Immortality would be a desirable thing

Thanks for debating this topic with me imabench. Sorry about my late replies. .real life gets in the way at times. I'll just clear up a few things in this round. First, extend all my arguments. He hasn't made any substaintial attacks against them. I will reply to the ones he had made of course, later on in my round. Con concedes that existence is always preferable to non existence. He argues that that it's not a concession because he "feels" like a longer existence is preferred not a permanent one but for one thing he's never elaborated on what length of existence is preferred, and further there IS an end to the immortality specified in this resolution the heat death of the universe. Prefer my case: I argue an extended existence that meets his criteria, he does not. Poverty? Again, this is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to believe that one would be stuck in poverty literally forever (plenty of people pull themselves out of poverty in a single lifetime) nor has he even argued any reasoning. Dont even consider this point, not least because humanity likely wont even be around eternally. DiseaseCon continually argues non-topical things. He makes NO RESPONSE to my analysis that we ought to judge the round from the perspective of an average individual. Drops = concessions, which makes his argument irrelevant. Further he makes NO RESPONSE to my attack on how diseases would likely be cured from technological advancements (and recall, I cited historical precedents) so extend that. Extend that omnipotence outweighs, he has dropped that attack; therefore you're voting Pro simply on that. Finally, Con starts to argue that it would be "miserable" to be the last human on Earth. .. why? What standard are we using to judge "miserable", and how about all my impacts (the majority of which have been dropped)? You have to ignore this statement because it's merely an assertation. Planetary disasterHe has answered literally NONE of my attacks on this argument, extend them ALL. He's never addressed the timescale objection, the lack of empirics objection, or the fact that its outweighed. He merely restates his flawed argument. FamilyHis entire argument is turned because he's conceded that we have a moral obligation to carry on the memory of our families. Remember, after we die there is nothing. If we truly love them, and truly care about them, than we should want to keep their memories alive. And he's argued no weighing mechanism, remember ALL impacts are outweighed by omnipotence. My CaseMoral obligationAgain, he never argues the crux of the argument that we have an obligation to carry on our family and humanity after everyone else is gone. He has never addressed this, and it can be completely exended. OmnipotenceHis only argument to this point is that space has vast distances and we likely can't access all the resources. .. ok. .. practically limitless time = limitless ability to harvest and use these resources. No response t that logic which has been present since the beginning of the debate. Extend it. He concedes that all impacts are outweighed by this, and thus I win. Intrinsic goodsI argued that feelings and reaction to stimuli are intrinsic goods and hes dropped it. Extend and vote Pro. He argues that death can be good, but his reason 1 fails because at some point there will be NO OTHER PEOPLE. His reason 2 fails because I previously stated and he conceded that feelings are intrinsically good! So his reasoning is turned. 3. Simply has no substance. A euology cannot outwiegh omnipotence and intrinsic goods. Other reasons (all of which are outweighed by his concessions)1. No impact argued, no warrant argued, and cannot outweigh. 2. So what? No impact argued at all.3. No reason to believe that the rights of an individual who is immortal would be violated.4. No proof, no logic, no empirics of likelihood, and outweighed.5. No impact. True only as long as other people still exist6. No impact. True only as long as other people still exist 7. Who says they're unable to age? Certainly not the defintion provided. 8. No impact. 9. Omnipotence outweighs, and evolution is a process that takes thousands and thousands of years, my opponent has not argued how long humanity will last. 10. No impact. Beauty is relative. Only impactful as long as humans are around11. I cant tell if this is a serious argument or not. .but anyway no impact at ALL. So what? Honestly, this is so incredibly and absurdly outweighed. 12. He's bsically saying that we'll only remmeber the important things in our long lives. .. that is a Pro argument.