Instigator / Pro
2
1533
rating
18
debates
36.11%
won
Topic
#4114
I will most likely live to be 200 years old or more
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
1
3
After 3 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
I think I have a better than coinflip chance of living to be 200 years old. I am 40 years old, a white male. I don't smoke. I am 5 ft 6 in and weigh approximately 190 pounds. My father died of heart disease at the age of about 55, but he also smoked 2 packs a day and was an alcoholic. My mom is 57 and has diabetes but is doing well other than the fact she smokes a pack a day and drinks a lot. My paternal grandmother died just after 70 years old, paternal grandfather at about 65 years of age both from heart related reasons. My maternal grandmother made it until about 65 but was a chronic smoker and has a lot of relatives who made it to 100, my maternal grandfather died from smoking and was about 70 he also drank heavily.
Rules
1. No kritics
2. obey the spirit of what is intended in the resolution if you misunderstood the resolution just ask in comments so we can be on the same page. You don't have to rush to accept the debate if you don't like the terms, I am more than willing to debate 2 people at a time on the same topic.
3. All citations within the debate itself. Do nont like to an external document with citations listed for you, don't put your citations in the comments so voters have to scroll potentially through 100 comments to find them. respect the voters and make the citations easy to find within the debate.
4. If you feel like we are not of equal debate skill and that you have a tremendous advantage over me, than handicap yourself by not using the letter F during the course of the debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
STARTING POINT
My starting point of life expectancy averaging the age of my dead relatives is 67 years.
They all smoke and heavily drank. I do neither. smoking loses you 10 years of life.[7] By avoiding smoking my life expectancy increases to 77 years old.
I also don't drink more than one glass of one a night. Not taking the drinking to excess while making sure I do get some alcohol unlike my relatives adds a total of 8 years to my life. We are now at 85.
I use diet interventions proven to extend lifespan [8[, take metformin which increases longevity[11], and take telomere lengthening supplements, [9] as the length of telomeres has been associated with the total lifespan of a person. [10] With these interventions, I think a safe prediction is that without any advances in technology I'm on pace to hit 100.
I should live to see the year 2083. What happens prior to 2083, is what's going to determine whether I'll be around to take advantage of coming technologies.
I limited the debate to making it to 200 years old, is because should we eliminate every age related disease, and every medical condition than life expectancy would still just be 1,000 years old due to things like accidents, homicide, suicide etc. [12]
The Immortal Jellyfish
Many times, when you bring up the possibility of an extended lifespan than you will get people saying biological immortality (hereafter used to mean indefinite lifespan), just isn't possible for carbon based life forms. This however is a myth and here are some examples to show other species have accomplished it, and this is merely a matter of rearranging our own DNA, and or repairing the accumulation of cellular damage to make it happen. [13]
- The Turritopsis dohrnii is a type of Jelly fish that scientists have called immortal due to it's ability to revert to earlier cellular states when it needs to and theoretically, some may have been around since the time of the dinosaurs.
- The hydra doesn't seem to have any senescence (cellular decay) at all and the genes responsible for it (FoxO genes) are also prevelant in humans and apparently is a signal to the cells for when to die. By altering the signal to match the FoxO signals in hydra, may be our ticket to eternal youth.
- Lobsters do not age, because there telomeres seem to stay the same size indefinitely, when they do die it isn't usually from aging, but by becoming so large the energy to create a new exoskeleton becomes too much.
- The mole rat doesn't appear to face a larger chance of death as they get older.
biological immortality is possible. Often when you bring up the strategy to extend lifespan by taking car of cellular damage as technology becomes advanced enough in small bites to do so, people will object by saying the body is not like an old car that you can just swap out parts. My response would be that it's silly to think you can just indefinitely keep a car going that in no way is not self repairing, but somehow a human body that is self repairing would be too difficult to handle. It seems like the arguments otherwise are defeatist, pessimistic and inaccurate.
Escape velocity
Imagine living in a time where people get around on horseback. a place where there is no refrigeration, you just keep your food in a cool cellar. For comfort you don't have TV or radio, you have a book and the more your read it by candlelight when nightfall comes, the more your eyesight weakens. This isn't as far back as you may think. There was a gentleman who watched Abraham Lincoln die in 1865. There was a guy like that who does have an interview you can watch in 1956. His name was Samuel J. Seymore. [14]
This man was born into the world described. He went from living in a world where people got around on horseback, to one where people took trips on planes, A place where a family was lucky to have electricity to a world where nearly every man woman and child had access to a television. He went from salting meats to eat later, to constantly having fresh refrigerated food on hand.
