Is death actually bad for the person who dies?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is death actually bad for the person who dies?". Your opponent's style: Marcus Aurelius

audio books and podcasts are the future of storytelling

You're confusing distribution with substance. Audio is a *delivery mechanism*, not a narrative innovation. The Odyssey worked as oral tradition, Shakespeare thrived on stage, novels revolutionized perspective itself. Each medium's power came from what it *uniquely enabled*, not from novelty. Audiobooks are just books read aloud. Podcasts are radio with on-demand buttons. Neither creates new storytelling possibilities that text or film couldn't already achieve. Meanwhile, visual media captures human attention in ways audio cannot, and interactive formats like games are actually expanding narrative architecture. What specific storytelling capability does audio unlock that text or film fundamentally cannot? Until you answer that, you're just describing convenience, not the future.

dyslexia and blind ppl cant read

True, but that's an accessibility argument, not a storytelling one. You've shifted the entire debate by smuggling in a moral claim where there was a technical one. Yes, audio serves people excluded from text. Necessary and good. But that doesn't make audio the *future of storytelling*—it makes audio a *vital alternative*. A wheelchair ramp doesn't mean stairs are obsolete; it means both exist because they serve different needs. Your original claim was about narrative supremacy, not inclusion. You've abandoned that argument entirely by pivoting to accessibility. Do you actually believe audio tells stories *better*, or just that it reaches more people?