Immortality

She's offered a good perspective of her side and brought up points I hadn't thought of, though she apparently forgot to run the spell check in her last round. Its still been a good clash. In compliance with tournament rules the last round is a conclusion. I'm keeping this under 4000 characters and ask my opponent to do the same. I'm gonna make this easy for the judges and just state the main points you should vote on.1. Vote on universal timelineRemember the argument I brought up last round, that after 10^40 years, all nucleons will have decayed. Nucleons make up almost everything in the universe. With no nucleons there will literally be nothing except you and black holes. Because our immortal must live 10^100 years, that equates to 10^60 years you have to live, with essentially nothing. No Internet, no electricity, no nothing. My opponent says that it wont be all bad because we can actually go into one of those black holes and see whats inside them. This is probably the strangest argument I've ever seen. First off, the gravity inside a black hole is so strong that you would literally be immobilized the second you entered and would never be able to move again due to the gravity weighing you down. Second, seeing whats inside a black hole would only fascinate you for so long. After a few days you'd want to leave, but you couldn't because the gravity is too strong. Seriously, voluntarily going into a black hole makes no sense. This means there's really nothing for you to do for 60% of your "lifespan". A universe with no sustainable objects puts a new meaning into sensory deprivation. 10^60 means 10 with 60 zero's added onto it. Thats how many years an immortal would have to live with basically nothing in the universe. Prefer mortality. Its not even close.2. Vote on human extinctionHer argument for immortality that she introduced in R1 is entirely predicated on humans being around. She's conceded that an immortal will live so long that life with humans will equal .000000001% of their life. This is extremely negligible, making Pro's benefits minuscule. Pro also straw man's my Memory argument. I never said the immortal would forget life with humans due to psychological memory problems (or amnesia). I said that they just might naturally forget over time. Just as we all probably forgot what happened on our 5th birthday party, because it was so long ago. We forget things all the time. This is no different. Finally, she says that if an immortal isn't motivated to maintain energy sources (like electricity) by themselves. then they just don't want it enough. This is absurd. An immortal is going to want electricity. They'll want the internet. They'll want sources of entertainment. But look back at all the things I listed last round, that are necessary to keep things like electricity, when all other humans die out. No one would be motivated to do all those things no matter how much they wanted to keep energy sources. The fact is that we need other humans around to keep our electricity running, to keep our cars working, and to keep updating our iPods. When they finally go extinct, someone who lives forever will not have access to these and will not be able to do the abundance of tasks necessary to maintain them. Its common sense.3. Vote on planetary destructionPro drops my argument that we may not develop advanced space travel before earth is destroyed. This is huge. If Earth were to collide with another planet, be torn up in a nuke war, or be hit by an asteroid, she cannot guarantee that an immortal would be able to escape the devastation. The most likely scenario is that because they wouldn't die in the explosion, they'd simply be thrust into space where they would float meaninglessly for who knows how long, before they run into another celestial body. Which probably is nothing like Earth, and likely is just a large barren rock, on which life is pretty meaningless. Immortality has short term benefits but is not worth it in the long run.