Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)

http://www.youtube.com...To provide more clarification on the process of cryonic preservation, as it does not seem to be very clear thus far, I will present a short video on how it works, and how scientists are capable of preserving human bodies in ice with very minimal damage. "I accept the proposed standard of ten years." As I accept a standard of ten minutes, ten years, ten decades, etc. Remember, many historians consider the United States to be a newer country, despite that it has existed for almost three hundred years."Though a relatively young nation, the United States has enjoyed a meteoritic rise in global importance since declaring independence from Britain in 1776"[1]I invite my opponent and voters to see for themselves that, within the first and second rounds of this debate, there was no set time for "the near future" by myself, nor by my opponent. Therefore, the near future stands as a relative claim, as we are past the introductory argument phase. The idea that there is an end to "the near future" is something which is the invention of my opponent's imagination - I reiterate, no definition for "the near future" was ever made for this debate. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, for the entirety of this debate, it has been implied that the near future is relative.[1] - http://travel.nationalgeographic.com..."A 17 day window to be able to recover stem cells frozen with the latest technology, and Walt is well past 17,000 days. I fail to see the bridge in logic."The implication is that frozen stem cells have a 17 day window of resuscitation post freezing - again, I would like to extend the evidence supported by the prehistoric virus that single cell organisms may be preserved for tens of thousands of years - Walt Disney's cells would have been preserved for merely 48 years."Far future, indeterminate future, or near future? If not attempting to move the goalpost, this leaves a very short time window truly massive medical advancements. Currently people still lose limbs to frostbite, the cellular damage which makes such necessary can just as easily happen inside a severed head."Moving the goalpost is impossible, because there was never a goalpost to begin with - again, I invite my opponent and voters to check my introductory arguments in Round 1 and Round 2, as well as my opponent's arguments in Round 1 and Round 2: an end to the near future was never defined for this debate. Remember, according to the link I presented from the National Geographic website, the United States is still considered a young country, despite that it has existed for nearly 300 years. Therefore, even 300 years could be considered "the near future". As stated in the short video clip on cryonic preservation which I have shared, tissue damage during cryonic preservation is prevented through the process of "vitrification". The scientists behind cryonic preservation are not "quacks" - they know what they're doing.Again: “No evidence has been laid out to suggest that Walt Disney is a virus.” “viruses are cells, human tissue is made up of cells.” Trees are also made of cells, this does not bridge the gap to making them relevant.I believe my opponent misunderstands; indeed, my argument concerning this virus is relevant. I refer my opponent and my audience to the diagram here:l https://www.debate.org...Practically any high school student you ask who has taken at least one biology or anatomy class will tell you that cells make up the human body. As my opponent and the voters can see, this diagram depicts how cells make up the tissues, the tissues make up the organs, and the organs make up the systems, of, the human body. If a cell can be restored, then why not tissues? Organs? Even systems? The entire body? The implications of this 30,000 year old virus is staggering. I remind my opponent and my audience that, in contrast to 30,000 years, Walt Disney has been pronounced dead for the past 48 years. I apologize that I could not elaborate further in my earlier argument, as I was running out of characters at the time. Marc Eliot’s “award winning biography” Over a dozen books, and he wins only a single award. This does not take the author being award winning as above an Appeal to False Authority Fallacy [7]. Further Roy Disney’s alleged quote remains unsupported, or as already stated “there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics” [3]. Marc Eliot’s Amazon.com review: “Mosely is careful to confirm each fact…” Trying to raise the authority of the sources by the two authors liking each other, still hits the same problem of: If Mosely is to be “believed, Walt Disney was insisting against medical advice of the time that his cancerious lung had to be put back into place; while at the same time had the rest of the body cremated.” I anticipated that we were recognizing the arguments based on authority ever since the beginning of this debate; the reason? On account of my opponent's claim in Round 1: "As a former combat medic (82nd Airborne) and a former Disney employee (Epcot), I accept." If my opponent claims that my sources could be wrong because of their authoritative stance, then for consitency's sake, must he not also admit that he too can be wrong, despite his being "a former combat medic (82nd Airborne) and a former Disney employee (Epcot)..." ? Are his credentials not equally moot? Nevertheless, my biographical evidences still stand irrefuted. For the entirety of the debate, my opponent has not conclusively proven that these two biographies are absolutely false, save for a few petty issues taken with their credibility, for which I had provided evidences for when I stated that one of these books was written by a well known historian. “Those five sources are not connected to any argument points,” they were just tossed in at the last minute without sign of them having been read first." When I was referring to my "biographical literature", I was referring to the biographies written by Eliot, Marc and Mosely, Leonard. As for the "sourcebombing" - this was only my showing to the audience and my opponent that there is a cure for cancer in the works by using well rounded sources from different points of view. I was not using these sources to defend my position on this topic. "First of all you’re now attacking your own sources. Second the source against Snopes.com is a conspiracy theory blog, which uses such evidence against the validity of Snopes.com as the writers being Jewish: “Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are jewish - very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal” (pro’s source, not mine). Third a scam to do what in the context of Disney?" I would like to extend what I wrote in Round 4: "Although I have used snopes as well in some of my sources, I would not personally use Snopes alone to defend any of my arguments." My use of Snopes.com has been to avoid falling victim to the fallacy of confirmation bias (of course, my opponent would not used biased sources to support his claim, would he?). The argument that my source is a conspiracy blog and is therefore incorrect is a classic Ad Hominem - a fallacy which I did not expect to see in a formal debate such as this; regardless of whether or not the site is a conspiracy theory blog, the evidence still stands that: "A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place."[see the source given for this quote in my Round 4 argument] A scam to do what in the context of Disney? That the evidences Snopes.com has presented for the impossibility of Walt Disney's cryonic preservation is debatable, but not authoritative in the slightest. Again, how can a "Mom and Pop" organization stand against the word of two biographies written on the subject? Head Transplant Argument This is just a reiteration of my opponent's insistance that the near future has an end to it, despite the fact of the matter that the "near future" was never specified at the beginning of this debate. Likeliness of Walt Disney to attempt Cryonic Preservation To save space, I will provide my answers in respective numerical order: 1. Possibly. 2. Perhaps, but this does not prove that he would not be resuscitated in the near future. 3. But will be in the near future. 4. But may very well be in the near future. 5. Again, these things may very well be accomplished in the field of medicine in the near future. 6. Not currently, but in the near future? Very possibly. My opponent has not conclusively proven that either of my opening arguments are absolutely false, therefore, they stand irrefuted. Victory goes to pro. I thank my opponent for this debate - I admit that it was very interesting, and I enjoyed it. I offer a virtual shake of hands and hope that we may debate again sometime, in the near future.