The Instigator
Impact94
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Walt Disney has been preserved via Cryonic Preservation (and will be thawed in the near future)

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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,476 times Debate No: 68219
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Impact94

Pro

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you finish a minimum of 5 debates, you can debate this - then I'll have better faith that you're experienced and won't bail the whole debate on round 2 >_>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is 100% legit! Walt Disney has been preserved via Cryonic Preservation and will be thawed in the near future!

Given debate structure:
1st. Round is for acceptance.
2nd. Round is for opening arguments.
3rd. Round is for negative cross examinations.
4th. Round is for rebuttals.
5th. Round is for closing arguments.

The only rules for this debate for me and my opponent will be to:
- Follow given debate structure
- Stand pro/con's ground to the very end.
- No trolling or intentionally meaningless arguments (i.e. Walt Disney is cryonically frozen because I have pizza; Walt Disney is not frozen because I went to new york). Speculative/philosophical arguments are allowed however.

Good luck and, may the winner have a...
*puts on sunglasses*
...great big beautiful tomorrow.


Wylted

Con

Okay, let's see your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Impact94

Pro

Thank you con, I will now present said arguments.

I propose that Walt Disney, the man behind Mickey Mouse and Disneyland, has been cryonically preserved and will be thawed in the near future.

1. What cryonic preservation is, and why it works:

Cryonic preservation is the science of freezing the human body after a process of vitrification with the intent to revivify the patient many years into the future. A short video demonstrating this process is shown by futurist Morgan Freeman here: https://www.youtube.com...

As you can see, cryonic preservation appears to be a plausible answer to the problem of death, which we as humans have struggled with for the entirety of our existance; even now, Google Calico is a newly created organization which seeks to end aging itself. But does cryonic preservation work? The simple answer - yes.

My proof of my assertion rests on accounts of a frozen state causing the slowing/halt of death, and the capability of medical technology to resuscitate these frozen subjects "back to life".

In the medical community, it is already known that a patient may be 'dead' for minutes of time before the patient is definitively dead. However, one story of a japanese woman who attempted suicide by walking at night in a forest who overdosed on pills extended the commonly held notion of minutes to hours. Ten hours total, in fact - and all because of the freezing temperature of the forest which she was walking in. The woman's body temperature upon discovery after four hours: 20 degrees celcius[1], which, according to a simple google search, is the equivalent of 68 degrees farenheit. Far from the freezing temperatures of cryonic preservation, and yet still capable of saving a life.

So how long could someone be preserved in freezing temperatures? Believe it or not, but scientists were capable of reviving a prehistoric virus which had laid frozen in ice for approximately 30,000 years, even without the precautions taken by modern cryobiologists through the process of vitrification in order to preserve the organs of the human body.[2] Recall that a virus is a cell, and that the human body is composed of millions, trillions, billions of cells. If even one cell can be preserved for possibly 30,000 years (and possibly even more), then imagine how long the cells composing the human body could be preserved.

A similar result is happening now. Scientists are now using frozen, extracted cell nuclei preserved from the 1970's in order to bring back a prehistoric frog that has long been extinct. Their progress so far has resulted in the revivication of the frogs genomes and the production of embryos containing the frog's DNA.[3]

Cryonic preservation is real, and in light of the evidence, its legitimacy cannot be denied.

2. What this has to with Walt Disney:

One might ask, "but what does this have to do with Walt Disney?". My answer: everything.

Marc Eliot, the New York Times bestselling author, writes in his award winning biography Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince,



"Disney's growing preoccupation with his own mortality also led him to explore the science of cryogenics, the freezing of an aging or ill person until such time as the human body can be revived and restored to health. Disney often mused to Roy about the notion of perhaps having himself frozen, an idea which received . . . indulgent nods from his brother . . ."
(quote excerpt of Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, by Marc Eliot)

Marc Eliot was not the only well-known writer to record Walt's interest in cryopreservation. Leonard Mosley - historian, journalist, biographer, novelist, and the author of a plethora of works [4] - was the author of the book Disney's World, in which he also records Walt's desire to be preserved in a cryonic state:

"[T]he chief problem that troubled Walt was the length of time it might take the doctors to perfect the process. How long would it be before the surgical experts could bring a treated cadaver back to working life? To be brutally practical, could it be guaranteed, in fact, that he could be brought back in time to rectify the mistakes his successors would almost certainly start making at EPCOT the moment he was dead?"

"It was about this time that Walt Disney became acquainted with the experiments into the process known as cryogenesis, or what one newspaper termed "the freeze-drying of the human cadaver after death, for eventual resuscitation."
(both quotes excerpts from Disney's World by Leonard Mosley)

In light of the evidence, Walt Disney's interest in cryopreservation is clear.

