By Couper Wainwright
As I stepped into room 202 last Tuesday, I was greeted by the sound of Dr. Ezell explaining how today’s debate was going to work. I was a little late to his Intro to Debate class, but five students were already set up to start, with three faculty members watching them.
What was the topic of the debate, you might ask? Whether a cure for aging would be good for humans.
First, let me just give you a brief rundown on the debate’s structure. Dr. Ezell’s five students were split into two teams: one arguing that the idea of a cure for aging would be bad for humans, and the other arguing against it. Sophomores McCree Wilson and Ameen Ahmed argued for the validity of that statement, while freshman Essie, sophomore Kinsley, and junior Dakota argued that the antidote to growing older would be beneficial.
McCree and Ameen went first with their opening statement. Then, Dakota, Essie, and Kinsley made their opening statement. After that, both sides got a rebuttal (with side prop going first), a third set of remarks (with side prop going first again), and final remarks (with side opp going first).
As the debate began, McCree delivered the opening statement for the side proposition, arguing that if a cure for aging were implemented, humans would lose any purpose in their lives, society would be overburdened by the sheer number of people, and religion would be questioned due to doubts about the afterlife. He made some very good points, focusing on both the tangible and philosophical effects of the cure to truly drive them home. He concluded by remarking that without death, life has no real purpose and therefore neither do humans, a note that got everyone in the room truly thinking.
Next, Dakota made the opening comments for side opposition, arguing that a cure like this would be the greatest medical and humanitarian achievement ever; that you could still die by other methods and the cure is therefore just preserving longevity; that it would be a choice, not a requirement; that just because it would disrupt the world order does not mean that it would be bad; and that the cure would economically help the world by allowing us to spend vast sums of money on things other than increasing life spans. She closed out by saying that because the cure would be so beneficial, not allowing it to exist would be condemning billions to their deaths.
After Dakota spoke, Ameen made the rebuttal for the proposition, hitting at some individual moral quandaries such as the effect of the cure on people who are terminally ill and will not survive anyway and couples where one partner decides to take the cure, and the other does not. He mainly sought to broaden the range of people the debate considered, ensuring that his side did not allow generalizations.
Once Ameen wrapped up, Essie came to the podium to deliver the rebuttal for the side opposing, continuing the theme of focusing on individuals rather than society as a whole. She argued points like the fact that no one is forcing you to take the cure, hospital bills would be less of a burden if you took the cure, people would not be as depressed about death, a growth in the workforce would be economically beneficial, and going back to school as an adult would be much more societally acceptable. She ended by stating that historical accounts would be more accurate due to the greater availability of eyewitness testimony, helping ensure that history does not repeat itself in harmful ways and enabling people to learn more about the past much more easily.
Shortly after, McCree came up once again to give the third set of remarks for side prop. He brought up points like the cure being somewhat unfair, as it only cures the diseases that are age-related and would therefore be preferential against those who have diseases that are not age-related; the fact that the economic benefits of the cure would actually overcorrect the economy, leading to a downward spiral; and the fact that the opposition has not made enough societal arguments and also has not rebutted many of the proposition’s arguments.
Next, Kinsley gave the third set of points for side opp, saying that the cure would undoubtedly allow people to get more out of their lives. She also argued that the other side had presented some bad things about the cure, but they did not outweigh the benefits and that they had not rebutted her side’s argument about healthcare costs.
Once Kinsley finished, Dakota returned to give the final arguments for side opp. She stated that the cure would be available in a society advanced enough to address its drawbacks and that it would prolong more lives than it would ruin.
To close the debate, Ameen returned to the podium to present the final remarks for the side prop, arguing that some of the people whose lives would be prolonged would not be good people. He wrapped up by restating one of the greatest points his side had made in the debate, reminding the audience that if humans had no impending death, they would not have a purpose for what they do in life.
After the debate had wrapped up, Dr. Ezell allowed some of the faculty members watching to give comments to the debaters on how they did. Then, he gave them some critiques. He said that side proposition did a great job setting up their arguments in the beginning and came out stronger, but side opposition did a better job giving definite and tangible consequences while also outweighing the scale of side proposition. Because of that, Dr. Ezell declared side opposition the winners.
Although the debate did not even take up the entire class period and was the students’ first debate of the semester, it went remarkably well, according to Dr. Ezell. I noticed this too, as almost everything that was brought up prompted a lot of pondering and truly got me thinking about the topic. I now hope that if you ever wonder whether immunity to aging could work for us humans, you know you can go to room 202 and ask Dr. Ezell and his students to share their ideas. From what I witnessed, they had some pretty good ones!
