If it was possible to revive your most loved one, you should do it
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
assume that everyone is able to revive their most loved one. If they have many they love equally, they can choose only one.
They are revived healthy in their physical prime.
- If my GF died 6 years ago and until now there is no way to revive her, is she 36 or is she 30?
- What happens to the social security number and any credentials? Do they get reset or do they stay the same?
- How are legal parameters defined? Do they classify as dead still or do they get unclassified as dead?
- Suppose my GF reached physical prime in 20 years old while someone else's achieved physical prime in 36, even if they are born on the same exact day, why is that mine is 16 years younger than his? Even if it is viable, the parameters here are poorly defined and it just doesn't work.
As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so one who goes down to the grave does not return. Job 7:9
ConservativesWhy is religion so important? Some even argue bible doesn't support capitalism, corporations (greedy), homosexual marriage, and countless political laws. If you don't want to do it, you shouldn't be forced to, but overall you should do it if you're not sure overall. (this is similar to, even if you aren't homosexual, you could still support homosexual marriage, despite it being a minority) My benefits have proven this.
OverpopulationYour conservative argument contradicts this one. Have you not heard that recently, giving birth is more and more rare as the population begins to stabilize? (https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-a-32-year-low-in-2018-cdc-says-birthrate-is-at-record-level#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20birthrate%20fell%20again,seen%20so%20few%20babies%20born. speaks of how US birth rates are the lowest within 32 years already!) People understand the consequences, they surely wouldn't be rash and have everyone revive another person.
InequalityWhat are you talking about? Why would corporations go bankrupt? Alright, in I can I BB this was simply just a button that could easily revive people at no cost. I apologize for not taking the same precise topic. But if it was actually costly that would ensure only the most incredible influential people got revived, such as Einstein or Steve Jobs. The contribution they can give back to society outweighs any costs. Plus, this is incredibly vague on pro's side; consider that we can already bring back some people near death using CPR and electric medical uh... whatever it's called. Consider how low costly that is, and apply it to this science fiction. It's not too much of a stretch to think it could also be cheaply costing, especially since I can I BB proposed it to be done for free at anyone's convenience and not involve any corporations.
In the end, I feel like religion is a very nitty gritty argument, especially since the scientific thought and truth of the time was that people could only go dead and could not be brought back. But new technology comes again and again.
Remember how con in I can I BB original incredible strong argument argues that you still live on in other's heart even while dead, would this not contradict the idea that one who goes down the grave cannot "come back"? As such, we should still save people, otherwise, even "remember them in your heart" could be interpreted them as keeping them in your memory instead of letting their "soul" stay in their grave. And who wouldn't want to remember their loved ones?
Con continuously says that millions of people extra would be a huge problem, however, he has provided no support for this. There is plenty of resources and finance for everyone on the planet, and more. He must initially prove that adding more people would be a conundrum, only then can he assert this idea.
Consider that you would only revive someone if you felt like you could take care of them and supply enough food for them. As such, the overpopulation would not be a problem as they themselves could produce the food or work for it in one way or another.
Accepting con's argument is like saying we should not keep giving birth as within a few decades there will be millions of extra people. Just what is the difference?