificial.
There is a breathing method called Pranayama Breathing that has many health benefits including relaxation and enhanced focus. And guess what, this breathing method requires procrastination while breathing; you have to hold your breathe as one of the steps. 
Step 2 of my oponents argument claimed that avoiding the act of breathing is bad but i just proved that it can be beneficial. And remeber, just because carrots can cause choking doesnt mean that they are generally unhealthy. Therefore I say, procrastination is not generally non-benificial.
My opponent claims that procrastination that isn't productive and is a mindless escape is a problem, yet there are scientific studies showing we need both those things. Our bodies need rest and although rest is not itself productive, it results in productivity later on. Our brains also need an escape so that they can clear. 
I agree with Shia; Just Do It! But before you just do it, make sure you procrastinate enough; avoid doing it enough to know what it is you want to do and the best way to do it.
Again I say, chase your dreams! But before you do, wait long enough to find out if it's a dream worth chasing. Once you find that out, then just do it!
My openent claims that time does not exist and just to make things interesting, I'll go along with it.
But if time doesn't exist and if procrastination doesn't exist, then procrastination can neither be beneficial nor non-beneficial. It's simply impossible.
Therefore the resolution, in this case that time doesn't exist, could not be possible. And let me remind you that my job is to prove that the resolution is false.
The resolution is false. Please vote con.
Disclaimer: I wrote this debate on a mobile device while traveling so I wasn't able to bold any text. My apologies.
Before I begin my arguments, I would like to publish an ode I wrote to myself.
Behold! The great debater speaks
The wisdom of the sages.
He refutes all crazy freaks
Whenever he engages.
With striking eyes he spots the flaws
One’s arguments contain.
He studies hard, with heart and brain
To follow all of Logic’s laws.
Hail! No false statement shall depart
From his meek and handsome lips
Nor shall there be a time he slips
And creates poor, unworthy art.
I know this is a rather unorthodox way of opening a round, but I hope my opponent understands, given my passion over this issue.
Because my arguments are flawless, I’d like to start with my opponent’s rebuttals first.
My opponent shows that there are some methods of breathing that are beneficial when a process takes a longer time (assuming time exists). But he does not show how avoiding the act of breathing is good. Because if there was a task X, and one of the steps of X was to avoid doing X, doing task X seems quite silly. That is like saying “Disobey this command.”
So when my opponent says, “you have to hold your breathe as one of the steps,” what he means (or what I assume he means) is that you must inhale without exhaling for a time. This is, of course, part of the process of breathing.
But I additionally believe that mindless procrastination is not useful. My opponent says, “our brains also need an escape so that they can clear.” But I was referring to mindless escapes – having or showing no ability to think, feel, or respond. This is not beneficial.
Finally, Con has created a false dichotomy between rest and avoidance. Rest is good in general, even when people rest to procrastinate. But there are plenty of cases where rest is not used to procrastinate. Until my opponent can show a serious correlation between rest and procrastination, we hold that this is a false dilemma.
JUST- JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But (~A&~~A) (Where A is beneficial) is logically impossible. Perhaps my opponent could understand this argument better if we rephrased it differently.
Suppose there was a non-existent candy bar. We could say that this candy bar CANNOT be sweet. (~A) My opponent objects and says that this candy bar cannot be not sweet. (~~A) But a double negative actually affirms something about the nature of the nonexistent- it must be sweet. (~~A&A) is a tautology. Therefore, if a candy bar cannot be not sweet, it must be sweet.
Perhaps my opponent was trying to show that (~A&~B) (not sweet and not sour) applied to the logically impossible. And granted. But we cannot conclude that something cannot be both ~A (not beneficial) and ~~A (not not beneficial) just because it does not exist.
The conclusion of my opponent’s argument from energy is:
“Without procrastinating, completing the same task would be a lot more difficult.”
This is only true if there are no other feasible ways to get energy. But there are often other (easy) ways to get energy. You might even get energy from simply doing a task. You might get energy from drinking coffee, or eating a meal. None of these tasks require one to avoid a (fairly reasonable) different task.
My opponent claims that procrastination helps us focus and save time. But so do other things. Actually doing a task very quickly in the first place could save just as much time as doing a task before its deadline. So I do not see how these arguments follow. You could get distracted at the end of a day just as easily as you could at the beginning of a day.
“They gave themselves a tight time frame that they had to complete the task resulting, finshing in record time.”
This does not follow because procrastination is not a necessary condition for one to break speed records. Procrastination does not guarantee that one will break speed records.
