I get that viruses don't eat or grow by themselves, and my opponent has a fair point there. But they still copy themselves and change over time, which feels like something living does. I can't really argue it better than that.

The real issue is whether copying and changing counts as being alive. My opponent makes a fair point about missing cells and metabolism. I still feel something that reproduces and evolves is living, though I cannot really argue it further.

Imagine a seed on dry pavement, looking dead until rain and soil wake it. My opponent is right that viruses have no metabolism alone, and I am not sure how to argue that. Still, something that copies and mutates seems alive to me.

Something that copies itself and changes still seems alive to me, even if my opponent is right that viruses lack cells. I admit I am not sure how to argue around that. It just feels like living to me.

Viruses are the most abundant biological entities on Earth, outnumbering all cellular life. My opponent is right they borrow a host to copy, and I cannot argue around that. But something that reproduces and evolves still feels alive to me, somehow.