Instigator / Pro
2
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2276

If erasing memory about a person was possible, on balance, it would cause more harm than 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
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

Assume that erasing memories causes no brain damage.

Read the title carefully, it is erasing memories about a specific person, not object, not place, etc.

-->
@whiteflame

You're welcome. I couldn't let it time out with no votes.

-->
@SirAnonymous

Thank you for voting!

-->
@Barney

I appreciate that you're still willing to vote, but if you have a lot going on, don't worry too much about it. Life's more important.

-->
@whiteflame
@seldiora

I'm too tired from personal life drama right now. Please remind me to vote in a few days if this remains unvoted.

-->
@Barney

I am surprised you haven't voted, this seems an easy vote for con. I only provided pure logical arguments and supposition (treating this like I can I BB) while Whiteflame treated this as a formal debate through and through

-->
@seldiora

You can use an excess amount of sources in the third round so you can pull back the votes. Don't give up unless you absolutely needs to.

guess I just have to defeat your arguments in a ratio of at least 3:2 votes lol, that's difficult

-->
@seldiora

I mean, we could, but without putting it in the rules it would be largely up to the judges to decide regardless.

-->
@whiteflame

sorry for not using sources, I kind of meant this to be a 7 point mostly logic-based argument. Is it fine if we ask voters not to vote on sources? I don't want to lose just due to having no sources. I like relying on logic

-->
@seldiora

I won't slam you with statistics, but I am going to have a good deal of support for my arguments. I imagine we'll agree on these points, so it shouldn't be too intensive to research.

-->
@whiteflame

also I'd appreciate it if you try not to use too much statistics about PTSD if you can. I don't want this to turn into an "Exact number of people affected" debate that depends on level 9,000 research lol

-->
@TNBinc

He didn't say "erase all memory". He probably meant erasing this person's memory so he can still talk but wouldn't know who that person is.

Either way, economical, ethical, and medical problems probably bars this from being a common activity.

-->
@whiteflame
@seldiora

Erasing memory also means erasing the skills of speech. Whoever the test subject is, they will literally go back to being a baby.

-->
@seldiora

Looking forward to debating this!

-->
@whiteflame

done.

-->
@seldiora

Ooh, an Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind debate! I’m all about this. I have to ask though: could we change it to “If erasing memory about a person was possible, on balance, it would cause more harm than good”? The way it’s phrased now sounds like I would have to defend a majority of the population doing this rather than the need for its usage in general.