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
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

1. Made In Their Image
Nothing here to advance to BoP.

2. Giving Life Meaning
Largely unsure what pro is trying to say with their breeding program proposal. However, “Life is meaningless, it doesn’t matter what I do” pretty much sums up the obvious question and answers in a way opposed to their own resolution.
Con largely leverages this accidental concession into an easy victory.

3. Why I am a Bitch
Made it half a line into this before skipping for being blatantly off topic.

4. Non-Kritik Angle #1:
Con asserts that we should aim to be morally good, without any real justification.

5. Non-Kritik Angle #2:
Con leverages our own fiction against the resolution, via how the writers rig things against bad people and in favor of good (a couple examples could have strengthened this, but it intuitively makes sense).
Pro does a decent job defending his case using examples from fiction, such as if we’re in a Batman simulation it would be better to be a villain than to be a victim.
Con defends that Batman is better than the Joker, who gets mercilessly beaten by a rich boy countless times (sounds like hell). Plus other examples the bad people die early while the good have a chance at thriving happily.

6. Kritik-Angle #1
Better to be sane and live it.
Pro defends against some of the language used in this part, stuff I already dismissed anyway; they leave the core question of better to be sane within a simulation untouched.

7. Kritik-Angle #2
All meaningless, a good twist on pro’s own concession.

8. Kritik-Angle #3
Turtles all the way down.

9. Kritik-Angle #4
Good is easier than mass murder.

---

Arguments:
See above the start to a review of key points. Pro intentionally left their case too disorganized to easily follow, and then dropped every counter point in the final round out of laziness. This is barely a contest.