The Instigator
Impact94
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,518 times Debate No: 47940
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

Impact94

Pro

[edit]

I will be arguing pro, that Walt Disney has in fact been cryogenically frozen for all of this time, and will be thawed by the Disney imagineers in the near future (although mostly for fun :P ).

First round is for acceptance, second round is for posting arguments, and the third, fourth, and fifth rounds are for the negative cross examinations and the rubuttals.
Ragnar

Con

As a former combat medic (82nd Airborne) and a former Disney employee (Epcot), I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Impact94

Pro

A former Disney employee? I myself am interested in working for the Disney company in the near future. It is a small world after all!

But let us not stray too far away from formalities and the topic - I will begin with my introductory arguments.

First, an introduction of the technology of Cryonic Preservation.


Argument 1: The Feasibility of Cryonic Preservation

cry·on·ics (krī-!5;n′ĭks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The process of freezing and storing the body of a diseased, recently deceased person to prevent tissue decomposition so that at some future time the person might be brought back to life upon development of new medical cures. [4]

The crux of my entire assertion of this topic, I believe, rests in the feasibility of Cryonic Preservation. If Cryonic Preservation is not feasible, nor even possible, then the entire theory of the upkeep of Walt Disney's being is ultimately false.
Therefore, the first part of this argument is, can doctors bring a patient, who was objectively announced dead, back to life?

Argument 1, Part 1:

According to Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, Director of Resuscitation Research at Stony Brook University School of Medicine,
they can.

“Contrary to popular belief, death is not a moment in time, such as when the heart stops beating, respiration ceases, or the brain stops functioning,” explains Dr. Parnia. “Death, rather, is a process—a process that can be interrupted well after it has begun.” [1.1]
According to his faculty page, Dr. Sam Parnia specializes in "cardiac arrest resuscitation, brain resuscitation and the cognitive sequelae of surviving cardiac arrest including near death experiences." and is also the author of two books, including "Erasing Death (2013) and What Happens When We Die (2006)"[1.2]

A 2013 BBC article concerning health, science, and technology also offers this insight into the feasibility of the reversal of death:

"
Most people consider death as a single moment – a person is present, and then he or she is not. It is the turning off of life’s switch, typically registered as the moment that person’s heart stops beating. Today, around 95% of death certificates use this event to note the time of passing, and for the vast majority of human history, this thinking reflected reality. If a person’s heart stopped beating, he or she had been issued a death sentence. There was no bringing them back.

In the early 1960s, however, researchers began to challenge that assumption [more on this later]. Closed chest compressions combined with mouth-to-mouth breathing could alter a person’s fate by restarting their heart. Even then, doctors presumed that within moments after blood ceases to flow the victim’s brain begins to break down, soon rendering them into a vegetative state – even if their heart was restarted.

“We were all taught that we have five minutes after the heart stops,” Parnia says. “Now we realise that’s outdated, that in fact brain cells don’t die immediately.”

Researchers now understand that cells and organs undergo their own deaths, a process that can take hours or even days depending upon circumstances. In an extreme example, muscle stem cells can remain viable in human cadavers for up to 17 days, a 2012 study found, so long as they are not contaminated by oxygen.

A person who does not respond after 20 to 30 minutes of resuscitation efforts will probably not make a meaningful recovery, but that time limit is not set. Science is far from establishing when a body’s capacity for consciousness actually leaves it. “We don’t know how long it takes after death for the cells to decay to such a point that no matter what you do, you can never get them back again,” Parnia says.

Which means that humans may take hours to fully die. In a remarkable 2011 case, a woman in Japan, intent on committing suicide, wandered into a forest and overdosed on pills. The next morning, a passerby found her. When emergency personnel arrived, her body temperature was 20C. She had no pulse and was not breathing. Efforts to shock her heart into action failed, but rather than send her to the morgue, doctors connected her to an extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine – a device that acts as an artificial lung and heart, and is a standard of care in Japan – and left her to circulate.

Several hours into the procedure, her heart fluttered back to life..."

Argument 1, Part 2:

And, to provide insight into the second point of my first argument of whether or not Cryonic Preservation is feasible,

"...The woods’ cool temperature, it turned out, had prevented the woman’s cells from breaking down as quickly as they would have in a warmer environment, allowing her to lay dead in the forest for around four hours, plus survive an additional six hours between the time the passerby called the ambulance and the time her heart began beating again. Three weeks later, she left the hospital, and today she is happily married and recently delivered a baby. “If one of our [emergency medical service] crews found that young girl, she would have just been declared dead,” Parnia says."[2.1]

So, is the Reversal of Death and Cryonic Preservation feasible? Well, according to the US National Library of Medicine, "There is little dispute that the condition of a person stored at the temperature of liquid nitrogen is stable, but the process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology."[3]

Therefore, my first argument stands.

[1.1] - http://sb.cc.stonybrook.edu...
[1.2] - http://medicine.stonybrookmedicine.edu...
[2.1] - http://www.bbc.com...
[3.1] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Argument 2: Walt Disney Was Aware of Cryonic Preservation.

A short introduction from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Walt Disney,
byname of Walter Elias Disney (born December 5, 1901, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.—died December 15, 1966, Los Angeles, California), American motion-picture and television producer and showman, famous as a pioneer of animated cartoon films and as the creator of such cartoon characters as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. He also planned and built Disneyland, a huge amusement park that opened near Los Angeles in 1955, and before his death he had begun building a second such park, Walt Disney World, near Orlando, Florida." [5]

Proving Cryonic Preservation is feasible is nothing to the proof of this debate topic without the proof that Walt Disney was definitively aware of Cryonic Preservation to begin with. As I had mentioned ahead of time in the previous argument, "In the early 1960s, however, researchers began to challenge that assumption [that is, that "death is a death sentence"]"[2.1].