I want voters to know. The world they live in today, will be as alien to to our kids as the 1960s was to Mr. Seymore. These changes happened to Seymore in a slow gradual way, and only looking back does this technological advancement look fast. It's the same for me at 40. All the changes came slow from tapes, to CD's to MP3's and then the slow transition to just listening to music on my phone. It's only looking back that I can see how alien the world has become, and you too will have this experience.
The whole point of relaying that information to you is to show you that these slow gradual changes really add up and some changes look miraculous if you were to just jump your life 20 years, but are mundane when you experience it as it happens. Slow increases in life expectancy won't be noticed as you experience them, and then one day you are looking at your mother who is now celebrating her 500 year birthday and maybe you will pause to think.... "How the fuck did this happen?".
Life expectancy is currently about 80 years old. [1] People watching Mr. Seymore on television in the 1950s explaining that he saw Lincoln shot in the head, would be dumbfounded at the alien world he lived in. The people watching that show had a life expectancy of 40 years old. [1] The doubling of life expectancy between their time and ours had to be a welcome surprise. Had some health conscious person debated them saying he would live to be 100 many of those people would tell him, he was crazy.
To achieve life extension to get us from 80 to allowing us to live to 200, we don’t need a big leap in technology. Baby steps are good enough. The currently we are progressing on average of adding 3 months of lifespan for every year we are alive. [2] In order to reach escape velocity, all we need to do is add one year of life, for every single year we are alive.
Lets say that the current rate of improving lifespan by every year I am alive holds true, and we have no reason to assume it wouldn't. Just that rate alone gets me from 100 years old to 115, but I get 3 months a year from those added 15 years as well which brings me to 118, and I am rounding down to account for any hiccups so This argument brings my total lifespan up to 118 and that takes us to the year 2101. Let's see if we can get some hints as to what will happen between today and the year 2101
Law of accelerating Returns
Earlier we learned from Mr. Seymore that technology can move in the blink of an eye but it is often not noticed until we look back. When we look at the years 1650 to 1750, it was almost exactly the same. It was like that throughout most of earths history. mostly 100 or 1000 years of time sometimes 10,000 years of time where the beginning and end of the time period was indistinguishable. If we go back to the 1850s and then to the 1950s, not to dissimilar to what Mr. Seymore did, the world looks completely different over that span of time. The same sort of jump happened between the 1950s and 2000s. The technological advancements are not just happening rapidly, the rate of progress is also accelerating. We call this "The law of Accelerating Returns".
Ray Kurzweil the originator of the law of accelerating return says;
“An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity”[3]
He goes onto showing us an example of this in our recent past. The human genome project started in 1990, and critics pointed out that at their pace and with technology what it is, it might take 1000 years to finish the project, less than 5% of the project was complete by year 5, but the 15 year project ended up being completed 1 year ahead of schedule.
Predictable advances in technology
Kurzweil used his law of accelerating returns to make several startling predictions on the advancement of technology that came true. Of the 147 predictions he made since the 1990s 127 of them have been correct. 12 of those were off by a year or 2 though. This gives him close to a 90% accuracy rate, showing that the law of accelerating returns is a reliable predictor of what the future will look like. [4]
A sample of Kurzweil’s predictions that have come true;[6]
1. We will mostly use portable computers by this time
2. Personal computers will be available on clothing such as watches
3. Cloud computing will be common-sense
4. Predicted Google Glasses
Kurzweil as late as 2016 has predicted that within the next 10-15 years, we will see our life expectancy increase by 1 year for every year that passes, putting us at escape velocity.[5] He uses some current technologies to prove this. . He does not refer to unknown technologies, but known technologies and what they will be capable of when they are predictably improved at the predictable rate.
For example in the 2020, he says 3d printing will be advanced enough to start to replicate human
organs. By the 2030s we will have computers the size of human bloodcells, which can repair cellular damage or deliver drugs. Some companies are already working on this. If we look back to earlier in this round I mentioned one strategy for extending lifespan being cellular repair because of cells damaged by the aging progress.
Conclusion
If Kurzweils predictions hold true and let's remember they are 90% true than we should reach escape velocity by 2030. I have affirmed the resolution that I will most likely be alive to see us reach escape velocity, if he is a little off and escape velocity is reached by 2040, I should still most likely live to see 200 years old.