While I grant that these arguments do show us that procrastination may be useful in certain cases, I do not believe we can conclude that it is generally useful. It seems that for every case we can find where procrastination has a helpful effect, we can get that helpful effect without necessarily resorting to procrastination.
Additionally, Con’s second source does not try to prove that Procrastination is beneficial. Instead, what it focuses on are procrastinators’ beliefs about procrastination (some of which are contradictory).
This does not help us affirm the resolution quite as much as Con would like.
But is avoiding doing a task a task? It seems like it. There does not seem anything stopping me from classifying an act of avoidance to be a task.
Now we have a weird scenario, because I must always avoid doing a task before I do it. So if I must avoid avoiding my initial task, does that mean I’m trying to do the task? Or is there an infinite string of avoidances? Each way seems to be silly, and I cannot follow this argument.
Furthermore, I do not think, based on this argument, that we can reasonably conclude what quality the end result will be.
“But most people would agree that carrots aren't bad, in fact, most would say they are generally beneficial…”
Con has to reasonably show that most peoples’ judgements are sound for me to accept this line of thinking.
His entire argument is also a bold assertion. Therefore I cannot be swayed by his tempting logic.
I await Con's reply.
While the ode that my opponent made for himself is quite humorous and most likely in good spirit, I do find it a bit distasteful and fairly irrelevant to the debate. The reason he gives for writing such an ode is, so that his "passion over this issue" be made known. However, nowhere in the ode does it mention anything about procrastination, rather the whole thing is purely about himself and his self-proclaimed ability to debate.
In refuting my arguments, my opponent makes a lot of assumptions as to what I was arguing which, in most of these cases, these assumptions are totally wrong. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough to make myself perfectly clear, so I will now try to do so.
Opponent Argument 1: Breathing
In the previous round, my opponent's argument was, and I quote:
"1. Breathing is a task which must be accomplished.
3. Therefore, in this way, procrastination is bad.
This argument shows that procrastination is bad for something that we do constantly. I challenge my opponent to find something we do more than breathing which would be beneficial for us to procrastinate."
In my rebuttal I showed how that reasoning is flawed. I showed how avoiding to breath is not always bad. In fact, in some cases it's beneficial, such as in the case of the Pranayama breathing method where holding ones breathe for an extended period of time is a crucial step.
The equivalent reasoning of my opponent's argument being applied to carrots would look this,
1. Eating is a task which must be accomplished
2. Eating carrots can cause choking
3. Carrots, in this way, are bad
This argument shows that carrots are bad for something that we do constantly. I challenge my opponent to find something we do more than eating which would be beneficial for us to use carrots.
Sadly, It seems as though my opponent did not fully understand my argument; He makes a confusing assumption that my definition of "holding one's breath" is different than his definition, when in reality we both have the same simple definition: To hold one's breath means to hold one's breath. The Pranayama breathing method, that has many health benefits, really does require you to hold your breathe as one of the steps.
Opponent Argument 2: Types of Procrastination
My opponent claims that I miscatagorized his argument when I most definitely did not. He uses a quote from some guy who wrote an article that apparently defended procrastination, the quote saying: "Procrastination becomes a problem, however, when it’s not being used productively or when it becomes a mindless form of escape.” I however made myself clear that I disagree with this statement, but let me restate myself in order to be more clear.
The type of procrastination that results in mindless escape, although in itself may not be productive, results in productivity (fresh and creative thinking, energy boost, extra focus, etc...)
My opponent tries to define mindless escape by pulling the definition of mindless; having or showing no ability to think, feel, or respond However, that makes it sound like the person is either in a coma or dead. A better definition would be escapism; The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment.
My opponent also mentioned in his 2nd argument that, according to another guy who wrote an article, there are 6 types of procrastination and that apparently only 1 of them is beneficial. Then he goes on to claim that given this evidence, only 1/6th of the population benefits from procrastination. But the hole in his logic is he didn't specify what percentage of the population belongs to each type of procrastination. For all we know, the type of procrastination that is beneficial could take up 60% of the population and the other 5 types taking up the other 40%, making procrastination generally beneficial.
Pro claims that avoidance of a task and rest have nothing to do with each other and that avoidance of a task is bad and rest is good, however, according to this definition of rest; to R03;cause someone or something to R03;stop doing an R03;activity in R03;order to get back R03;strength, avoidance of a task and resting from a task are quite similar in nature.