Interestingly, Walt's interest in cryogenics is not listed in one, but two biographies. A few of the notable quotes from these books include:

"
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 . . ."[6.1]

"[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?" [6.2]

"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."[6.2]

The first officially documented account of Cryonic Preservation, according to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, was in the January of 1967 [7], whereas Walt Disney was officially announced dead in the December of 1966 [5] - which was practically a month before. We know that Walt Disney was one for being the first to use some of the latest technology on the market - such as technicolor animations, animatronics, the multiplane camera - so we know that it is absolutely possible that Cryonic Preservation may very well have been a technology which he would have pursued.

After reviewing the evidence, my second argument stands.

[5] - http://www.britannica.com...

[6.1] - The book, "Walt Disney - Hollywood's Dark Prince", authored by Marc Eliot.
[6.2] - The book, "Disney's World", authored by Leonard Mosely.

[7] - http://www.alcor.org...

Possible Counterarguments:

-Denial by the Disney Family.

I expect this argument to be one of the first that my opponent brings to the table. Above all, this is more of a family issue than my issue, so I wouldn't know for certain. (Think of it this way - the Jackson family denies the allegations against the scandals Michael Jackson was accused of, but on account of extensive family interviews and court cases, no one to this day is sure of what happened [8])

-Walt Disney's Grave

This is another argument which I expect my opponent to use, and an argument I would expect from if someone does not wholly understand Cryonic Preservation. What they do, is they cryonically preserve the head of the patient - not the body. This prevents "information-theoretic death."[9] (more on this on my final source, found below). So, I do not contest that Walt's body was cremated, buried, or what have you.

[8] - http://www.nydailynews.com...
[9] - http://www.alcor.org...

Ragnar

Con

Note:
Con clarified in the comments that thawed means “to be restored to life.”

Arguments:
This round shall be short as it’s reserved for arguments not rebuttals, but pro has attempted to pre-refute key points; leaving me unable to address them until next round.

Cryonics:
To avoid wasting voter time; I agee that it is theoretical but possible (next round there will be a couple rebuttals to points made on it, but not the premise of it being a possibility).

Not The Near Future:
While the technology may have a promising future, there have been no recorded attempts at reviving a human from clinical cryonic suspension. Lower levels of cold only slow decomposition, which is why we could not just thaw out the hypothetical dinosaur trapped in ice; if in doubt please check your freezer for expiration dates (most people have had the taste of an unopened item ruined by being in there too long). The greater levels of cold used which lead up to Liquid Nitrogen, massively damage the body; newer techniques can decrease this, but not stop it entirely.

Walt would have to have been frozen before the official first case of it. Being a Guinea Pig for the first step, does not line up with being a Guinea Pig for the more risky single chance revival. Newer cases of it would have a better chance of survival anyway, and thus would be assured to be the first attempts; meaning the attempt at reviving Walt, would only be made after the technology is well tested on less important people.

Expert Opinion:
According to the American Cryonics Society “we do not know the technology that will be applied for such reanimation. Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that anyone frozen with today’s technology will ever be revived” [1]. While it can be hoped one day frozen people can be restored to life, what precise technology is needed to even undo the freezing damage remains a mystery; the other technologies involved for each patient may be even farther out. Further they allude to a likely first in last out policy, which would make sense seeing how the more modern the methods the less the body needs to be repaired.

According to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation: “It is not proposed to bring back old people only for them to die soon afterwards. It is proposed to keep them frozen until their aging can be significantly REVERSED” (all caps from original text) [2]. Walt Disney was in his twilight years, revival in the near future only to die again soon after recovery would be pointless.

Cause of Death:
Walt died of lung cancer. Cancer tends to metastasize before it kills, his was no different. He would not be revived at least until cancer is cured. That cancer may be treated today, is not the same as it being reliably cured.

Sources:
[1] http://americancryonics.org...

[2] http://www.alcor.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Impact94

Pro

Now that Round 2 is over, the debate will now continue into the negative cross examination and rebuttal phase.

Denial by the Disney Family:

I would like to extend this counterargument once again so that I can explain more on my response to this argument. Yes, the Disney Family denies Walt Disney's cryonic preservation, but any rational human being should have the reason enough to realize that even families withold the option to keep family matters private from the public eye because - well - they are private family issues. Again, this is more of a family issue than my issue, so the reason why the Disney family would deny Walt's cryonically preserved state is something which I cannot explain with ultimate certainty. Theoretically, if Walt is cryonically preserved, then it would have been known at the time that, if cryonic preservation would have failed, then the children of Walt's time would be forced to suffer two different deaths of Walt Disney, making it all the more painful for the children of the world who looked up to him - but I digress, this is only theory, and I do not use this as an authoritative argument in any defensible way, because I cannot know for certain.

Cryonics:

I am not sure how to refute this argument, because it appears to be a conceding statement that cryonic preservation is indeed possible; which is, in effect, the very argument I took in Argument 1.1 and Argument 1.2 in my introductory arguments. I am interested in seeing how my opponent elaborates on this in his rebuttal.

Not the Near Future:
While it is true that there have been no recorded attempts at reviving a human from cryonic suspension, this does not mean that we will not discover a way to do so in the future which, as the debate topic states, would be when such a technology would be possible.

"Lower levels of cold only slow decomposition, which is why we could not just thaw out the hypothetical dinosaur trapped in ice; if in doubt please check your freezer for expiration dates (most people have had the taste of an unopened item ruined by being in there too long). The greater levels of cold used which lead up to Liquid Nitrogen, massively damage the body; newer techniques can decrease this, but not stop it entirely."

