Life is a waste of time and effort (mostly)

b"sd I thank Con for taking up this debate. Con has made the following points: 1) The time references are not applicable to everyone: " I'd like to point out that the time references Pro provided were useful, though definitely not applicable to all beings." I would argue that they are to most people and that in most exceptions it's worse. 2)Life as the ultimate value: "However you cannot determine values or HAVE values without life itself." "Therefore the concept of life trumps the concept of value, as life is the ULTIMATE value." "I've also proven how values are not even possible without life." Even if I were to accept life as the ultimate value it would only be in union/relation with/to other values. Now because life in itself is meaningless, and since the debate is whether or not such values (that are worth living for) exist I don't see the relevance of this point. I would like to point out that Cons life jacket example strengthens my case as it shows that the price of losing a loved one is greater than anything else in the fathers future life. So in fact Con has proved that death is better than life. 3)Work and sleep are necessary to have fun. "Moreover the 1/3 of time humans spend sleeping is not a drawback; it's a necessity to sustain life. In other to be alive, one must sleep. And, in order to enjoy their lives, one usually must have the monetary means to do so (i.e). the choice to work)." Obviously , where did I say differently? My claim is that the minuses work outweighs the pluses. In addition, work is not the only non fun experience in life, and sleeping isn't fun. 4) Some people enjoy their work / some people have good lives: " I'd like to point out that the time references Pro provided were useful, though definitely not applicable to all beings. For instance, those born into a rich family might spend far more time on leisure (and not working at all) then an average citizen. In that case, "life" is still very much worthwhile to those individuals. Additionally, many people ENJOY their jobs (especially athletes and other celebrities) meaning even the time they spend working can be considered leisurely." Yet most people do not, I would appreciate focusing on the general case of the average person, since if we would look at an individuals life to decide the outcome of this debate, I would bring the life of an average slave in ancient Rome, while Con would use the life of Matthieu Ricard [1] (or somebody else). 4)Why not have fun while you can: " Is watching a movie not worthwhile simply because the movie eventually ends? Is sex not worthwhile because eventually one reaches climax and then the experience is over? Certainly not. Obviously it's the "in between" and experience itself that people enjoy." To address this point I would like to add an additional one to my case: when you're considering whether to watch that movie, would you want to if you were told that the memory of it would be wiped from your mind after the credits finished rolling? the "end" part of death isn't the price . It's the deletion of self that is the true cost. The only truly valuable things in life are our memories. the significance of the present is only in relation to our past. our whole self, world view, everything that is us, is derived from past experiences. the present is the least significant part of our existence. What we look back on and what we look forwards to are what matters. so, it doesn't matter what you accomplish, what you've done, or what you think you'll do. I am claiming that it's all worthless, because in the end of the day....it's gone. ( Though it's obvious, I forgot to mention that this debate is based on the premise that there is no afterlife.) 5) People don't commit suicide therefore life is worth living: "Because most people choose to live, it proves that life has the greater value". "So far, my opponent's only argument is that death is superior to life because life is not worth living on a cost-benefit analysis. So far, my opponent's only argument is that death is superior to life because life is not worth living on a cost-benefit analysis. However that seems to only reflect his opinion and not the billions of people who continue to choose life every day" people like to suppress unpleasant things. Plus we are hard wired by evolution to want to live. In conclusion, Con has claimed that life itself has ultimate intrinsic value, presented the life jacket example and argued that the duration of the fun is worth living for and that since most people don't commit suicide life is worth living. I've argued that Con has yet to present a goal that outweighs death since life can only be a coupled value, that the life jacket example proves my point contrary to Cons, that experiences are only worth their memories and that people are hard wired to want to live. sources: [1]: http://www.independent.co.uk...