Opponent Argument 3: Just Do It
Pro accuses me of "bark[ing] at the readers (rather offensively) with commands that they must follow" but I honestly have no idea where he got that from. Needless to say, he's the one writing in huge fonts and many exclamation marks that signify yelling.
My opponent categorizes Shia LaBeouf's words as a warning when in reality they are not words of warning but words of encouragement and inspiration. Words that, like I mentioned in my rebuttal, I fully support. But, before some "just does it," they should first procrastinate (avoid doing "it") long enough to know what it is they want to do and what the best way to accomplish that feat is. Pro also claims that Shia's words are directed toward people who procrastinate when nowhere does Shia say that. Rather it seems as those Shia's words are directed toward people who need that extra push to accomplish their dreams. Not procrastinators who are avoiding a necessary task that they will soon get to but rather toward those who don't quite have enough motivation to go out on a limb in life and accomplish something great.
Pro also tells us a story about Goku who becomes a super powerful blonde due to Shia's motivational words. My opponent claims that if Goku had procrastinated she would never have accomplished her dreams. However, last time I checked, becoming a super powerful blonde is not "a task which needs to be accomplished" therefore has nothing to do with procrastination.
Same goes for the testimony of the One Piece fan who is reminded to chase their dreams. Remember, the definition that this debate is using to define procrastination is: the avoidance of doing a task which needs to be accomplished.
Opponent Argument 4: Time Doesn't Exist
In an attempt to save our viewers the agony of us debating whether time exists or not (which for the record I'm pretty sure it does exist,) I refrained from going down that path and instead took an equally convincing path.
My job in this debate is to prove that the resolution; Procrastination is not generally beneficial, is false.
If time does not exist and procrastination does not exist, then procrastination can neither be beneficial or not beneficial. It just doesn't exist. Therefore, the resolution is false.
Pro makes an argument using a non-existent candy bar as an example. However, if if a candy bar does not exist it can neither be sweet or unsweetened. It just isn't possible.
Argument 1: Procrastination can benefit us in our everyday lives
Pro claims that because other things can also give us, energy, a fresh mind, save us time, etc, then these benefits are no longer beneficial. But that's like saying there are other ways one can get potassium therefore bananas are not beneficial in providing potassium.
Also, the "bad" drug that my opponent references is actually a drug that many doctors would prescribe for weight lose. The only info that Pro gave us as to why it's bad is someone's opinion on Yahoo Answers. If we started listening to everyones opinion on the internet we would be in a very confused state.
I would like to mention that my Arguments in this debate do not stand alone from each other. In fact, they build onto each other. Argument 1 does not necessarily single handedly prove that procrastination is generally beneficial, rather it sets the foundation for my next arguments.
Also, Pro makes a confusing statement that seems as though he's joined my side: "This does not help us affirm the resolution quite as much as Con would like." Let me remind you that it is Pro's job to affirm the resolution.
Argument 2: Procrastination is not only beneficial, but necessary
Pro claims that the act of avoiding a task is a task inside itself. The definition of a task is: a piece of work to be done or undertaken. I don't think avoiding a task fits that definition.
My argument still stands. In order to complete a task well, to some extent you must procrastinate first; to some extent you must avoid doing a task long enough to know what task you needing to do and how to do it.
Argument 3: Procrastinating is like eating carrots
What my opponent mistakes for an appeal to popularity is actually an appeal to common knowledge. Carrots are healthy, is common knowledge.
Pro goes on to say that my argument is a bold assertion, yet fails to explain how.
Pro only addressed part of my argument.
My opponent failed to see how not having a life; having no schedule or agenda or responsibilities is a non-beneficial thing. But I challenge you to try and be productive without a schedule, agenda, or responsibilities.
All my arguments stand. All my opponents arguments have holes in them.
I eagerly await Pro to start us in our final round.
I would like to thank Con for his hard work researching this subject and presenting his arguments. This was certainly a fun learning experience. I'd be willing to debate again anytime with my great opponent.
Response to Kritiks:
My opponent has raised several kritiks in his last argument. He considered it rude for me to publish a poem I wrote to myself. He disliked my occasional use of bold, capital letters.
He writes, "Needless to say, he's the one writing in huge fonts and many exclamation marks that signify yelling."
Now I have no intention of yelling at an audience. But based on my work in psychology and debating, I find that using HUGE fonts sometimes has a soothing effect!!
Pro finds my 'poem' (I assume this is shorthand for 'masterpiece') distasteful. But I'm not sure why. Pro also says that this is irrelevant to the debate. While I grant that it may be irrelevant (in some extent) to the resolution, I believe it is relevant to the debate- it was the opening to our third round and it was describing one of the participants. Also, if we were only allowed to do things relevant to the resolution, we would not be able to thank each other.
