Procrastination is not generally benefical

Before I begin my arguments, I would like to publish an ode I wrote to myself. Behold! The great debater speaks The wisdom of the sages. He refutes all crazy freaks Whenever he engages. With striking eyes he spots the flaws One’s arguments contain. He studies hard, with heart and brain To follow all of Logic’s laws. Hail! No false statement shall depart From his meek and handsome lips Nor shall there be a time he slips And creates poor, unworthy art. I know this is a rather unorthodox way of opening a round, but I hope my opponent understands, given my passion over this issue. Because my arguments are flawless, I’d like to start with my opponent’s rebuttals first.Breathing Defense:It is clear that we are using different meanings when we mean to ‘hold one’s breath in’. When I use the terminology, I’m refering to the common understanding, which is to stop breathing.[23] My opponent shows that there are some methods of breathing that are beneficial when a process takes a longer time (assuming time exists). But he does not show how avoiding the act of breathing is good. Because if there was a task X, and one of the steps of X was to avoid doing X, doing task X seems quite silly. That is like saying “Disobey this command.” So when my opponent says, “you have to hold your breathe as one of the steps,” what he means (or what I assume he means) is that you must inhale without exhaling for a time. This is, of course, part of the process of breathing.Types Defense:My opponent, either by accident or on purpose, has mischaracterized my argument.[24] My claims were based on an essay that defended the good side of procrastination. I was using a statement made in the essay to show that if the author was true, procrastination is only ‘good’ 1 out of 4 times. But I additionally believe that mindless procrastination is not useful. My opponent says, “our brains also need an escape so that they can clear.” But I was referring to mindless escapes – having or showing no ability to think, feel, or respond.[25] This is not beneficial. Finally, Con has created a false dichotomy between rest and avoidance. Rest is good in general, even when people rest to procrastinate. But there are plenty of cases where rest is not used to procrastinate.[26] Until my opponent can show a serious correlation between rest and procrastination, we hold that this is a false dilemma.The Testimony of Many Witnesses Defense:My opponent provides no argument against the warnings of LaBeouf. Instead, he barks at readers (rather offensively) with commands that they must follow, rather than telling them why these commands should be followed. Goku’s divine transformation was not commented on, neither was the testimony of a One Piece fan. JUST- JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Timeless Defense:My opponent simply dismisses this brilliant masterpiece of an argument by stating, “if time doesn't exist and if procrastination doesn't exist, then procrastination can neither be beneficial nor non-beneficial.” But (~A&~~A) (Where A is beneficial) is logically impossible. Perhaps my opponent could understand this argument better if we rephrased it differently. Suppose there was a non-existent candy bar. We could say that this candy bar CANNOT be sweet. (~A) My opponent objects and says that this candy bar cannot be not sweet. (~~A) But a double negative actually affirms something about the nature of the nonexistent- it must be sweet. (~~A&A) is a tautology. Therefore, if a candy bar cannot be not sweet, it must be sweet. Perhaps my opponent was trying to show that (~A&~B) (not sweet and not sour) applied to the logically impossible. And granted. But we cannot conclude that something cannot be both ~A (not beneficial) and ~~A (not not beneficial) just because it does not exist. My Rebuttals:Con Argument 1:My opponent starts by saying that there are some benefits to procrastination- energy, focus, time (?), and creative thinking. But these do not show how procrastination is useful in most cases. Procrastination may boost energy temporarily, but so can other bad things, like certain drugs.[27] The conclusion of my opponent’s argument from energy is: “Without procrastinating, completing the same task would be a lot more difficult.” This is only true if there are no other feasible ways to get energy. But there are often other (easy) ways to get energy. You might even get energy from simply doing a task. You might get energy from drinking coffee, or eating a meal. None of these tasks require one to avoid a (fairly reasonable) different task. My opponent claims that procrastination helps us focus and save time. But so do other things. Actually doing a task very quickly in the first place could save just as much time as doing a task before its deadline. So I do not see how these arguments follow. You could get distracted at the end of a day just as easily as you could at the beginning of a day. “They gave themselves a tight time frame that they had to complete the task resulting, finshing in record time.” This does not follow because procrastination is not a necessary condition for one to break speed records. Procrastination does not guarantee that one will break speed records. While I grant that these arguments do show us that procrastination may be useful in certain cases, I do not believe we can conclude that it is generally useful. It seems that for every case we can find where procrastination has a helpful effect, we can get that helpful effect without necessarily resorting to procrastination. Additionally, Con’s second source does not try to prove that Procrastination is beneficial. Instead, what it focuses on are procrastinators’ beliefs about procrastination (some of which are contradictory). This does not help us affirm the resolution quite as much as Con would like.Con Argument 2:Con claims that I must avoid doing a task before I do it. But is avoiding doing a task a task? It seems like it. There does not seem anything stopping me from classifying an act of avoidance to be a task. Now we have a weird scenario, because I must always avoid doing a task before I do it. So if I must avoid avoiding my initial task, does that mean I’m trying to do the task? Or is there an infinite string of avoidances? Each way seems to be silly, and I cannot follow this argument. Furthermore, I do not think, based on this argument, that we can reasonably conclude what quality the end result will be.Con Argument 3:While I admire my opponent’s storytelling, his main argument is actually an example of the anecdotal fallacy.[28] He also used several other fallacies, such as an appeal to popularity. “But most people would agree that carrots aren't bad, in fact, most would say they are generally beneficial…”[29] Con has to reasonably show that most peoples’ judgements are sound for me to accept this line of thinking. His entire argument is also a bold assertion.[30] Therefore I cannot be swayed by his tempting logic.Con Argument 4:While Con might show that we have no agenda without procrastination, he has not shown whether this relates to the resolution. Perhaps it is more beneficial to have no agenda. I believe I must dismiss this argument until Con shows how it is relevant to our debate. I await Con's reply. Sources: [23] https://www.google.com... [24] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [25] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [26] http://www.fastcompany.com... [27] https://answers.yahoo.com... [28] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [29] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [30] https://en.wikipedia.org...