Perhaps - although my opponent does not seem to be aware that a prehistoric virus was recently "resurrected from a 30,000 year old block of ice" [1]. Although freezing only slows decomposition, this recent discovery concerning this very virus seems to show that the slowed process of decomposition is significant enough to have allowed scientists to bring a prehistoric virus back into the modern world.

"Walt would have to have been frozen before the officialfirst case of it. Being a Guinea Pig for the first step, does not line up with being a Guinea Pig for the more risky single chance revival."

Well, if Walt already believed that he was going to die soon, of what worth would it be to worry so much about his health and well being as a result of having his head cryonically frozen? Wouldn't he have been aware that he would be dying soon as it was? Besides, whether or not Walt would need to have been frozen before the official first case of it is moot; many scientific discoveries were made in the past, only to be discovered officially afterwards. Take the vikings for example, who many historians argue to have been the true first discoverers of the Americas, not Christopher Columbus, although Christopher Columbus is still hailed as the discoverer of the Americas to this day.

[1] - http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Expert Opinion:

"While it can be hoped one day frozen people can be restored to life, what precise technology is needed to even undo the freezing damage remains a mystery; the other technologies involved for each patient may be even farther out."

Of course such technology remains a mystery today - the theory of cryonic preservation is to discover a way to restore frozen people to life in the near future. If such technology was not a mystery, then firms like the Alcor Life Extension Foundation would already be resuscitating the people who invested in cryonic preservation half a century ago! My opponent has only stated the obvious in this assertion.

"Walt Disney was in his twilight years, revival in the near future only to die again soon after recovery would be pointless."

Perhaps it would be pointless, but is whether or not bringing Walt Disney back to life is pointless really a valid argument for asserting that Walt Disney is therefore not frozen in ice?

Cause of Death:

"Walt died of lung cancer. Cancer tends to metastasize before it kills, his was no different. He would not be revived at least until cancer is cured. That cancer may be treated today, is not the same as it being reliably cured."

Yes, Walt Disney died of lung cancer; but my assertion is that he has been preserved cryonically in order to be resuscitated in the near future. As for whether or not cancer could be cured, is unto itself, a red herring fallacy in light of the actual topic of this debate; however, I will note several sources nevertheless for my opponent and the voters to consider:
http://www.express.co.uk...
http://www.collective-evolution.com...
http://cooks.ndtv.com...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.snopes.com...

I will elaborate more on my negative cross examinations and my rebuttals after my opponent provides his critique of my own.



Ragnar

Con

Reminder:
This debate is about the “near future,” as opposed to the indeterminate future.

Rebuttals (argument 1):
Early 1960s … doctors presumed that within moments after blood ceases to flow the victim’s brain begins to break down, soon rendering them into a vegetative state.
A great decade for medical advancements, but by pro’s own admission doctors thought events that take hours happened almost instantly; that even restoring someone to technical life, would be moot since it would leave them in “a vegetative state.

Muscle stem cells can remain viable in human cadavers for up to 17 days, a 2012 study found, so long as they are not contaminated by oxygen.”
New knowledge almost fifty years too late for Walt. Not getting into this being stem cells only, we are still left with them needing future knowledge to remove oxygen from the corpse, and to recover within “17 days.

Cool temperature, it turned out, had prevented the woman’s cells from breaking down as quickly as they would have in a warmer environment.
Ten hours, at 68°F, decay slowed. Multiple that level of decay by a 1/1000th the time Walt has been dead (going on to 48 years, or over 17,000 days) and there would be no chance of recovery. This is not even to confuse it with freezing…

The process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology.
Expect to see this quote again, even more so considering the comparison to fifty year old technology that likely had greater risk of damage.

More Rebuttals (argument 2):
Interestingly, Walt's interest in cryogenics is not listed in one, but two biographies.
In short those books suck. In length the Urban Legend website Snopes.com has reviewed both books in question, they were both found to be speculative at best [3]. In Elitot’s 312 page book there was only a single claim, without any source to imply it being more than his imagination.

  • “Claims about Disney's interest come primarily from two of the more recent Disney biographies: Robert Mosley's 1986 effort,Disney's World, and Marc Eliot's 1993 entry, Walt Disney -- Hollywood's Dark Prince. Both books have been largely discredited for containing numerous factual errors and undocumented assertions, rendering them rather untrustworthy as sources of reliable background material.
  • “Eliot's biography, which dwells unrelentingly on every salacious incident and rumor connected with Walt Disney's name, is fairly easy to dismiss. Charitably described as "speculative," it contains a single passage concerning Walt Disney's alleged interest in cryonics: [Pro’s Quote]
  • “Not surprisingly, the source behind this piece of information is nowhere to be found in Eliot's notes. And as there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics, Eliot's "source" was likely nothing more than repetition of rumor” [3].

Mosley’s fares no better to scrutiny.

  • “Mosley's statements regarding Disney's belief in the feasibility of cryonics are somewhat difficult to take seriously, given that his book includes such ludicrously erroneous (or fabricated) statements as:
    • “The surgeons had taken away his diseased lung to examine it, and then were going to preserve it. Walt was pleased when he heard that. He knew enough about cryogenesis by now to be aware that it was important to hold onto all the organs -- just in case the surgeons needed to treat them before putting them back where they belonged.” -Mosley
  • “(Samples of tissue removed during cancer surgery are preserved in formaldehyde, a method of "preservation" which, while useful for microscopy studies, damages the tissue biologically. Organs removed from Disney by his surgeons could never be "put back where they belonged", no matter what the treatment) [3].

Thus if Pro’s books are to be believed, Walt Disney was insisting against medical advice of the time that his cancerious lung had to be put back into place; while at the same time had the rest of the body cremated (see below).

