Life is a waste of time and effort (mostly)

1. TIME REFERENCES Basically Pro's point here is that humans spend on average 1/3 of their time sleeping (which is irrelevant as it's necessary to their survival), 1/3 of the time working (which is also irrelevant considering he admits that work is fundamental at improving the quality of life) and only 1/3 of the time "enjoying" themselves. I've pointed out that life is meaningful even if one only has 1/3 of the time for leisure (or even less). In order for this point to be relevant in any way, Pro would have to prove that having fun or enjoying one's time is the only way to give life meaning. However, I would argue that even if one only enjoyed 1/20th of their time, that life would still be meaningful. Here's why: 2. LIFE AS THE ULTIMATE VALUE Pro states, "Even if I were to accept life as the ultimate value it would only be in union/relation with/to other values." I'm not exactly sure how this follows. If no values can exist without life, then life is the ultimate value. But Pro says, "Now because life in itself is meaningless, and since the debate is whether or not such values exist I don't see the relevance of this point." I have not argued that life is meaningless; I have argued that life is full of values. Pro's point here is that life is meaningless, while my point is that life has meaning BECAUSE of the values we have (that in turn only exist due to life itself). Since values have meaning then life has meaning. How can Pro say that values don't exist when he's responded to the example proving that they do exist? If one sacrifices their life for another, clearly they value the other's life. This proves that values exist. Pro writes, "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." This is a complete straw man and/or manipultion of my argument. Nowhere did I say or even imply that death was better than life. What I said was that life is the opportunity to further one's values. In the life jacket scenario, the parent valued their own child's life over their own. This in no way whatsoever proves that death is better than life. Instead, it reflects the parent's value that their child's life was more valuable than their own. So, this example doesn't prove that death is better than life, but rather indicates how life is meaningful because it produces values. Clearly the parent valued the child's life. So, values exist and life is valuable. 3. WORK AND SLEEP So back to the time reference, Pro concedes that work and sleep are necessary. He says that his point here is that "the minuses work outweighs the pluses." As you can see, this is irrelevant to my case. He also writes, "In addition, work is not the only non fun experience in life, and sleeping isn't fun." This is obvious, and also irrelevant to my case. 4. SOME PEOPLE ENJOY WORK Pro writes, "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." While I appreciate and understand Pro's desire to only discuss the average person, the claim he is making (that life is a waste of time) is an absolute and objective claim. In other words, it applies across the spectrum. Is Pro trying to say that life is a waste of time for some people but not all? In that case, it would negate his argument that life is a waste of time (because he'd concede that it'd be worthwhile for some people). Additionally, this ignores my point that EVEN IF one only valued their leisure time and not their work time, that working would make them better enjoy their leisure time (i.e. they have money to spend and enjoy). So, even if one hated their job, that would not take away from the fact that they can and still do enjoy other facets of life. As I said, even if one slept and work 7/8 of their time, that 1/8 might still be worthwhile. If it weren't, people would kill themselves (or choose not to work). 5. TIME ON EARTH In reference to my movie example, Pro brings up another point. Is it worthwhile to watch a movie if you knew that you wouldn't remember it when it ended? First off, this is a subjective question with different answers. Even if Pro's answer is "no," my answer might still be "yes" therefore this rhetorical question does not prove much. Nevertheless, Pro's actual point here is - "The 'end' part of death isn't the price . It's the deletion of self that is the true cost." There are a few responses to this. A) Why not celebrate existence? Just because one day we might not exist (I say "might" because some folks are religious and think we will exist eternally) does not mean that we should not enjoy our current existence. Non-existence is just that: nothingness. One could easily argue that somethingness is better than nothingness, even if that somethingness is negative. For instance, life is full of pain, but life may still be worth living for the experience even if we experience pain. The fact that we also experience pleasure only strengthens my case that life is worthwhile. B) Why is the "deletion of the self" the ultimate cost? If we cease to exist, then we fail to acknowledge our own existence or deletion. Therefore it follows that while we exist, it makes sense to enjoy it, and if/when we don't exist, then our non-existence doesn't matter. So, while death is inevitable, life is still valuable. Furthermore our values can and do go on after our deaths. Back to the life jacket example, the parent's value is the child. That means after our "deletion" we know our values are still perpetuated, i.e. the value of the child's life. 6. PAST AND PRESENT Pro continues, "The only truly valuable things in life are our memories." Again, this is subjective. But he notes, "What we look back on and what we look forwards to are what matters." Let me remind the audience of the obvious: without life, there is no past or future of one's life. So, if Pro is claiming that only the past and future of one's life matter, he's agreeing that life matters. He continues, "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." I disagree. As I said, values go on after death. Did the Civil Rights Movement end after Dr. King was assassinated? Of course not. Plus, what about the 'values' one teachers their children? Wouldn't that get passed on? Memories of an individual get passed on as well. One's life can also have long-lasting and dramatic residual effects. For instance, Hitler changed the course of history for the entire world. Had he not lived, the entire state of the U.S.A. would be drastically different. 7. EVOLUTION AND SUICIDE I'm glad that Pro believes in evolution. However the question becomes -- If life were meaningless, why did we evolve to reject suicide and embrace life? Clearly life has meaning because our existence gives it meaning. We strive to live and evolve so we can continue to live (and perpetuate values, including the value of life). -- CONCLUSION -- I fail to see how Pro has proven that life is a waste of time. At best, he's explained why he thinks life is meaningless. However, we know that's not true because us as humans give our own lives meaning. If life therefore has meaning, then it's not a waste of time as the meaning is inherent to the experience. Even if our lives become meaningless after our death, how does that translate to life having no meaning at all? Life certainly has meaning for the ones experiencing it, meaning it's not a "waste." If a computer breaks, was the computer not valuable while it was still "alive?" Was it a "waste" or just worn out? I'm out of characters -- More in the next rounds.