Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user

"It became philosophical when my opponent suggested that "immortality" is a human need, when we all know that immortality is impossible in the real sense of the word." We do not in fact know that. Simply because a thing has not been achieved does not mean it is known to be impossible. Further, whether something is possible has no relevance to whether it is needed. It is not possible for all people on the kidney transplant waiting list to get a kidney if there are fewer kidneys donated than people waiting, but this does not alter the fact that those people need the kidneys. "My original argument, which is so clearly about computers and what people do with them (as evidenced by the statistics shown) combined with the fact that this debate is posted in the "technology" section was completely ignored while my opponent tried a different angle." Because your argument, I hold, was not relevant to the resolution. The truth or falsity of the resolution is the fundamental issue here- you must prove it, I must rebut your attempts at proving it. That is how debate works. " I then suggested that perhaps what my opponent meant was a metaphysical definition of "immortality". Once again completely ignoring what I have laid out for him, he contends that: "This assumption is the fallacy of equivocation. I made it quite clear that immortality here was something that would change whether you live or die." So, in my eyes, we have yet a new direction: immortality in the real sense of the word." This is not a new direction. This was the original direction of my argument. It is not my fault you did not see it, it was glaringly obvious that is what I was arguing. " If we think about human life in general and its corresponding evolution, we know that, in order to survive as a species we must create new life to thrive. To suddenly make everyone on the planet immortal would be in essence extinguishing the human race as we all know it save for the yet remaining immortal souls." This is the fallacy of the stolen concept. The statement "In order to survive as a species we must create new life" is only true in the context of mortality. It is not true in the context of immortality, thus, to advance it in that context is not sound . Those "Yet remaining immortal souls" are sufficient to prove that extinction has not occurred- the species is not gone, not suppressed, not abolished, not annihilated, not extinguished, not extinct. " Since I have already stated that immortality is as of yet impossible in the real sense of the word, I think we can agree that the closest that one can get to becoming immortal is by living longer." Since you have stated, we therefore must all agree? Are you a deity? In order to have us all agree, you would have to prove it, not merely state it, and even then, that would not alter the need for it. " So, with this argument, I say that Linux users are happier thus live a longer life thus are the closest to becoming immortal as one can become. " This is not a policy debate, in which we accept plans for getting us close to a goal, so this "uniqueness" argument is invalid. This is a debate about the truth or falsehood of the specific statement "Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user." Whether immortality is achievable has no affect on whether it is included in the category "needs of the average, adult computer user."