Walt Disney was one for being the first to use some of the latest technology on the market - such as technicolor animations, animatronics, the multiplane camera.
Small misconception about him, he was not merely of the first, he was an inventor of such things as the multiplane camera. However a prodigy in one area, means nothing in the others. Cryonics is a medical technology, thus far outside the area of his expertise [4].

They cryonically preserve the head of the patient - not the body.
I accept this. As there have been no successful human head transplants, a frozen head cannot be brought back. One day maybe, but the scientist leading the field pins his hope of promise in the procedure on rats, and insists “As the human brain can only survive without oxygen for one hour, the surgeons would have to remove both heads and connect the recipient's head to the circulatory system of the donor body within this time frame” [5]. Another promising development that is half a century too late for Walt.

Defense:
Denial by the Disney Family
The family denying it shifts the probability further away from the realm of possibility, yet I feel little need to expand this area beyond the summery from pro save for a couple retorts…

Michael Jackson
Irrelevant, to include the source.
Attacking the person of Walt Disney by comparing him to someone who according to pro’s source “spent $35 million to cover up molestations of 24 boys,” is pretty far off topic even for a Red Herring.

If cryonic preservation would have failed…
Pro admits that even if frozen, the procedure could have failed for a host of reasons. This reaffirming the cautions of the American Cryonics Society: “Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that anyone frozen with today’s technology will ever be revived” [1].
According to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation “A body that is not kept frozen is not a pleasant thing, even by non-cryonics standards, and the early failures were many” [6].

Prehistoric virus
Irrelevant, to include the source.
No evidence has been laid out to suggest that Walt Disney is a virus.

Guinea Pig and “Vikings”
My point that he would not be among the first attempts to revive a cryonic patient (first in last out policy) stand; Viking discovery of North America is a Red Herring.

Whether or not bringing Walt Disney back to life is pointless really a valid argument for asserting that Walt Disney is therefore not frozen in ice?
The point has been either missed, or intentionally ignored.
If he is frozen, he was already old. The experts state that old people will remain frozen until aging can be reversed. Aging has not yet been reversed, leaving it another barrier preventing his revival in the near future.

Walt Disney died of lung cancer; but my assertion is that he has been preserved cryonically in order to be resuscitated in the near future. As for whether or not cancer could be cured, is unto itself, a red herring fallacy in light of the actual topic of this debate.
Let’s consider the resolution “Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be [restored to life] in the near future).” That a challenge is made to part two of the resolution, hardly makes it a Red Herring; indeed if either half of the resolution fails the whole resolution is negated. The original intent of being restored in the near future would have already expired, meaning this debate is over the near future to today (as opposed to the near future of flying cars expected by 2013).

To clarify, I am making the claim that no one would be intentionally restored until what killed them is reliably cured. That there is no promise of a cure for cancer in the near future, means even if technology to restore his severed head to life existed, it would not be used any time soon. If a cure for all cancers (doubtful) began being tested today, there would still be many years of clinical trials in front of it.

Once cancer is cured, then a way to restore dead bodies would need to be found, but as it’s apparently just Walt’s head frozen the indeterminate date in the future for an attempted revival (first patient frozen, therefore the least advanced techniques; his revival would be the least likely to work save for the accidental thawed and rotted patients) is looking farther and farther away.

Source Bombing:
Tossing a list of sources around and asking them to read them, does not strengthen the argument. Those five sources are not connected to any argument points, and are thus to be dismissed.
Further they include Snopes.com, meaning the validity of the researchers there is accepted by pro. Snopes.com outright claims the suspended animation of Walt Disney is false [6]. Therefore by researchers pro is backing the validity of, Walt Disney was not frozen.

Sources:
[3] http://www.snopes.com...
[4] http://web.mit.edu...
[5] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
[6] http://www.snopes.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Impact94

Pro

"This debate is about the near future, as opposed to the indeterminate future."

I believe my opponent is highliting that the near future is a definitive thing. However, what I would like to point out is that the near future is not a definitive thing, but a relative thing. The near future for an adult might be ten years, while the near future for a child may be ten minutes - therefore, this is really just a matter of perspective. I do apologize, however, that I failed to make this clearer at the beginning of my argument earlier in the debate. Many historians still consider the United States to be a new country, despite the fact that the United States has existed for a few hundred years at most.

"A great decade for medical advancements, but by pro’s own admission doctors thought events that take hours happened almost instantly; that even restoring someone to technical life, would be moot since it would leave them in “a vegetative state.”

Perhaps, but that certainly didn't stop them from attempting cryonic preservation in the 1960's, did it?

"New knowledge almost fifty years too late for Walt. Not getting into this being stem cells only, we are still left with them needing future knowledge to remove oxygen from the corpse, and to recover within “17 days.”

On the contrary - new knowledge affirming that Walt could indeed be brought back to life if he is cryonically preserved as we speak.

"Ten hours, at 68°F, decay slowed. Multiple that level of decay by a 1/1000th the time Walt has been dead (going on to 48 years, or over 17,000 days) and there would be no chance of recovery. This is not even to confuse it with freezing…

The process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology.
Expect to see this quote again, even more so considering the comparison to fifty year old technology that likely had greater risk of damage."

As my opponent has brought this fact up again, I will use it to, in actuality, confirm my argument - it was discovered that cooler temperatures had slowed the rate of decay in this scenario. Therefore, cooler temperatures are the cause of preservation of this woman, and cryonic temperatures could preserve a patient for the future when a cure for the disease, and the tissue damage caused my the freezing state, are discovered.
As for the second part of my opponents argumet... this is, indeed, the theory of how cryonic preservation works; the patient is preserved until such technology is discovered which would allow the repair of the tissue damaged by the freezing temperatures. Again, I would like to extend my argument concerning the prehistoric virus; ancient cells have indeed been preserved and brought back to life by means of freezing temperatures.