Con
#2
RESOLUTION: I [Wylted] will MOST LIKELY LIVE to be 200 YEARS OLD or MORE
BURDEN of PROOF:
CON declares that the BoP falls entirely on PRO, as the one making an extraordinary claim. If PRO fails to completely show that he is likely to live to 200, then CON wins.
FRAMEWORK:
PRO’s arguments can be summarized in four main points:
- PRO will likely live to be at least 100
- Biological immortality is possible
- We will likely reach “escape velocity” by 2030
- The previous prediction is supported by the Law of Accelerating Returns
CON merely needs to show that these claims are more unlikely than not. Furthermore, because of the extraordinary BoP held by PRO, all these claims must be fully upheld in order to affirm the resolution.
OV1: LIVING TO 100
- COUNTER1: PRO is using anecdotal/unfalsifiable evidence by using the life expectancy of his relatives.
- He has also asserted that his “base” life expectancy would be the average of his relatives – a baseless proposition.
- COUNTER2: PRO’s statistical analysis of his likely lifespan is faulty.
- He claims that because he doesn’t drink or smoke, and those take years off his life, then he should get those years “back.”
- Using relative life expectancy as a “base” life expectancy is false, as shown in COUNTER1.
- Not drinking or smoking will only extend your lifespan to its natural maximum length – not beyond that.
- PRO has also failed to source his claim that not drinking alcohol will extend lifespan by 8 years.
- COUNTER3: Many of PRO’s “lifespan-extending interventions” are unproven.
- PRO claims that his diet extends lifespan.
- This is false, as evidenced by this quote from the same article:
- “Neither of the two new studies argues the benefits of CR necessarily add up to a longer life. Longevity in humans is still an unpredictable by-product of our myriad variations in individual biology, behavior and circumstance. The objective, according to researchers, is merely to make the healthy portion of our lives last longer.”
- PRO claims that metformin extends lifespan.
- This is also false, as shown by this quote from the study in the article that PRO linked:
- “We conclude that despite data in support of anti-aging benefits, the evidence that metformin increases lifespan remains controversial.”
- Furthermore, the study only shows that metformin has positive effects on healthspan, not lifespan.
- PRO claims that TA-65 extends lifespan.
- This is unproven, and research on this subject is limited.
- Furthermore, there is also significant publication bias. Several studies that have studied TA-65 have been funded by the same company that produces it.
- For reference, TA-65 can cost over $500 for a month’s supply – there is certainly a significant financial motivation.
- In addition, PRO has not claimed any precise figures for how much TA-65 lengthens lifespan (if at all).
- CONCLUSION:
- PRO has shown no real evidence that he will likely live to 100.
- His rough estimate of his “base” lifespan is based on faulty or incomprehensible assumptions.
- Two of his treatments do not actually extend lifespan.
- The last one is unproven and has only limited effect.
- Considering this, CON asks voters to reconsider PRO's first argument.
- It makes more sense to evaluate PRO’s base life expectancy at around 77, the average lifespan for an American male.
OV2: BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY
- This entire section is simply a non-sequitur.
- PRO asserts that biological immortality is possible in carbon-based lifeforms.
- CON does not contest this, as it is irrelevant to whether Wylted, a human, will likely live to 200.
- Whose arguments are “defeatist, pessimistic, or inaccurate” exactly? PRO seems to be attacking a straw man.
OV3: ESCAPE VELOCITY
- This entire section borders on a non-sequitur, but there are some relevant arguments that CON will address.
- First, PRO uses the example of Samuel Seymore in order to show how small technological advancements add up over time.
- COUNTER1: The increase in life expectancy can only go up to a certain point. This has been achieved by reducing premature deaths, not extending lifespan.
- For example, there were records of people in ancient times living to 100 – but no one contests that average life expectancy was lower.
- Second, PRO claims that because we are adding 3 months of life expectancy for every year we are alive, he will live to 118.
- COUNTER2: As mentioned earlier, PRO has given no concrete evidence that he will even live to 100.
- COUNTER3: PRO conflates life expectancy with lifespan extension.
- Increasing life expectancy by 3 months each year doesn’t simply mean that you will live 3 months longer for each year you’re alive.
- As mentioned above, gains in life expectancy are achieved mainly by reducing premature deaths.
- For a more intuitive example of how life expectancy changes don’t equate to actual changes in possible lifespan, let’s look at COVID-19.
- Life expectancy in the US dropped an entire year from 2020 to 2021.
- Does this mean that everyone is going to live a year less? Clearly not.
