Instigator / Pro
6
1465
rating
34
debates
57.35%
won
Topic
#5635

The desire to live forever is selfish

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Americandebater24
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
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
Minimal rating
1,450
Contender / Con
7
1442
rating
52
debates
58.65%
won
Description

Considering out current circumstances, wanting to live forever is selfish.

All definitions follow that of the Merrian Webster.

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:

ARGUMENTS

I am going to reduce this debate to three main points, as I feel these three points do adequately encapsulate the meat of this debate.

Resource Consumption

It seems both debaters accept that these immortal people will not need to eat or drink. In Pro's final round, he tries to backtrack, arguing that immortal people will still need to eat because "[their] subconscious will always want to keep [them] alive." If he brought up this rather vague retort in his R2, I'd be more sympathetic. But the fact it was brought up last minute and he failed to elaborate beyond this leaves me unmoved. In contrast, Pro does successfully argue that immortal people will be permanent blights on other resources. Immortal people will still leave a carbon footprint, occupy real estate, buy clothing, and of course, fart. Nonetheless, I have to contrast this with the fact that immortal people will presumably not need food or water to sustain themselves. I am torn on this point, though I do slightly favour Pro's case simply due to the fact that immortal people will need to consume indefinitely. That being said, whatever ground edge either side gained here is lost later in the debate (see "What Does it Mean to be Selfish?").

Natural Right

I did not understand Con's point here. Pro points out that pursuing a natural desire is not mutually exclusive with being selfish (uses tax avoidance as an example), and never gets an adequate response.

What Does it Mean to be Selfish?

This is the point I had to think the most about. Pro supports a very broad definition of selfishness, which as Con points out, could be applied to practically anything. Pro tries to spin this as proof that Con agrees with his side of the resolution, but Con affirms that the broadness of the term kills any objective basis for using the word. Of course, Pro notes that dictionaries exist to provide an objective rubric for situations like this, but when you blow out that rubric to encompass any and every action that a person could ever do, the supposed objectivity of the definition loses its power.

In the end, both entertain an incredibly broad definition of selfishness. Pro uses this to support the idea that everything is selfish, while Con uses this to point out that the term can never be used objectively if the definition is so open to interpretation. In the end, I am left kind of agree with both of them. Sure, everything is selfish, but in the words of Buddy Pine, "when everyone is [selfish], no one will be."

CONDUCT

Con wins due to an unfortunate forfeiture from Pro.