"In short those books suck."

Indeed, it would be easy to dismiss these writings in such a fashion, but this does not deny that the evidence exists. In fact, Walt Disney - Dark Prince of Hollywood is an award winning biography.

"Marc Eliot is the New York Times bestselling author of more than a dozen books on popular culture, among them the highly acclaimed biography Cary Grant, the award-winning Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, and most recently American Rebel: The Life of Clint Eastwood, plus the music biographies Down Thunder Road: The Making of Bruce Springsteen, To the Limit: The Untold Story of the Eagles, and Death of a Rebel about Phil Ochs. He has been featured in many documentaries about film and music and has written on the media and popular culture for numerous publications. He divides his time among New York City; Woodstock, New York; and Los Angeles."[1]

The author for the second book, Leonard Mosley, is not just any author just trying to make a buck either - he was actually a "journalist, historian, biographer, and novelist." [2]

A well thought review for the book Disney's World by historian Marc Eliot is as follows:

"Leonard Mosely has built a reputation for accuracy and objectivity, and in "Disney's World" he makes no exception. Even in the few instances where a dispute exists relating to the nature of the event, Mosely fairly presents all sides.
In Disney's World, Mosely chronicles the "rags to riches" story of one of America's great empire builders of the 20th century. Faced repeatedly with insurmountable odds and continuing crises, Mosely inspires the reader with Walt Disney's unstopable courage and determination to succeed.
Sources for Mosely's material include actual interviews with members of the Disney family, former employees and associates of Walt Disney,and from available public records. And most importantly, the author was given access to the Disney Archives by the corporation.
As a result, certain previously unknown facts appear in this book. But Mosely is careful to confirm each fact, and notifies the reader if there is a question. Mosely also exposes a dark side to Walt Disney, but presents the facts in a fair and objective manner.
Mosely's "Disney's World" is inspiring, uplifting, factual, and historically interesting. It is a "smooth read", and the reader will have difficulty putting the volume aside." [3]

As for my opponent's referenceing of Snopes as a one-and-only counterargument to the biographical literature I have referenced... well...

"Snopes.com is a Scam" (an article from fourwinds10.net)

"For the past few years www.snopes.com" target="blank">http://www.snopes.com... has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

"David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the Website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticims - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have

"the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. I can personally vouch for that complaint.

"A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place." [4]

Although I have used snopes as well in some of my sources, I would not personally use Snopes alone to defend any of my arguments. Let's be honest - can a "mom and pop operation" really hold up against two certified authors of Walt Disney's biography? More research is needed.

"Small misconception about him, he was not merely of the first, he was an inventor of such things as the multiplane camera. However a prodigy in one area, means nothing in the others. Cryonics is a medical technology, thus far outside the area of his expertise."

Although I concede that he was indeed the inventor of these new technologies, I still affirm that Walt Disney was the kind of person who would have tried new things. As Walt Disney once said,

"We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths." [5]

"I accept this. As there have been no successful human head transplants, a frozen head cannot be brought back. One day maybe, but the scientist leading the field pins his hope of promise in the procedure on rats, and insists “As the human brain can only survive without oxygen for one hour, the surgeons would have to remove both heads and connect the recipient's head to the circulatory system of the donor body within this time frame” [5]. Another promising development that is half a century too late for Walt."

Actually, an italian neurosurgion has recently stated that such a procedure is now possible. [6]

I resent that I am running short on characters remaining, so I will need to keep the final part short: I referenced michael jackson as a counterexample, not a red herring; prehistoric virus - viruses are cells, human tissue is made up of cells.

We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com...
We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com...
We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com...

http://www.amazon.com... [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]

http://www.amazon.com... [3]

http://www.fourwinds10.net... [4]

http://www.brainyquote.com... [5]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [6]



Ragnar

Con

“The near future for an adult might be ten years, while the near future for a child may be ten minutes”
I accept the proposed standard of ten years.

“Muscle stem cells can remain viable in human cadavers for up to 17 days … new knowledge affirming that Walt could indeed be brought back to life”
A 17 day window to be able to recover stem cells frozen with the latest technology, and Walt is well past 17,000 days. I fail to see the bridge in logic.

“cryonic temperatures could preserve a patient for the future when a cure for the disease, and the tissue damage caused my the freezing state, are discovered.”
Far future, indeterminate future, or near future? If not attempting to move the goalpost, this leaves a very short time window truly massive medical advancements. Currently people still lose limbs to frostbite, the cellular damage which makes such necessary can just as easily happen inside a severed head.

Stephen Frye, 47, passed out one night after drinking and woke up in a hospital with frostbite so bad both of his legs and one of his arms needed to be amputated.

“I would like to extend my argument concerning the prehistoric virus”
Again: “No evidence has been laid out to suggest that Walt Disney is a virus.”
viruses are cells, human tissue is made up of cells.
Trees are also made of cells, this does not bridge the gap to making them relevant.

Marc Eliot’s “award winning biography”
Over a dozen books, and he wins only a single award. This does not take the author being award winning as above an Appeal to False Authority Fallacy [7]. Further Roy Disney’s alleged quote remains unsupported, or as already stated “there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics” [3].

Marc Eliot’s Amazon.com review: “Mosely is careful to confirm each fact…”
Trying to raise the authority of the sources by the two authors liking each other, still hits the same problem of: If Mosely is to be “believed, Walt Disney was insisting against medical advice of the time that his cancerious lung had to be put back into place; while at the same time had the rest of the body cremated.

the biographical literature I have referenced
Those five sources are not connected to any argument points,” they were just tossed in at the last minute without sign of them having been read first. For example the cooks.dntv.com one concludes with “Mushrooms are more like a treasure chest that needs to be opened, rather than the cure for cancer.” The debate.org one is the opinion section, hardly “biographical literature.” The provided Snopes.com one clearly quoted the American Cancer Society as stating “it is not a cure for glioblastoma or any other cancer based on these results.”