- For people who got COVID and died, they lost all their remaining years.
- For people who did not get COVID, they lost none of their remaining years.
- This demonstrates how life expectancy, which measures the average of a population, can be misleading if cited out of context.
- CONCLUSION:
- PRO has shown no evidence of how increases in life expectancy will help him live several decades longer.
- CON urges voters to consider PRO’s claims of living to 118 nothing but unsourced speculation.
OV4: ACCELERATED CHANGE
- This section can be summarized as a logical syllogism with two terms:
- C1: Ray Kurzweil’s predictions for the future are likely to be true.
- COUNTER1: Kurzweil’s predictions aren’t as impressive as they first seem. Many of his predictions are ambiguous enough that they would be marked as correct regardless.
- Almost all of Kurzweil’s predictions use broad standards, or cover a an undefined range of technologies. Let’s go over a few claims in the “health and medicine” section, which is most pertinent to this debate.
- “Bioengineered treatments have reduced the toll from cancer, heart disease, and a variety of other health problems.”
- Obviously, if bioengineered treatments result in one less death, then they would have “reduced the toll.” So, this is a meaningless statement.
- "Diagnosis almost always involves collaboration between a human physician and a pattern recognition-based expert system."
- Kurzweil admits this is partially incorrect. Notice that as soon as he gives a clear standard (“almost always”), his claims fail.
- “Doctors routinely consult knowledge-based systems (generally through two-way voice communication augmented by visual displays), which provide automated guidance, access to the most recent medical research, and practice guidelines.”
- This isn’t the reality today, and it certainly wasn’t the reality in 2010.
- COUNTER2: Knowledge in one field doesn't necessarily translate to expertise in another. Ray Kurzweil has been variously described as a computer scientist, author, entrepreneur, inventor, and futurist.
- Notice how none of these occupations involve actual knowledge in biology.
- Kurzweil has demonstrated his lack of knowledge by trying pseudoscientific medical treatments, such as taking massive overdoses of vitamins.
- Paul Myers, an associate professor of biology, has criticized Kurzweil as “failing to understand basic biology.”
- COUNTER3: Kurzweil’s prediction of functional immortality is on a far greater scale than his other predictions.
- His predictions with a so-called “86%” accuracy rate only covered a scale of 10 years.
- Most of them were based on the development of existing technologies.
- In contrast, his prediction of functional immortality is based on predicting technologies decades in the future.
- If he’s going to make such a bold claim, he needs to have some concrete evidence, not just hand-wave some “law of accelerating returns.”
- C2: One of Ray Kurzweil’s predictions for the future is functional immortality.
- If lifespan is extended by 1 year per year, then this would indeed be functional immortality – a difficult claim to uphold.
- Due to fundamental biological limits, such as telomere length, the maximum possible lifespan of a human is estimated to be around 125-150.
- Although it’s possible that this maximum lifespan could be extended, it would likely not be implemented until PRO has already gone through most of his biological life.
- Furthermore, the maximum lifespan of the most long-lived member of a species is completely distinct from the average lifespan of a species.
- Since the debate concerns whether it is likely for Wylted to 200, not whether he can live to 200, even theoretical technologies wouldn’t be enough to prove his case.
- P1: Immortality is likely to be true.
- Because this is a syllogism, only the major term, or the minor term, must be refuted in order to negate the conclusion. I have refuted the major term, and proven that if the minor term was true, it would contradict biological laws of aging.
CONCLUSION
- OV1 has been refuted as based on unrealistic assumptions, as well as faulty and unsourced data.
- OV2 has been refuted as being a non-sequitur.
- OV3 has been refuted as also being irrelevant.. Crucially, advances in life expectancy are the result of decreased premature deaths – they don’t mean that maximum lifespan has been extended.
- OV4 has been refuted as relying on an appeal to authority, as well as contradicting all known biological principles.
- Vote CON!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full forfeiture. Particularly enjoyed CON outline style of arg
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
FF .
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
more than 40% forfeit. Con had more science backed sources and arguements compared to pro.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, since it was not provided by pro, i consider this a non sequitur arguement
(╯°□°）╯︵ /( ‿⌓‿ )\
im gonna post here what austin said in round 1. when the words stretched to single letters, or is slightly split up.
• life expectancy in the US dropped an entire year from 2020 to 2021
• Does this mean everyone is going to live a year less? clearly not.
• For people who got COVID and died,
they lost all their remaining years.
