Immortality would be a desirable thing

Thanks imabench.I already see a Pro ballot for this round. I will explain why.First, he concedes that existence is always preferred to non-existence. You can vote pro. This concession is HIGHLY significant, because it totally affirms the resolution and causes you to drop his entire case! (which I will now move on to)1. Poverty There was a misunderstanding regarding the resolution (see comments) and I told Con that I would argue his contentions regardless. However with this one, its essentially impossible to relate to the actual resolution (specifying only an individual) so we cant consider it. Further, in every country there is some upward mobility so there is no reason to think people will be trapped in poverty for all time.2. Disease I have a few responses to this argument. → Our technology has advanced so far, and will continue to advance and make disease a thing of the past. Already Small pox and Rinderpest have been eradicated nine other diseases (including polio mentioned by my opponent) are in the process of being eradicated [1]. Recall that the resolution does not specify the status quo.→ The resolution specifies "an individual", meaning that we must evaluate this from the standard average citizen. Most people do not have these diseases my opponent specifies.→ The benefit of omnipotence outweighs all else. → His new disease argument is flawed, as A) Under our current society, new diseases could be quickly contained (refer to the Swine Flu) or eradicated, and B) there are no new diseases if humans no longer exist, so this argment only applies on a short time scale. Also Turn: If a super disease comes and wipes out all humans, the immortal individual would be the only one to carry on humanity which he has a moral obligation to do (Con conceded to this).3. Planetary catastrophe→ I'm not going to watch a video arguing Con's position for him, so anything he claims comes from the video should be ignored.→ He's given no empirics as to the likelihood of this or the timescale. If this rouge planet strikes Earth when humans are already settled in other areas his disadvantage is nullified. → A lot of Cons arguments stem from his misentepretation of the resolution. I really dont want to be a prick, but it's really impossible to answer some of his attacks that dont fall under the scope of the resolution. In the end Con argues that it all leads back to suffering, but as you can see with the Omnipotence point this suffering is obviously well worth it. Now I'll defend mine.Moral obligationsCon concedes that we have an obligation to carry on. Great! Pro.OmnipotenceCons sole objection to this is one based off of historical precedent. Con says that we've wanted to colonize for 40 years and havent been able to. The problem however is not that we have a lack of technology or ingenuity, but rather that international law (via the outer space treaty [2]) currently prohibits colonization from nations. Since private sector investment in space is increasing massively [3], so his objection is both no longer current, and does not meet my framework of universiality. His only other objection is that my stat for resources is outdated. Yeah, he's right, there are probably many more resources in space than previously estimated. I could look for a source on this, but honestly it's just a waste of time. We all know that space has near infinite resources.Therefore you can totally extend my impact, and more importantly extend my analysis that this outweighs all other points. Remember, drops = concessions[4]. Life intrinisically goodCon only says that humans have a desire to live longer not forever, but not only has he not justified this what so ever, he has not shown death to be an intrinsic good, nor has he met my framework of universiality. I have shown life to be so. Thus you must affirm.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.oosa.unvienna.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://www.debate.org...