3. How we know Walt Disney chose cryopreservation at death.

Walt Disney was one to take on technology, from multiplane camera to the first animatronic. This is not to mention Walt's envisioning of EPCOT, his own brainchild of a residential community of the future. Walt was always looking ahead, and was always wanting to try new things. And reasonably, given Walt's interest in the process of cryopreservation as shown by the writings of Leonard Mosley and Marc Eliot, cryopreservation was no exception to his goals.
Reasonably thinking, if Walt did decide to become cryopreserved, he probably would have decided not to have it announced in case the process did not work out in the end, forcing the U.S. to mourn the death of 'uncle walt'
not once, but two times.
However, cryopreservation is extremely expensive, and Walt knew he had a family that would need to be financially taken care of after he was gone. Furthermore, it is known that body was cremated [6].
Despite these facts, neither truth falsifies Walt Disney from having been cryopreserved. In fact, many people choose to only have their heads cryopreserved rather than their entire body - this way they can cut the massive costs being cryopreserved in the first place.[7] This solves both criticisms neatly.

There's more than that though. The first recorded cryopreserved body was the body of Dr. James Bedford in January, 1967.[8] Exactly one month before then? December 1966, the date of Walt Disney's death from lung cancer. This time was happening during the first cryopreservation hype - many people were already attempting to become the first among those who were cryopreserved before the death of Walt, but were never successfully cryopreserved on account of outside influences, not because of the process of the cryopreservation itself.[8] This closeness of dates, plus being during a time where people around the country were trying to become the first cryopreserved patients is beyond coincidence. Given the public interest, and Walt's strong interest in the science of it, Walt must have, without a doubt, chosen to give it a shot.

4. Thawed in the near future.

This point is half proven by the first argument in light of recent events where scientists were capable of bringng a prehistoric virus back to life, as well as using rivivifiying prehistoric frog genomes. The near future may be anywhere between the next thirty, fifty, maybe seventy years, and possibly one hundred at most. What we do know for sure however is that science is progressing rapidly, and that, if scientists are already capable of reviving cells today, what will scientists be capable of reviving mere decades from now?




The books Disney's World and Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince not linked here.
[1] - http://www.bbc.com...
[2] - http://www.bbc.com...
[3] - http://www.independent.co.uk...
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] - http://www.amazon.com...
[6] - http://www.biography.com...
[7] - http://www.davidbrin.com...
[8] - http://www.alcor.org...



Wylted

Con

Why reanimation is unlikely:

When your body is frozen the first thing that happens is every cell in your body expands and starts exploding. Imagine a bunch of tiny explosions going on at a microscopic level. There is no known process for reversing these cell explosions.

http://bigthink.com...

The brain as it freezes will start to have cracks form.

These cracks are referred to as fractures. Every cell in brain is being exploded open (which is only observable on a microscopic level, but what can be plainly seen is cracks forming in the brains. Every cell in the brain explodes and the brain cracks. This isn't something you wake up from, not in this century or the next.

http://www.alcor.org...

A lot of the information I'm giving you is straight from the Alcor website and they are the most state of the art way to put somebody in suspended animation. If this is the type of damage being done with the preservation techniques now, you can imagine that 50 years ago, it was even worse.

Disney's grave

According to a website dedicated to documenting where people's graves are, Walt Disney's ashes are kept at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale California.

Walt Disney


Walt Disney



Anybody living close to that area can drive up and see the grave themselves.

According to Walt's daughter Dianne;

"There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that my father, Walt Disney, wished to be frozen. I doubt that my father had ever heard of cryonics."

http://www.snopes.com...

Here is a death certificate for Disney that says he was cremated;

Death Certificate



Anyway, good luck to my opponent in the next round and 't wait until round 4 when rebuttals can begin.
Debate Round No. 2
Impact94

Pro

Thank you con, I will now proceed with my rebuttals.

1. The plausibility of cryonic preservation.
Now, first and foremost, my opponent has presented the reasons why we cannot unfreeze and revivify those cryonically preserved today with our current medical technology. Although this (partially*) true, this does not prove that we will not be capable of revivifying cryonically preserved cadavers in the near future, as I had defined in my fourth argument in Round 2 to be around "thirty, fifty, maybe seventy years, and possibly one hundred at most [from today]" Even Michio Kaku, the scientist speaking in my opponents' linked video, admits that revivifying frozen cadavers in cryonic preservation, in the future, may not be impossible.