Pro also says that I wrote the poem so that my passion would be made known. This is not necessarily true. In actuality, I was filled with self love, and, as a result, felt so passionate that I had to proclaim this love. I even got married to myself. I didn't want to offend anyone, but sometimes coming out as a narcissist has that effect.
Pro also says I made a typo. What I meant to say from round 2 was that 'This does not deny the resolution as much as Con would like.' Stupid auto correct!
Further Defense of My Breathing Argument:
In my breathing arguments, I showed that intentionally not breathing does have negative effects that will happen if someone chooses not to breathe continuously. I hold that this is unbeneficial and that it is also bad; it is not just neutral. Con responds that you can make the same argument to avoid eating carrots. But in actuality, these arguments are very different.
The 1st difference is that eating carrots actually has a few benefits, such as calories.
The 2nd difference is that continuously eating carrots may cause bad results, while holding one's breathe in continuously will cause bad results.
Here is how my argument sounds when it is properly carried between ideas:
1. Eating is a task which must be accomplished
2. Eating carrots incorrectly will cause choking.
C. Therefore, in this way, the act of eating carrots is bad.
But it is also apparent that if we choke on carrots more often then not (even when eating them correctly), we should not eat them.
Con also says that the definition of holding one's breath is holding one's breath. This is a circular definition, and I hold that my views make more sense. Holding one's breath in (to me) means to stop breathing. If the Pranayama method had this as a step, we would have a hard time accomplishing it.
How to breathe
Step 1: Do X
Step 2: Do Y
Step 3: Stop breathing
Step 4: Do Z
When would we get around to doing Z? If we accomplished the process, then we failed step 3. This makes the process of breathing seemingly impossible. Remember, we believe that time is impossible, so all these steps need to happen at once.
Or if the definition of holding one's breath actually means to hold one's breath, we wouldn't know what to do. In either case, I believe that breathing is necessary and beneficial.
Further Defense of Types:
My opponent says, "The type of procrastination that results in mindless escape, although in itself may not be productive, results in productivity (fresh and creative thinking, energy boost, extra focus, etc...)."
But Con has yet to show how mindless escapes result in productivity. Also, Con gave no reason why we should use the definition of 'escapism' instead of the definition of 'mindless' when we try to define 'mindless escapes'. Perhaps both definitions should be used.
Furthermore, my opponent says,
"But the hole in his logic is he didn't specify what percentage of the population belongs to each type of procrastination."
You'll remember that I took this into account when I introduced the arguments. I said, "Unless there is a huge inequality in the population, I assume that procrastinating is only very useful for (roughly) 1/6 of the population."
Now I don't want to introduce any new arguments (or claims) in this last round, so let me just say that I believe that it is not likely for there to be a huge inequality in the population. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in a future debate.
My opponent finally claims that rest and avoidance go hand in hand. This means that the two are synonymous. But think about it. I could avoid resting, right? Or I could rest without stopping myself from doing something. For this to be a true dilemma, it should apply to most (if not all) cases. But I do not think we have heard enough evidence to support that position, even though the definitions may be similar.
Further Defense of The Prophet Shia LaBeouf:
In Con's first rebuttal, Con used only imperative statements (besides his acknowledgement that he agreed with LaBeouf). But imperative statements cannot be refuted. I cannot even disagree with imperative statements. Now Con's argument is much different.
But, before some "just does it," they should first procrastinate (avoid doing "it") long enough to know what it is they want to do and what the best way to accomplish that feat is.
Con claims this, but does not show how this is good or bad, productive or unproductive. Also, I'm curious how one would avoid doing something they do not know. Perhaps my dreams are what I've been doing all along: breathing and eating carrots.
I also hold that Shia's words are applicable to everyone. This would include procrastinators. Perhaps procrastinators need that extra push to stop procrastinating.
Finally, my opponent claims that being a super powerful blonde is not necessary. While I agree that this is not necessary for most people to accomplish, I hold that it is necessary for Goku. Some things are necessary for different people. For instance, it is necessary for people to have brains, but not rocks or Justin Bieber. So I hold that it was necessary for Goku to turn into a powerful blonde - he is pretty cool, after all.
Further Defense of Time:
My opponent has, more or less, reiterated his statements from the last round. I encourage my opponent to look deeper into this issue. He states,
"However, if if a candy bar does not exist it can neither be sweet or unsweetened."