“Snopes.com is a Scam”
First of all you’re now attacking your own sources.
Second the source against Snopes.com is a conspiracy theory blog, which uses such evidence against the validity of Snopes.com as the writers being Jewish: “Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal” (pro’s source, not mine).
Third a scam to do what in the context of Disney?

Head Transplants: “Actually, an italian neurosurgion has recently stated that such a procedure is now possible”
Quite aware of this, as I already quoted Dr. Sergio Canavero stating there’s a one hour time limit: “As the human brain can only survive without oxygen for one hour, the surgeons would have to remove both heads and connect the recipient's head to the circulatory system of the donor body within this time frame” [5].
Further my opponents source in one of the few differences from my own, clearly states between 11-14 seconds into the video “a full head transplant, may one day be possible.” One day, as opposed to any day soon. It’s already taken about 40 years since last time they tried on a monkey, to get this this far again [5].

“I still affirm that Walt Disney was the kind of person who would have tried new things.”
Even if he tried this new thing (which we can only guess at), there would remain serious hurdles.

  • 1. Him being the first, his suspension would among the least likely to have been successful.
  • 2. He would likely be among the last to be revived, as he would require the most advanced repair.
  • 3. Cancer has not been cured.
  • 4. Old age has not been reversed.
  • 5. Head transplants are still far from human trails, in addition to his apparent insistence that the diseased lung must be put into the new body.
  • 6. Perhaps most importantly, there are currently no signs of how to restore function and memories to the damaged brain.

Sources:
[7] http://rationalwiki.org...

Debate Round No. 4
Impact94

Pro



To provide more clarification on the process of cryonic preservation, as it does not seem to be very clear thus far, I will present a short video on how it works, and how scientists are capable of preserving human bodies in ice with very minimal damage.

"I accept the proposed standard of ten years."

As I accept a standard of ten minutes, ten years, ten decades, etc. Remember, many historians consider the United States to be a newer country, despite that it has existed for almost three hundred years.
"Though a relatively young nation, the United States has enjoyed a meteoritic rise in global importance since declaring independence from Britain in 1776"[1]
I invite my opponent and voters to see for themselves that, within the first and second rounds of this debate, there was no set time for "the near future" by myself, nor by my opponent. Therefore, the near future stands as a relative claim, as we are past the introductory argument phase. The idea that there is an end to "the near future" is something which is the invention of my opponent's imagination - I reiterate, no definition for "the near future" was ever made for this debate. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, for the entirety of this debate, it has been implied that the near future is relative.

[1] - http://travel.nationalgeographic.com...

"A 17 day window to be able to recover stem cells frozen with the latest technology, and Walt is well past 17,000 days. I fail to see the bridge in logic."

The implication is that frozen stem cells have a 17 day window of resuscitation post freezing - again, I would like to extend the evidence supported by the prehistoric virus that single cell organisms may be preserved for tens of thousands of years - Walt Disney's cells would have been preserved for merely 48 years.

"Far future, indeterminate future, or near future? If not attempting to move the goalpost, this leaves a very short time window truly massive medical advancements. Currently people still lose limbs to frostbite, the cellular damage which makes such necessary can just as easily happen inside a severed head."

Moving the goalpost is impossible, because there was never a goalpost to begin with - again, I invite my opponent and voters to check my introductory arguments in Round 1 and Round 2, as well as my opponent's arguments in Round 1 and Round 2: an end to the near future was never defined for this debate. Remember, according to the link I presented from the National Geographic website, the United States is still considered a young country, despite that it has existed for nearly 300 years. Therefore, even 300 years could be considered "the near future". As stated in the short video clip on cryonic preservation which I have shared, tissue damage during cryonic preservation is prevented through the process of "vitrification". The scientists behind cryonic preservation are not "quacks" - they know what they're doing.

Again: “No evidence has been laid out to suggest that Walt Disney is a virus.”
viruses are cells, human tissue is made up of cells.
Trees are also made of cells, this does not bridge the gap to making them relevant.

I believe my opponent misunderstands; indeed, my argument concerning this virus is relevant. I refer my opponent and my audience to the diagram here:

l https://www.debate.org...

Practically any high school student you ask who has taken at least one biology or anatomy class will tell you that cells make up the human body. As my opponent and the voters can see, this diagram depicts how cells make up the tissues, the tissues make up the organs, and the organs make up the systems, of, the human body. If a cell can be restored, then why not tissues? Organs? Even systems? The entire body? The implications of this 30,000 year old virus is staggering. I remind my opponent and my audience that, in contrast to 30,000 years, Walt Disney has been pronounced dead for the past 48 years. I apologize that I could not elaborate further in my earlier argument, as I was running out of characters at the time.

Marc Eliot’s “award winning biography”
Over a dozen books, and he wins only a single award. This does not take the author being award winning as above an Appeal to False Authority Fallacy [7]. Further Roy Disney’s alleged quote remains unsupported, or as already stated “there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics” [3]. Marc Eliot’s Amazon.com review: “Mosely is careful to confirm each fact…”
Trying to raise the authority of the sources by the two authors liking each other, still hits the same problem of: If Mosely is to be “believed, Walt Disney was insisting against medical advice of the time that his cancerious lung had to be put back into place; while at the same time had the rest of the body cremated.”

