Procrastination is not generally benefical

This was certainly a fun learning experience. I'd be willing to debate again anytime with my great opponent. Response to Kritiks: My opponent has raised several kritiks in his last argument. He considered it rude for me to publish a poem I wrote to myself. He disliked my occasional use of bold, capital letters. He writes, "Needless to say, he's the one writing in huge fonts and many exclamation marks that signify yelling. " Now I have no intention of yelling at an audience. But based on my work in psychology and debating, I find that using HUGE fonts sometimes has a soothing effect! ! Pro finds my 'poem' (I assume this is shorthand for 'masterpiece') distasteful. But I'm not sure why. Pro also says that this is irrelevant to the debate. While I grant that it may be irrelevant (in some extent) to the resolution, I believe it is relevant to the debate- it was the opening to our third round and it was describing one of the participants. Also, if we were only allowed to do things relevant to the resolution, we would not be able to thank each other. Pro also says that I wrote the poem so that my passion would be made known. This is not necessarily true. In actuality, I was filled with self love, and, as a result, felt so passionate that I had to proclaim this love. I even got married to myself. I didn't want to offend anyone, but sometimes coming out as a narcissist has that effect. Pro also says I made a typo. What I meant to say from round 2 was that 'This does not deny the resolution as much as Con would like. ' Stupid auto correct! Further Defense of My Breathing Argument: In my breathing arguments, I showed that intentionally not breathing does have negative effects that will happen if someone chooses not to breathe continuously. I hold that this is unbeneficial and that it is also bad; it is not just neutral. Con responds that you can make the same argument to avoid eating carrots. But in actuality, these arguments are very different. The 1st difference is that eating carrots actually has a few benefits, such as calories. [31] The 2nd difference is that continuously eating carrots may cause bad results, while holding one's breathe in continuously will cause bad results. Here is how my argument sounds when it is properly carried between ideas: 1. Eating is a task which must be accomplished 2. Eating carrots incorrectly will cause choking. C. Therefore, in this way, the act of eating carrots is bad. But it is also apparent that if we choke on carrots more often then not (even when eating them correctly), we should not eat them. Con also says that the definition of holding one's breath is holding one's breath. This is a circular definition, and I hold that my views make more sense. Holding one's breath in (to me) means to stop breathing. If the Pranayama method had this as a step, we would have a hard time accomplishing it. How to breathe Step 1: Do X Step 2: Do Y Step 3: Stop breathing Step 4: Do ZWhen would we get around to doing Z? If we accomplished the process, then we failed step 3. This makes the process of breathing seemingly impossible. Remember, we believe that time is impossible, so all these steps need to happen at once. Or if the definition of holding one's breath actually means to hold one's breath, we wouldn't know what to do. In either case, I believe that breathing is necessary and beneficial. Further Defense of Types: My opponent says, "The type of procrastination that results in mindless escape, although in itself may not be productive, results in productivity (fresh and creative thinking, energy boost, extra focus, etc. .. ). " But Con has yet to show how mindless escapes result in productivity. Also, Con gave no reason why we should use the definition of 'escapism' instead of the definition of 'mindless' when we try to define 'mindless escapes'. Perhaps both definitions should be used. Furthermore, my opponent says, "But the hole in his logic is he didn't specify what percentage of the population belongs to each type of procrastination. " You'll remember that I took this into account when I introduced the arguments. I said, "Unless there is a huge inequality in the population, I assume that procrastinating is only very useful for (roughly) 1/6 of the population. " Now I don't want to introduce any new arguments (or claims) in this last round, so let me just say that I believe that it is not likely for there to be a huge inequality in the population. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in a future debate. My opponent finally claims that rest and avoidance go hand in hand. This means that the two are synonymous. But think about it. I could avoid resting, right? Or I could rest without stopping myself from doing something. For this to be a true dilemma, it should apply to most (if not all) cases. But I do not think we have heard enough evidence to support that position, even though the definitions may be similar. Further Defense of The Prophet Shia LaBeouf: In Con's first rebuttal, Con used only imperative statements (besides his acknowledgement that he agreed with LaBeouf). But imperative statements cannot be refuted. I cannot even disagree with imperative statements. Now Con's argument is much different. But, before some "just does it," they should first procrastinate (avoid doing "it") long enough to know what it is they want to do and what the best way to accomplish that feat is. Con claims this, but does not show how this is good or bad, productive or unproductive. Also, I'm curious how one would avoid doing something they do not know. Perhaps my dreams are what I've been doing all along: breathing and eating carrots. I also hold that Shia's words are applicable to everyone. This would include procrastinators. Perhaps procrastinators need that extra push to stop procrastinating. Finally, my opponent claims that being a super powerful blonde is not necessary. While I agree that this is not necessary for most people to accomplish, I hold that it is necessary for Goku. Some things are necessary for different people. For instance, it is necessary for people to have brains, but not rocks or Justin Bieber. So I hold that it was necessary for Goku to turn into a powerful blonde - he is pretty cool, after all. Further Defense of Time: My opponent has, more or less, reiterated his statements from the last round. I encourage my opponent to look deeper into this issue. He states, "However, if if a candy bar does not exist it can neither be sweet or unsweetened. " Let us take apart the statement my opponent made. 1. A nonexistent candy bar cannot be sweet. 2. A nonexistent candy bar cannot be unsweetened. But the logical implications of 2 would indicate that a nonexistent candy bar must be sweetened. Remember that (~A&A) is a contradiction, while (~~A&A) is a tautology. I think what my opponent has done is that he's confused impossible entities with contradictory functions. If we were able to claim that (~A&A) or (~~A&~A) could be used to describe the logically impossible, we could say that the logically impossible BOTH exists and doesn't exist! So it seems like some rules of logic still need to be applied to the logically impossible. After all, the logically impossible is impossible because of, not in spite of, logic. Defense of My Original Attacks: "Pro claims that because other things can also give us, energy, a fresh mind, save us time, etc, then these benefits ar"e no longer beneficial. " I hope this is not what I've communicated. Rather, I suggested that just because something has short term benefits, there might be underlying problems which would make the entity unbeneficial as a whole. Pro claims that the act of avoiding a task is a task inside itself. I believe it is possible. For instance, a task requiring one to stay safe would have a lot of 'avoid' commandments. Con did not respond to my arguments about infinite loops or actually starting a task in the first place. He also did not show (as far as I know) how we can determine what quality the end result will be. "What my opponent mistakes for an appeal to popularity is actually an appeal to common knowledge. Carrots are healthy, is common knowledge. " Rather. The way Con presented his argument made the argument an appeal to popularity. For instance, I could say "the moon is made out of spaghetti. " I'm fairly sure this is common knowledge. But suppose I said, "Many people think that the moon is made out of spaghetti. " Now this is an appeal to popularity. I know this isn't required, but more sources from Con to show how carrots are good would have been appreciated. I personally believe that carrots are from the Devil. "My opponent failed to see how not having a life; having no schedule or agenda or responsibilities is a non-beneficial thing. But I challenge you to try and be productive without a schedule, agenda, or responsibilities. " My opponent has unfairly placed the BoP (Burden of Proof) upon me here. [31] I would like to again thank my opponent for this fun opportunity. Sources:[31]. https://www.google.com...[32]https://en.wikipedia.org...