• For people who did not get COVID, they lost none of their remaining years.
• This demonstrates how life expectancy, which measures the average of a population, can be misleading if cited out of context.
(later part where words split slightly at the end right before Conclusion [underlined])
• since the debate concerns whether it is likely for wylted to 200, not whether he can live to 200, even theoretical technologies wouldnt be enough to prove his case.
I actually have the second round argument written out. It's been a rough week though
how in the world can i vote on this and not consider it a troll debate or a hypothetical debate?
especially when wylted wont allow kritiks.
I was deeply impressed by your simple, yet elegant and concise, second-round argument. Not only did it address every single one of my points with thorough and undeniable rebuttals, it also expounded and clarified your first-round arguments with delicate yet to-the-point prose. 10/10, would debate again.
You did have me worried you would miss your round. Me being on a phone for whatever reason means I can only read like 75% of your arguments at the moment so can't wait to read them fully
Remind me never to do nested bullet points again. Spent 20 minutes fighting against DebateArt's auto-formatting, idk how oromagi stays sane
Do me a favor and arrange them in whatever style is easiest to defeat. If nested than carry on
They're nested, oromagi style, so it's not technically a gish gallop.
you trying to gish gallop me bro?
75 bullet points.
all of that sounds correct as far as what is naturally able to be done. I'd argue they lived longer though because their blood was mixed with nephilm blood.
I'll try to post my argument tomorrow night. It has about 75 nested bullet points (so yes, I am taking this debate quite seriously).
Honestly, I think one of the best ways to freeze aging is to revert back to what the "original humans" did after The Fall (Biblical reference). All of our senses were completely heightened as we relied heavily on them in our hunter-gatherer societies. The human body was designed to move. Remaining stagnant induces atrophy and breakage. If we focused less on comfort via technological advances and looked more at how to be the apex predator in nature, we would improve our life span.
We were made to dominate the earth. Climb mountains, sprint barefoot, kill lions, strategize with groups. Domination starts with transforming your physical body and mind. I think this is part of why Adam and Eve and their close descendants were able to live for centuries. Some will say, it was because their bodies were "closer to perfection than ours nowadays." But, their bodies were affected by sin and destruction just as much as ours.
One of the most unique capabilities of the human is the ability to run and travel very, very far. There are people in the world that run marathons every single day. Sometimes its over mountains and other rough terrain. We were made to travel the earth. Some people have forgotten this and live lazily.
I started thinking a lot more about this after reading "Natural Born Heroes: Mastering the Lost Secrets of Strength and Endurance."
If you want a book get "ending aging" also by Aubrey DeGrey and Michael Rae.
Start by going to YouTube and watching Aubrey DeGreys Ted talk. It doesn't matter which Ted talk but one is linked in the second comment on this debate. He clearly explains escape velocity. After that here is one website https://www.fightaging.org/
I would also look at something called "CRsociety" if that website is still online and go find some lectures by ray kurzweil on his law of accelerating returns.
The CRsociety if I remember has hundreds of studies listed many monkey studies, mice studies etc.
If you want to attempt radical life extension think the following things
1. Fasting (cr gets mildly better results but is torture and will make you physically weak)
2. HIIT exercise 3 days combined with 2 days of weight lifting full body minimum.
3. Regular and aggressive health checkups to catch things in the earlier possible stages.
What are some good website links or online content for researching "escape velocity"?
"...order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood."
Not all Christians believe in that statement as you have described it. I do not. It is very possible to live well past 120 years of life. If you were referring to me, I do not think this as "anti-Christian."
I would also at some point debate a fellow Christian who would see pursuing radical life extension as anti-christian. I would be welcoming of a jew wanting to debate it as well because the arguments usually come down to a perceived order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood.
I appreciate that. I want to prove radical life extension is possible and then go into the ethics of it. I feel like I will have to do the debate again, even if I win it because the argument can be more digestible. For example just paring the debate down to the part about escape velocity and describing escape velocity in the description and then spending several words explaining why it is likely to occur before 2045
This debate has been very interesting so far. I enjoyed reading it, and thank you for posting legitimate content
One of the reasons I gave a full week is so we can both do a lot of research. I also spend most of my time studying these ideals not expressing them, so I need to figure out how to express them properly which takes a while to figure out
I appreciate that. The possibility of life extension is something I want to prove before I move onto debates about the ethics of it, etc.
Thanks for the link. In that case, I'll go for more a constructive discussion since it is a legitimately interesting topic (I was very tempted to "Kritik" the topic based on the misspelling in rule 1, but I feel that would be in poor taste).
