Instigator / Pro
8
1436
rating
22
debates
38.64%
won
Topic
#2121

RESOLVED: If You Could Time Travel, then Time Traveling to the Past is an Awful Proposition

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

R1: Opening
R2: Rebuttal
Definitions and BoP will be provided in the first round.

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:

This VOTER enjoys the topic of time travel and thanks PRO for instigating on the subject, however I think the formulation of this particular thesis doomed PRO's prospects from the start. PRO's made a gigantic claim- that time travel to the past can only always be a bad idea - knowing that no real evidence could be brought to support that big claim. By setting the standard that all time travel can only be awful PRO gives up a huge amount of grown to CON. All CON has to do is show that maybe time travel might be some improvement on awful.
PRO weakens his case further by bringing up the subject of benefits but then rapidly dismissing the many obvious potential benefits which are the subject of countless sci-fi stories. PRO starts by saying "you couldn't do anything good" but then raises educational benefits and resource harvesting in contradiction to that claim. I think PRO could have made a strong argument from these elements by starting with the perils of paradox and then moving on to the ethics of taking such a risk at the possible expense of the present timeline. The argument was implied but an explicit case against world-ending technology might have been a viable approach.

As is, CON only had to establish the benefit fantasized by fiction forever- thedo-over. Just think of all the popular movies about getting a shot at correcting some big mistake- A Christmas Carol, It's a Wonderful Life, Back to the Future, Groundhog Day, Terminator, Edge of Tomorrow we humans clearly crave this potential and fantasize about it often. CON easily hands us one great reward and successfully argues that the potential risk scenarios are both various and indeterminable.

I was disappointed by the shortness of the debate and the depletion of energy on both sides for the second round- mostly just re-iteration on both sides. Perhaps PRO already understood how little ground he gave himself to argue.

Arguments to CON. All the rest about equal

I'd recommend to PRO to use highlighting as well italics to show the opponent's prior arguments although if he'd done so in this case, the brevity of PRO's rebuttals might have been emphasized to some unflattering effect.

I hope there will be more debates on the subject of time travel. Thanks to both debaters for their engagement with that subject.

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:

Time travel debates would be better served by stipulating which theory of time travel is under discussion. Of course for such hypotheticals as this, the multiverse need not be proven any more than time travel itself. Further if con must prove that it would be outright good instead of merely not awful, such needs to be pre-agreed. As things stand, con very much went for mitigation, which allowed him to attain his lesser BoP.

Pro offered some concerns, which were valid (I would have liked a little evidence to support the evil countries one; even a clip of when it happened on South Park). However, they were not assured to be the case, and the counter case showed that sought benefits are not undermined by them (nor are they undermined by the majority of the theories, save for the /it already happened anyway/ one).

The death penalty issue con raised was of a particularly good note. That greed might dominate it, does not dismiss the benefit in even a few less innocent people being behind bars (even if it would only be the very rich who could somehow use this to clear their names).

I further find some of the paradoxes to defeat the built in assumption of the debate that time travel is possible.

Anyway, an enjoyable read, which I would have liked to see go on longer. If doing a rematch, I really do suggest picking which theory of time travel ahead of time.