Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)

YouTube video & “scientists are capable of preserving human bodies in ice with very minimal damage.” Morgan Freeman clearly refers to 21st century advancements which minimizes the damage, again decades too late to be relevant in the case of Walt Disney. If in doubt, count the number of times he says “now,” referring to the latest advancements. Further he mentions no way to undo damage of freezing once it is in place, or as my opponent put it earlier “The process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology.” Meaning if frozen he's probably going to stay that way. “As I accept a standard of ten minutes, ten years, ten decades, etc.” Pro is as predicted, using Moving the Goalpost fallacy [8]. “Etc” seems to imply adding more and more zeroes to the end, setting the near future to pro as a thousand more years or even millions of years... This is after having already stated “the near future for an adult might be ten years, while the near future for a child may be ten minutes.” I have accepted the proposed standard of ten years, as I believe both debaters and voters to this are adults; while near future is a somewhat relativistic terms (by the age of countries as opposed to people or medical advancements, it could indeed be longer then decades), I suggest a simple solution of each voter using what the near future is in their lives; leaving it relativistic, but hopefully sometime before the heat death of the universe. Of course my opponent may object to a time before the heat death of the universe, as that would be claiming there’s an end to what is near. Also “I offer a virtual shake of hands and hope that we may debate again sometime, in the near future.” This statement seems to imply my opponent believes the near future to be within a human lifetime. “The implication is that frozen stem cells have a 17 day window of resuscitation post freezing - again, I would like to extend the evidence supported by the prehistoric virus…” The 17 day window was information from pro’s own source, which he is now disagreeing with. (more on the virus two sections below) “The scientists behind cryonic preservation are not "quacks" - they know what they're doing.” Unsure where the “quacks” quote is coming from… But I agree with this, and as I’ve already quoted those scientists saying: “Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that anyone frozen with today’s technology will ever be revived” [1]. The today in that, referred to decades of advancement over what Walt Disney would have had. Viruses: “cells make up the human body.” Humans are a part of the animal kingdom in biological assignment, very different in nearly all levels from plants, fungi, or the others [9]. The behavior of virus cells and what they can endure is wholly irrelevant to what a human cell can endure. Worse many scientists do not even consider viruses alive to begin with [9]. “must he not also admit that he too can be wrong” Wrong that putting the cancerous lung inside the freshly harvested healthy body being a bad idea unlikely to be endosed by medical professionals… I am wrong on many things; the common sense failing that pro are standing by is likely not one of them. “my opponent has not conclusively proven that these two biographies are absolutely false,” Nor have they been conclusively proven factual. “The argument that my source is a conspiracy blog and is therefore incorrect is a classic Ad Hominem” Defense of a source which fails to provide a link to the Snopes article it is criticizing, while being concerned that Snopes is run by “jewish” people as a “scam”… I did not need to lower myself to the level of an Ad Hominem, their own statements on that single page provided by pro were plenty... Also not an Ad Hominem, that would be an attack on pro, rather than on his evidence. “fallacy of confirmation bias” “Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points” [10]. Guilty, I do present information favorable to my case, instead of evidence opposed to it (as my opponent has done, and then had to argue against multiple times now). As for me not source bombing, instead using a single source to cast doubt on Walt Disney being frozen; it is further supported by… The Telegraph [10], Time Magazine [11], Los Angeles Magazine [12], Vulture [13], and best of all The Museum of Hoaxes [14]. All of which say the same thing. I admit the Weekly World News disagrees, instead insisting the head was long ago stolen [15]. “My opponent has not conclusively proven that either of my opening arguments are absolutely false, therefore, they stand irrefuted. Victory goes to pro.” I hate to point out Burden of Proof, but such falls to pro. Moreover the resolution was an absolute statement instead of a likely statement. Complaining that I have not proven it to be “absolutely false,” is bordering on conceding that I have proven it false. He even agrees that the first cryonic patient is “possibly” the least likely to be successfully restored to life. Sources (while I believe final round sources should not contribute to the source vote, they are still useful references): [8] http://rationalwiki.org... [9] http://www.kidsbiology.com... [10] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [11] http://entertainment.time.com... [12] http://www.lamag.com... [13] http://www.vulture.com... [14] http://www.museumofhoaxes.com... [15] http://weeklyworldnews.com...