*I say partially because scientists had in fact repeatedly - and successfully - revivified frozen hamsters in cryobiological experiments taken place during the 1950's up to the mid 1960's.[2]

The point that is that not now, but in the near future, this technology will be possible. I'll tell you what we can do today though with modern medicine; spray-on skin to regrow severely damaged skin in as much as or less than a week.[1] In light of the topic of this debate, recall that skin is the largest organ of the body.

2. Walt's Grave

As for my opponent's suggestion of Walt's grave, I point back to what I had said in Round 2, that "many people choose to only have their heads cryopreserved rather than their entire body - this way they can cut the massive costs being cryopreserved in the first place." I assert that Walt would have had his head frozen - not his entire body - and that in this way, Walt would still be capable of being cryonically preserved.

Of course something would need to be done with the body, which of course would be cremated in respect to Walt.

As for the death certificate, I am not sure of its legitimacy because my first inclination is to believe that it was taken off of the internet (what are the chances that my opponent would be in posession of Walt Disney's original, personal, genuine death certificate?), a place where any image macro can easily be forged. Second, the text is illegible in the box containing the word "cremation", so it is impossible to discern what is completely meant by the word. Even if Walt's body was cremated however, this would not refute my argument that Walt's head has been kept in cryonic preservation since the December of 1966.

3. Walt's Daughter

Whether or not Walt's daughter is not aware of Walt's interest with cryonic preservation does not refute the resolution, and is hardly a reliable argument at best. Pick any family in the world and I will show you someone who does things his/her family is not aware of. At the end of the day, it's the word of Walt's daughter versus the word of two highly esteemed biographers.

Now back to con; I await your rebuttals.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com...
[2] - http://www.damninteresting.com...

Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Impact94

Pro

We are now into Round 4; originally this round was to be used in order to make rebuttals against the negative cross examinations in Round 3, however, Wylted has not made any negative cross examinations of my arguments from Round 2, therefore there is nothing for me to rebut.

Wylted still has a chance to negative cross examine my arguments from Round 2 in this round, but he/she will also need to respond to my negative cross examinations of his/her arguments from Round 2 as well.

There is nothing left for me to argue except that the resolution still stands.
Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Impact94

Pro

Impact94 forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

Okay, despite the fact that I disappeared for most of the debate, I still win this.

My opponent has to prove that not only is Disney frozen but he will be thawed in the near future. He admits that we currently don't have the technology to do the thawing right now, and he has shown no evidence that we will have the technology in the near future.

I've shown Disney's grave site, death certificate and statements from close family to disprove the theory that he was preserved cryonically. Vote Con because pro offered nothing but speculation, while I offered evidence.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
A shame about the forfeits, but nice to see the arguments refined a little from when I was con on this: http://www.debate.org...

I don't feel that I can vote objectively on this, having previously given such deep thought on the flaws in pro's case, especially with regards to the BoP issue.

A couple things I would change, is a definition of near future should be in the first round (or even change the resolution to include "within a hundred years"), along with a definition of cryogenics (could have a lot of space in R2).
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
@Wylted It was; that's what I did

by the way, you're working on a negative cross examination of your own soon I hope? You've got 24 minutes left
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
That round was supposed to be for negative cross examination.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Thanks
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
psst... you've got 13 more hours from now
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I just saw it. Yeah, interesting arguments. I actually hope to lose this because that theory is awesome.
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
I had the debate about a year ago with Ragnar
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I don't recall that. Can you link me to it?

I'm extremely interested in cryonics so...
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
Hey, I remember you; you were the one who was interested in the last frozen disney debate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Impact94WyltedTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. On balance, Con forfeited more than Pro. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro needed to provide sound evidence to maintain his BOP, and unfortunately I saw very little of that. Pro starts by building a case in support of cryogenic preservation/technology and the theory that Walt Disney, due to his interest in it, opted to be cryogenically preserved himself. Unfortunately, alot of the proof was mere speculation and even limited to just his head. Con came in and provided empirical proof of his grave-site, his cremation command, and his daughter's testimony. He also showed the faults with cryogenics and brain fractures. Pro rebuts these challenges with nothing more than speculation, using terms like "possibility", "in the future", etc., there was just nothing in regards to concrete evidence. As such, Con wins arguments.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
Impact94WyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Pro due to one fewer forfeit. Arguments Con because Pro admitted we don't have the capability to thaw out Disney in the near future. Sources go Con because although both used reputable sources, Con's use of statements by family members was excellent. Additionally, Pro had to stretch in order to make his evidence fit his claims. The evidence was good, but didn't necessarily support Pro's argumentation.