I anticipated that we were recognizing the arguments based on authority ever since the beginning of this debate; the reason? On account of my opponent's claim in Round 1:

"As a former combat medic (82nd Airborne) and a former Disney employee (Epcot), I accept."

If my opponent claims that my sources could be wrong because of their authoritative stance, then for consitency's sake, must he not also admit that he too can be wrong, despite his being "a former combat medic (82nd Airborne) and a former Disney employee (Epcot)..." ? Are his credentials not equally moot?

Nevertheless, my biographical evidences still stand irrefuted. For the entirety of the debate, my opponent has not conclusively proven that these two biographies are absolutely false, save for a few petty issues taken with their credibility, for which I had provided evidences for when I stated that one of these books was written by a well known historian.

“Those five sources are not connected to any argument points,” they were just tossed in at the last minute without sign of them having been read first."

When I was referring to my "biographical literature", I was referring to the biographies written by Eliot, Marc and Mosely, Leonard. As for the "sourcebombing" - this was only my showing to the audience and my opponent that there is a cure for cancer in the works by using well rounded sources from different points of view. I was not using these sources to defend my position on this topic.

"First of all you’re now attacking your own sources.
Second the source against Snopes.com is a conspiracy theory blog, which uses such evidence against the validity of Snopes.com as the writers being Jewish: “Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal” (pro’s source, not mine).
Third a scam to do what in the context of Disney?
"

I would like to extend what I wrote in Round 4: "Although I have used snopes as well in some of my sources, I would not personally use Snopes alone to defend any of my arguments." My use of Snopes.com has been to avoid falling victim to the fallacy of confirmation bias (of course, my opponent would not used biased sources to support his claim, would he?). The argument that my source is a conspiracy blog and is therefore incorrect is a classic Ad Hominem - a fallacy which I did not expect to see in a formal debate such as this; regardless of whether or not the site is a conspiracy theory blog, the evidence still stands that: "A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place."[see the source given for this quote in my Round 4 argument]

A scam to do what in the context of Disney? That the evidences Snopes.com has presented for the impossibility of Walt Disney's cryonic preservation is debatable, but not authoritative in the slightest. Again, how can a "Mom and Pop" organization stand against the word of two biographies written on the subject?

Head Transplant Argument

This is just a reiteration of my opponent's insistance that the near future has an end to it, despite the fact of the matter that the "near future" was never specified at the beginning of this debate.

Likeliness of Walt Disney to attempt Cryonic Preservation

To save space, I will provide my answers in respective numerical order:

1. Possibly.

2. Perhaps, but this does not prove that he would not be resuscitated in the near future.

3. But will be in the near future.

4. But may very well be in the near future.

5. Again, these things may very well be accomplished in the field of medicine in the near future.

6. Not currently, but in the near future? Very possibly.

My opponent has not conclusively proven that either of my opening arguments are absolutely false, therefore, they stand irrefuted. Victory goes to pro.

I thank my opponent for this debate - I admit that it was very interesting, and I enjoyed it. I offer a virtual shake of hands and hope that we may debate again sometime, in the near future.

Ragnar

Con

YouTube video & “scientists are capable of preserving human bodies in ice with very minimal damage.”
Morgan Freeman clearly refers to 21st century advancements which minimizes the damage, again decades too late to be relevant in the case of Walt Disney. If in doubt, count the number of times he says “now,” referring to the latest advancements. Further he mentions no way to undo damage of freezing once it is in place, or as my opponent put it earlier “The process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology.” Meaning if frozen he's probably going to stay that way.
Mickey approves of the status quo.

“As I accept a standard of ten minutes, ten years, ten decades, etc.”
Pro is as predicted, using Moving the Goalpost fallacy [8]. “Etc” seems to imply adding more and more zeroes to the end, setting the near future to pro as a thousand more years or even millions of years... This is after having already stated “the near future for an adult might be ten years, while the near future for a child may be ten minutes.” I have accepted the proposed standard of ten years, as I believe both debaters and voters to this are adults; while near future is a somewhat relativistic terms (by the age of countries as opposed to people or medical advancements, it could indeed be longer then decades), I suggest a simple solution of each voter using what the near future is in their lives; leaving it relativistic, but hopefully sometime before the heat death of the universe. Of course my opponent may object to a time before the heat death of the universe, as that would be claiming there’s an end to what is near.
Also “I offer a virtual shake of hands and hope that we may debate again sometime, in the near future.” This statement seems to imply my opponent believes the near future to be within a human lifetime.

“The implication is that frozen stem cells have a 17 day window of resuscitation post freezing - again, I would like to extend the evidence supported by the prehistoric virus…”
The 17 day window was information from pro’s own source, which he is now disagreeing with. (more on the virus two sections below)

“The scientists behind cryonic preservation are not "quacks" - they know what they're doing.”
Unsure where the “quacks” quote is coming from… But I agree with this, and as I’ve already quoted those scientists saying: Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that anyone frozen with today’s technology will ever be revived” [1]. The today in that, referred to decades of advancement over what Walt Disney would have had.

Viruses: “cells make up the human body.”
Humans are a part of the animal kingdom in biological assignment, very different in nearly all levels from plants, fungi, or the others [9]. The behavior of virus cells and what they can endure is wholly irrelevant to what a human cell can endure. Worse many scientists do not even consider viruses alive to begin with [9].

“must he not also admit that he too can be wrong”
Wrong that putting the cancerous lung inside the freshly harvested healthy body being a bad idea unlikely to be endosed by medical professionals… I am wrong on many things; the common sense failing that pro are standing by is likely not one of them.

“my opponent has not conclusively proven that these two biographies are absolutely false,”
Nor have they been conclusively proven factual.

