Viruses are non living

As much as I don't want to jump into another noob debate, I don't have much else to do until I jump up a few spots on the tournament waiting list and this is an interesting topic to me, so here I am.This debate is really about how we ought to define life, and so by the end of this round I will have established a superior perspective on what life is and why viruses fall under such a category.1. DNADeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is composed of phosphate, sugar, and purine/pyrimidine bases (Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine) [2]. On it's own, no one would think of a DNA strand as being "alive". It's little more than a tiny biologically constructed rock. Therefore, we must either contend that rocks are alive (at least in a rudimentary way), or that DNA is not. I will proceed under the assumption that rocks (therefore a lone strand of DNA) are not alive.Where is life then? The only place left would be the structure surrounding the DNA. Let's now look at cells and virus shells.2. Virus vs. CellA virus is composed of basically 2 things; a protein shell and genetic material [1]. There are many different kinds of virus, all with a unique shape and different amounts of peculiar mechanisms, but they all have this in common. The purpose of this shell it so protect the genetic material and help it get from place to place so it can reproduce, and the mechanisms attached to that shell are a simply machine used to get the DNA into the host cell. A cell functions in much the same way. The difference is, the cells mechanisms are used to replicate itself internally, without the use of a "host". The only way this can be done is for cells to have porous membrane that allows the necessary building blocks to enter [3]. It should be noted that the cell exerts no effort in keeping itself "alive". Everything that happens to a cell happens merely due to the way atoms interact with one another. So, what is a cell? It's a biologically constructed machine used to help the DNA it houses reproduce itself. -- But wait, what is a virus? Well, it's a biologically constructed machine used to help the DNA it houses reproduce itself. 3. Bells and Whistles"OK", one might think, "But what about the membrane? Taking in and utilizing nutrients? Surely these things make cells alive and viruses not!" -- These qualifications are arbitrary and, frankly, cell-centric. Our definition of life needn't be limited by what we are composed of, and there is no objective necessity for these qualities to be included in our definition of life. The only fundamental difference between a cell and a virus is that a virus does its job without all the bells and whistles. That is to say, it sacrifices the ability to take in nutrients and reproduce internally, and in exchange it gains the ability to survive on its own ad infinitum (even in a vacuum for some). Instead of looking at viruses as non-living things, it is instead more logically consistent to look at viruses as living things that merely forgo all the bells and whistles conventional cells have taken up. There's nothing more that a difference of ideology between viruses and cells. In order to remain logically consistent, we should alter our definition of "alive" to "something designed to reproduce itself".Note: Before you say that surviving in a vacuum clearly shows that viruses aren't alive as living things couldn't possibly survive in a vacuum, consider that Water Bears have proved themselves in the vacuum of space [4]. Unless one contends that water bears aren't alive, survival in a vacuum cannot be used as the distinguishing factor between living and non-living organisms. 4. Dead Cells"Well, what about dead cells?," one might ask. "If a living thing is defined as 'something designed to reproduce itself', then we must conclude that newly dead cells are alive, since they retain their structural integrity -- which is a contradiction of terms."This question really is about what is the difference between life and death -- a topic deserving of its own debate. The short and sweet answer is that this is yet another trade off of cells. In exchange for its ability to reproduce without a "host", it gives up the ability to serve its purpose forever. The reason for this is that machines in use tend to atrophy, and once that atrophy has reached the point where the machine breaks down, it no longer meets the requirement for life. Just as one cannot say that a broken car gets people from place to place, so too can one not say that a broken cell is designed to reproduce itself. It was at one point, but at this point in time its structure no longer meets that requirement and therefore we can say that it has died. A virus doesn't have these machines. the only machine it has is some sort of sheath and core used to inject the DNA into the cell [2]. Since it only uses this machine once, it doesn't have to worry about atrophy and therefore retains its function much, much longer than cell can. Once again, it trades the perks of life in exchange for longevity.5. SyllogismsFor the more mathematically minded folks, I will break down the above arguments into a series of syllogisms.A)P1- DNA is aliveP2- Viruses contain DNAC- Viruses are alive-- Assuming these premises are rejected--B)P1- DNA is not aliveP2- Cells contain DNAP3- Cells are aliveC- Something other than DNA defines lifeC)P1- DNA is not aliveP2- Cells are aliveP3- A cell is made up of only the cell itself and the DNA it housesC- The "cell" part of a cell defines its "life-ness"D)P1- Cells are aliveP2- A cells purpose is to replicate its DNAC- Life is defined by the pursuit of DNA replicationE)P1- Viruses have a shell protecting DNAP2- This shell's purpose is to ensure the replication of said DNAC- Viruses are aliveThe only room for contention about is in syllogism D. One could define life as something containing mitochondria, a porous membrane, cytoplasm etc, but these would just be arbitrary qualifications requiring justification from my opponent. There are many types of cells with radically different compositions. The only thing they all have absolutely in common is their purpose, which is a purpose shared by viruses. Therefore, we must conclude that viruses are alive, even if only in the most rudimentary of ways, if we are to have a logically consistent definition of life.1. http://o.quizlet.com... 2. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://lifestylerejunevate.files.wordpress.com... 4. http://www.youtube.com... [video]