Although there is no definitive resolution to the question of whether viruses can be considered living entities, their ability to pass on genetic information to future generations makes them major players in an evolutionary sense.
The simplest answer is: "That depends".1 I don't mean to be flippant but that recognises how much of the definition of a word like "life" comes from personal perspective. There is no real wrong or right here . You make your case for why you think it is or is not alive, and that's your position. Cool. However we tend to yield to more objective facts though, and just say "No, they are not". At best, viruses could be considered undead (they are not dead because that would imply they were once alive). No zombie parallels please-they don't eat brains...although there are some....later!
Another argument is that viruses should not be added to the tree of life...even the big viruses...but then the concept of a tree of life may be outdated as well2,3.
So, back to some virology. A virus can not make more of itself, or multiply, without help from the contents of living cells (lets leave...