“The argument that my source is a conspiracy blog and is therefore incorrect is a classic Ad Hominem”
Defense of a source which fails to provide a link to the Snopes article it is criticizing, while being concerned that Snopes is run by “jewish” people as a “scam”… I did not need to lower myself to the level of an Ad Hominem, their own statements on that single page provided by pro were plenty... Also not an Ad Hominem, that would be an attack on pro, rather than on his evidence.

“fallacy of confirmation bias”
Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points” [10]. Guilty, I do present information favorable to my case, instead of evidence opposed to it (as my opponent has done, and then had to argue against multiple times now).
As for me not source bombing, instead using a single source to cast doubt on Walt Disney being frozen; it is further supported by… The Telegraph [10], Time Magazine [11], Los Angeles Magazine [12], Vulture [13], and best of all The Museum of Hoaxes [14]. All of which say the same thing. I admit the Weekly World News disagrees, instead insisting the head was long ago stolen [15].
Journey Into The Disney Vault.

“My opponent has not conclusively proven that either of my opening arguments are absolutely false, therefore, they stand irrefuted. Victory goes to pro.”
I hate to point out Burden of Proof, but such falls to pro. Moreover the resolution was an absolute statement instead of a likely statement. Complaining that I have not proven it to be “absolutely false,” is bordering on conceding that I have proven it false.
Yourlogicalfallacyis.com
by: Jesse Richardson, Andy Smith and Som Meaden.
He even agrees that the first cryonic patient is “possibly” the least likely to be successfully restored to life.

Sources (while I believe final round sources should not contribute to the source vote, they are still useful references):
[8] http://rationalwiki.org...
[9] http://www.kidsbiology.com...
[10] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[11] http://entertainment.time.com...
[12] http://www.lamag.com...
[13] http://www.vulture.com...
[14] http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...
[15] http://weeklyworldnews.com...
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Now that the voting period has ended... If not for the attempt at pre-refuting me, I actually wouldn't have focused much on matters of is he frozen. Given the large scope of the debate, and my internet in medical advancement (implied in my R1 acceptance), my area of interest was truly if frozen could he be revived in the near future.

I suggest reopening this challenge, with a more refined scope and a resolution that calls for shared BoP ("more likely than not").
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I may have told some people the 3 o'clock parade is around 3:15...
Posted by Impact94 3 years ago
Impact94
Pfft, why not go to the cart that actually has the word "Ice Cream" labeled on it, rather than the one which is clearly for popcorn/beer only? btw, did anyone ever ask you when the three-o-clock parade was?

On topic: This turned out to be a very... interesting? debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
There were high moments and low moments. Guests often forget to pack their brains on vacations...

After explaining to a guest my popcorn/beer cart did not sell ice cream, and they attempted to order an ice cream from me anyway (they even opened up the soda cart and stuck their hand into the ice water to fish around in there for ice cream), I ended up making a rather crude suggestion of where they might be able to find a Mickey Ears Bar; but it might be warm since I ate it the previous day.
Posted by Impact94 3 years ago
Impact94
*phew*, that was a close one. And thank you for the reminder, also.

So you worked for Disney in outdoor food services? How did that go?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Reminder: Two hours left to post your argument.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
That is actually what I worked for them in (only outdoor food services). Keep in mind you will be little more than slave labor, but there's a very good time to be had off hours. Such as the hot tubs with female fellow college program people (college program have their own housing, with pools etc, a lot of hookups happen...)

If you can do a character, it pays a lot more.
Posted by Impact94 3 years ago
Impact94
@Ragnar I'm wanting to get into their college program, hopefully in the attractions. Heheh, I'm not surprised about how implying Mickey Mouse is not real could be cause for termination; I've heard from a friend that he was working at the Pirates of the Caribbean ride when the bottom level of the ride began to flood, although they were able to fix it. That reminds me that I should get to finishing that college program application this weekend...
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
(not using the comments for debating, merely to converse off topic of the debate itself)
What do you plan to do at Disney? A funny thing I remember was implying Mickey Mouse is not real is instant cause for termination (he can be both real and made of ink, which is why some parades are canceled for rain), but anything said to support him being real is fine; therefore the Epcot Sphere is where he hides the bodies.
Posted by hazlov2004 3 years ago
hazlov2004
Well if he was frozen he`d be pissed that disney is not what it was back then
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Impact94RagnarTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Long debate and interesting, although Pro failed in the basic BOP and that was to show that Walt Disney was actually frozen. I am giving conduct points to Con, as Pro presupposed Cons arguments which is not good conduct. Also by presupposing these arguments Pro hurt their own arguments for validity of claim. Argument points go to Con for the reasons stated above. Regarding sources, Pro misrepresented some sources as such points have to go to Con. This misrepresentation is also bad conduct. Well done Con.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
Xerge
Impact94RagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution states "Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)". This meant that Pro had to not only prove the possibility, but the absolute certainty of it. While Pro presented arguments about the possibility of it, their was no clear evidence that is what actually occurred. Con brought up arguments that there were problems with freezing a human, technology wasn't currently available to address it, and sourcing disputing that Disney was frozen also raises doubt. With these reasons, the vote goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Impact94RagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro puts up many "assertions" and "fallacies" regarding his stance in the current resolution. The possibilities of future is unknown and thus cannot be proven accurately. Con brings up his refutation stating main problems regarding "Cryonic Preservation" but it's quite impossible to deny the future possibilities. However in the present case, the resolution was, "Walt Disney is Cryogenic-ally frozen" and will be restored to life in future. This is quite a strong statement and BOP clearly lies on Pro. Pro's arguments for "Cryonic Preservation" and future possibilities can't be denied or accepted. But for the present Resolution Pro lacks BOP and most of his/her arguments got shot down.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Impact94RagnarTied
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 used a fallacy