Instigator / Pro
4
1432
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Topic
#1741

Assuming We live in a simulation it is better to be significant than morally good

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
6,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

We must consider the fact that the universe is a simulation, and if it is a simulation, in my opinion it is better to have significant influence on society than it is to be a "good person". It would be better to be a serial killer who becomes famous than a person who regularly attends church, donates large amounts of money to charity and is loved by everyone around her.

similarly, it would be better if youwere a significant player in historical events such as Adolph Hitler than it would be that you were Jimmy Carter who will be barely mentioned in history books 50 years from now. Assuming a simulated environment, I think it would be more amusing to our creators to see us impact society on a large scale than to merely be a good person. Obviously ideally you would be significant and good on a grand scale and in an obvious way, but having to choose between significant only like Hitler or good like my grandmother who passed away and was loved by everyone around her, it would have been better to be Hitler

Anyway, I hope this is a fun debate for whoever accepts and the readers.

-->
@RationalMadman

Congrats on the win.

-->
@Christen

When awarding conduct only on a debate like this (not an FF or a concession), your vote should also include a statement of why you feel arguments were within the tied range. You can think of it a little bit like your own BoP, right now your vote only suggested you read one sentence of the debate...

Speaking of BoP: On most debates the instigator is at a BoP disadvantage, wherein if the cases come out neutral the contender wins.

Does the technical composition of the universe matter if the end result is the same?
After all, if you're a simulation then you know that simulations possess the authentic ability to feel pleasure or pain. So how's that different from a real, non-simulated world?

It'd be different if you knew that nothing beside you could feel pleasure or pain, because simulations could not feel these things and only you were real. But there's no way to know that.

-->
@blamonkey

Wrong. The reason you remove it is because he has to justify tying arguments, he can't just award conduct on its own.

-->
@Christen

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Christen // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con

>Reason for Decision: Pro got lazy and gave up on the thirs round. This is poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: Gonna be honest, this vote is fairly innocuous. Nonetheless, the Voting Policy explicates three criteria to award conduct points:
1.Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2.Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3.Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
An instance of poor conduct was identified, but the other two conditions are not met. I hate to do this, but the vote must be removed pursuant to the Voting Policy.

************************************************************************

I meant to say "third round" not "thirs round" in my vote.
My bad.

-->
@Barney

That is silly. Whether the universe is created by nature, God or computer programmers has no bearing on what if anything makes it meaningful, and it is not enough to say my premise is wrong. A bare assertion of "deep we should help old ladies carry their groceries " without a premise to support it other than a premise that restates the conclusion. Like "helping is good" is meaningless

-->
@Singularity

>> "con ignored my arguments"

Ignored by leveraging your own premise that life in a simulation would be meaningless?

>> "I dhould have been able to forfeit the last 2 rounds and still won"

That would be a full forfeit. Good luck with that.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@Singularity

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Ragnar] // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Reason for Mod Action: [The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
]
************************************************************************

-->
@Barney

con ignored my arguments and came forward with stupid ones that were irrelevent. My premises still stand. technically I did not even need a second round.

premise 1- only existence matter

Con doesn't attack this premise and merely reverts to societal programming "being good is what matters and I refuse to offer evidence of that"

premise 2. if we live in a simulated environment we are more likely to live longer by being significant than by being good

I gave several points to support this, most of which were ignored. the conclusion that we should be significant in said universe is derived from the principles. The judging on this site is retarded. I dhould have been able to forfeit the last 2 rounds and still won

-->
@sigmaphil

Thanks. Hope you enjoy

-->
@Singularity

What a wonderful idea for a debate! Looking forward to reading it as it progresses!

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm glad to know that. You had me worried when I saw you accept

-->
@Singularity

I promise you, this isn't like the diet debate. Expect a fight here, this is my niche.