Let us take apart the statement my opponent made.
1. A nonexistent candy bar cannot be sweet.
2. A nonexistent candy bar cannot be unsweetened.
But the logical implications of 2 would indicate that a nonexistent candy bar must be sweetened. Remember that (~A&A) is a contradiction, while (~~A&A) is a tautology.
I think what my opponent has done is that he's confused impossible entities with contradictory functions. If we were able to claim that (~A&A) or (~~A&~A) could be used to describe the logically impossible, we could say that the logically impossible BOTH exists and doesn't exist! So it seems like some rules of logic still need to be applied to the logically impossible. After all, the logically impossible is impossible because of, not in spite of, logic.
Defense of My Original Attacks:
"Pro claims that because other things can also give us, energy, a fresh mind, save us time, etc, then these benefits ar"e no longer beneficial."
I hope this is not what I've communicated. Rather, I suggested that just because something has short term benefits, there might be underlying problems which would make the entity unbeneficial as a whole.
Pro claims that the act of avoiding a task is a task inside itself.
I believe it is possible. For instance, a task requiring one to stay safe would have a lot of 'avoid' commandments. Con did not respond to my arguments about infinite loops or actually starting a task in the first place. He also did not show (as far as I know) how we can determine what quality the end result will be.
"What my opponent mistakes for an appeal to popularity is actually an appeal to common knowledge. Carrots are healthy, is common knowledge."
Rather. The way Con presented his argument made the argument an appeal to popularity.
For instance, I could say "the moon is made out of spaghetti." I'm fairly sure this is common knowledge.
But suppose I said, "Many people think that the moon is made out of spaghetti." Now this is an appeal to popularity.
I know this isn't required, but more sources from Con to show how carrots are good would have been appreciated. I personally believe that carrots are from the Devil.
"My opponent failed to see how not having a life; having no schedule or agenda or responsibilities is a non-beneficial thing. But I challenge you to try and be productive without a schedule, agenda, or responsibilities."
My opponent has unfairly placed the BoP (Burden of Proof) upon me here.
I would like to again thank my opponent for this fun opportunity.
I want to thank Pro for being such a worthy oppenent and for giving such great and though provoking arguments. I too would be interested in debating another topic.
My opponent claims that the difference between eating carrots and procrastinating is "that eating carrots actually has a few benefits." However, I showed that procrastination also has not only a few, but many benefits. Benefits specifically in the realm of breathing are breathing exercises that require one to hold one's breath as part of the process. There are many such breathing exercises, but the one I used in my argument is Pranayama Breathing.
Pro did not understand that Pranayama Breathing requires one to hold their breath but it does. Pranayama Breathing takes voluntary breath control; "The practice of voluntary breath control and refers to inhalation, retention and exhalation."
Therefore his breathing argument is invalid.
Types of Procrastination
My opponent says that escapism is not a suiting definition for mindless escape but I'll let you, the audience be the judge of that.
Escapism: The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment. 
Furthermore, as far as percentages of the population, my opponent has given no grounds as to why the types of procrastination would be divided evenly as 1/6th throughout the population. Also, say that it was, I have proven how all six types of procrastination that my opponent brought up can be beneficial.
Pro also claims that avoidance and rest are not similar in nature because one could avoide rest. But this logic is flawed because one could also avoid avoiding something and yet they are the same word..
Therefore his Types of Procrastination argument is invalid.
The Prophet Shia LaBeouf
I'm surprised that my opponent has still tried to prove this whole argument about getting of your bum and just doing it, when I made it perfectly clear in my first rebuttal that I totally agree with what Shia says and that it really has nothing to do with procrastination. In fact it actually helps my argument. I'll pull a quote from my previous rebuttal.
"I agree with Shia; Just Do It! But before you just do it, make sure you procrastinate enough; avoid doing it enough to know what it is you want to do and the best way to do it.
Again I say, chase your dreams! But before you do, wait long enough to find out if it's a dream worth chasing. Once you find that out, then just do it!"
Therefore The Shia LaBeouf argument is invalid.
Time Does not Exist Argument
I still stand by my argument that if time does not exist and procrastination does not exist, then procrastination has no attributes; it can neither be beneficial nor non beneficial. And because my job is to prove the resolution, that procrastination is generally not beneficial, false and not to prove that procrastination is generally beneficial, his argument is invalid.
All my arguments still stand. Thank you all for reading this debate. I had a great time and I'm sure my opponent did as well.
Please vote con.