I don't want you to struggle with Google searches. It is supposed to be DeGrey but my phone keeps autocorrecting it
I think this link leads to it. https://www.technologyreview.com/2005/02/01/231686/do-you-want-to-live-forever/
I didn't fully vet it though
I think Aubrey Degray asked MIT to write a paper to criticize SENS for extending lifespan and to debunk his optimism. It might be worth looking at that paper to formulate some good rebuttals.
The lengthening of life expectancy from 40 to 80 can be attributed to things like reduced infant mortality to a large extent.
Escape velocity is a very specific concept created by Dr. Aubrey Degray. It is some future point where natural lifespan is extending one year for every year we exist. Lifespan currently is maxed out at about 120 calorie restriction could potentially push that to 130. The "SENS" research being done currently looks to develop ways to erase damage caused by cells to extend human lifespan past it's natural limits. What I am saying is the things in the past that extended lifespan such as lower infant mortality are not going to be the things in the future that extend it. Even 1000 years ago we had some 100 year olds walking around. The future advances I would need to prove likely to happen, will focus not on extending life expectancy with technologies that extend natural life span. Again natural lifespan being something that caps out at about 120 years of age
Well, I was planning to save my points for the actual debate round, but I'd be fine with having a little discussion in the comments. It would probably help me plan out my case anyway.
Your "escape velocity" concept doesn't really make sense. Extending life expectancy doesn't simply mean that you "add" a year to your life. For example, many of the gains in life expectancy in modern times have been a result of reduced childhood mortality. While completely eliminating childhood mortality would likely add several years to life expectancy, it wouldn't change yours. Similarly, many treatments only work on those of a younger age.
I suppose if we're still using space terminology here, we could term it as "event horizon" - the age at which no level of medical advances can keep you alive long enough to see new ones.
I am more than willing to clarify my position in the comments if it will get me a better debate. My goal isn't to win, so much as it is to test whether I am right. Sometimes I debate to win. This isn't one of those times
I am more than willing to clarify my position in the comments if it will get me a better debate. My goal isn't to win, so much as it is to test whether I am right. Sometimes I debate to win. This isn't one of those times
I believe I linked to studies showing the effects of different lifestyle choices on life expectancy or at least articles that cite those studies.
If the average life expectancy of a smoker is 70 and a non smoker 77 than it is fair to say cutting smoking adds 7 years to your life. This does of course drop off as you get older due to the law of diminishing returns. I mentioned my smoking alcoholic relatives died at 70 from drinking and smoking too much. If smoking took 7 years off of their life's and my genetics are identical to theirs, I believe it fair to say I added 7 years to my life
For starters, I can see a minor problem with your first paragraph: by your logic, if I kill myself at the age of 20, I've reduced my life expectancy by 60 (from 80, the national average or so). Therefore, if I don't kill myself, I will live to 140.
There are a ton of cognitive biases which meet that definition and I wouldn't call them fallacies, but if that is the definition you are using than obviously in a debate it is our jobs to show the voters the errors of reasoning both sides make
Well, it depends on your definition of fallacy. I was always taught that it was an "error in reasoning."
Start with Ted talk I listed in the second comment. After that go see if you can find kurzweil talking about his law of accelerating returns. Because when it comes time to, assuming I get the opportunity than I am expanding my arguments using those people as my main guides depending on which arguments need to be expanded more.
If you think you saw fallacies I would recommend making sure you understand the arguments before wasting an entire round embarrassing yourself.
Logical fallacy anyway, I don't care about the rest
Name one fallacy.
Yea, I figured.
Wylted is famous for instigating troll debates.
This is the first time I've seen fallacies number in the triple digits...?
.............
unfortunately for that argument I think I would have needed to provide some evidence, I am an astronaut and I didn't save my W2s from that job
Depends on what a year is. If you work near a black hole, then to earth folks, you can easily live over 200 years.
Good luck, I can't wait to see your response
You have enough room to debate this on equal ground with me that you won't need to get fancy.
15k is ideal imo - whenever I do 10k debates, I always feel like a few hundred words would be nice to close things out. It also gives you room to quote your opponent's arguments, and do proper citations (with full links and author attributions).
I just realized that rule 1 doesn't explicitly ban Kritiks. :thinking
i think 10k is enough to be a good debate, but not so much as to bore the hell out of voters
Or - hear me out - you could set a higher character limit?