CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
6
Absolutely Absolutely Not
Debate Score:19
Arguments:13
Total Votes:19
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Absolutely (9)
 
 Absolutely Not (5)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(38402) pic



Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Just think about it for a second.

Absolutely

Side Score: 13
VS.

Absolutely Not

Side Score: 6

I thought about it and I agree.

Side: Absolutely
2 points

Again, good point.

Side: Absolutely
1 point

As human beings, we have to maintain our health. SO we have to eat healthy foods and drink water. Try to avoid pesticide foods and try to make a vegetable garden in your kitchen area. Be a healthy person. apartments in kochi

Side: Absolutely

You do that. Let me know how it turns out ;)

Side: Absolutely

Very well put. You're starting to sound like the talk on; is it night or just the absence of light. The darkness does not exist it is just an absence of something...ah ha, light

Side: Absolutely
1 point

That's true but it is a lot easier to enjoy life when you are healthy.

Side: Absolutely

That's because you haven't got to the part where they start giving you the good stuff ;)

Side: Absolutely
1 point

Yeah, we will die one day regardless of how strong/healthy we are.

Not even some gods in the lower realms of heavens can escape death .

Side: Absolutely
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

... wtf are you talking about?

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

Yes indeed it is true. It goes the same way with medicine

Side: Absolutely
1 point

I watched a special on science channel about why cells die... Most scientists don't think it's necessary. At some point people wont have to die anymore. Of course, I'll probably be dead ;)

Side: Absolutely not
1 point

The reason that death and aging exists is that genes that code in some way directly or indirectly for cells and consequently organisms to die after they have reproduced have not been "weeded out" of the gene pool so to speak because those genes are equally likely to be passed down to offspring as genes that do not code for death and aging.

In his book The Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins talks about how you could theoretically extend the average human lifespan by setting a minimum age at which people are allowed to give birth. Make it 40 for 10 years, then 50, then 60 et cetera. This would prevent people who had genes which coded for early aging and death from passing on their genes when they are younger and would subsequently extend the human lifespan. You could in theory carry on this practice indefinitely. Dawkins makes sure to point out, and I agree, that it would be a despicable practice and not one which he even remotely endorses- far from it. It still is interesting to analyze however. Dawkins continues on to theorize that if the genes that code for death and aging are triggered by age then they must have some way of discerning how old the organism is. He postulates that it must be linked to the concentrations of certain chemicals that while benign, an increase or decrease in the concentrations would turn on the "death" genes. If you could mimic the chemical concentration of a young organism in an old organism you could possibly prevent the genes from causing the organism to die.

Side: Absolutely not

The reason that ... aging exists is that genes ... code ... for cells and consequently organisms ... to die after they have reproduced

Well, this explains why I started getting gray hairs after I had kids ;)

Side: Absolutely