Resolved: When given the chance, we should emulate the choice of Achilles

Thanks Raisor for letting me post arguments in the comments section: I've outlined my ROUND 3 here for easy reading.Framework for resolutionPro views personal happiness from the point of view of humanity as a whole and so claims that one man's personal happiness is equal to another. My argument is that personal happiness ought to be measured from the point of viewof the person in question. This is because although from a bird's eye view, everyone's happiness is of equal moral value, from a personal standpoint, an individual rightfully cares more about their own happiness than that of others. We live in our own body and have our own consciousness, out own memories, thoughts and feelings which take precedence over those of an external entity, in this case other human beings.No one should care about society in the far futureThe potential collapse of society sometime in the future is irrelevant to our personal happiness. Society will eventually collapse whether it is through the sun's death, through a Big Crunch (inverse of the Big Bang), Heat death of the universe, evolution and extinction of humans as we know them now or a myraid of other scenarios. It is not important to sacrifice our personal happiness in the hope that some humans, a few decades or centuries from now may find inspiration to build a tower, conquer the world, or remember us as legends.Dying in a blaze of glory is unnecessaryBesides, there are a multitude of ways to benefit society than to live a short and difficult life. Albert Einstein lived long, and through his long and illustrious life, formulated the theory of relativity, created a model for wormholes and refined Newton's equations of motion as we understand them. In fact, his long life enabled him to provide more achievements for humanity. Contrast that with Alexander who brought war to multiple countries in Eurasia, unnecessary, gory deaths, famine, and life threatening injuries to the people involved. There is no need to die in a blaze of glory for humanity to benefit so my opponent's entire argument is built on a premise that is not a pre-requisitefor the benefits that he claims it has.Competing valuesPersonal happiness trumps glory as it can be experienced. Glory is an illusion. When a person sacrifices themselves in the hopes of inspiring future humans and be known as a legend, it is an empty reward. They will not know what it feels like to be a legend. No matter how they die, they are just as dead. Personal happiness is real, and tangible. An artist who creates great works and only achieves fame after his death has wasted their life. Pro tries to differentiate duty and honor from happiness without realizing that towards the end, they all tie back into happiness. People must do theirduty as long as they can feel happy and content as a result. They shouldn't do it in a misguided attempt to achieve glory their death.Value of LifeI agree that a life of torture has little value. But we are arguing specifically for a long and happy life. Life in conjuction with happiness has high moral value.And NOW, onto Round 4:The resolution asks us to differentiate between a "quiet, long, and happy" life and a short life of fame and glory. Pro's rebuttal to my position with the drug addict and rapist examples don't fit within what I advocate because I don't advocate active harm to other individuals. Happiness must not come at the expense of others. My notion of happiness is one that fits squarely into the images conjured by the resolution - a quite, happy life, not a life of a drug addict. My position is that happiness in life is preferable to respect and reverence in death.Whether forgoing glory is an act of cowardice or not should be irrelevant because posthumous glory has no value that can be cashed in. Pro claims that it is actions that have value and result in glory. But those actions in no way benefit the individual in question because the result has no value to them.Pro continues to argue that others have to make sacrifices of longevity in the pursuit of greatness yet does not refute my Einstein example. This is a key reason I win the debate regardless of whether you agree with Pro's value system or mine. Longetivity need not be sacrificed to achieve the glory and benefits to humanity that is the cornerstone of Pro's argument. So, even if Pro wins that glory has value, my Einstein example shows that dying in a blaze of glory is useless.The pursuit of glory does not result in any form of happiness that we are familiar with. Why would anyone be happy that what they are doing will cause them to be remembered as a legend when in fact, they know that how they are remembered will no way affect their life?Pro is flat out wrong to say that "all men and women feel the same intrinsic value of happiness" because I may be happy about my own achievements but may not be happy when a colleague beats me to a coveted promotion for instance even though he will be.Pro concedes that humanity will eventually fade out but offers no argument as to why we must value the welfare of humans a few millenia from now over that of ourselves.Alexander caused more harm than good. Spread of knowledge (or Greek Philosophy) can happen through less violent means as in my Einstein example. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Pro advocates for this position. Neither of these are beneficial.Pro claims that I concede that longevity has no inherent value. That is not within the scope of the debate. We are specifically debating the value of long, HAPPY, PEACEFUL life which I argue has abundant value. A long happy, peaceful life is more valuable than a short, happy peaceful life so Pro claiming that longevity has no value is a red herring. When peae and happiness tie in to longevity, then longevity has value.To conclude, long, happy lives like Einsteins provide all the benefits that Pro claims are provided by short, blaze of glory lives. Pro never countered this. They also have none of the drawbacks of short lives. They also lead to maximal happiness of the individual. Pro not countering my Einstein example means I win the debate even if he wins that glory has value.