If it was possible to revive your most loved one, you should do it
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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?
Frankly, you were so close to winning arguments that if you had put a bit more effort into the R3 that would've done it. Keep that in mind for future debates
PRO points out an intrinsic value in human life and the utility of having the once deceased contribute to society once more. Then, PRO says that "moving on" will be a problem society will no longer face as PRO is creating a society in which death is no longer a reality. I would have liked PRO to explicitly state "A PRO world is an immortal society" but as a voter I am left with the knowledge either way. One thing I did like was the tie-in to utilitarian ethics at the end. While Seldiora has a bad habit of bringing this point up at irrelevant times, this time it complimented his case well.
CON points out bureaucratic hurdles. CON says that many will find such tech appalling... A middle finger to God, one might say. Why is this a bad thing? CON never really says. CON points out inherent problems with overpopulation... Once again the problem here is that CON never impacts out what exactly overpopulation would DO. As a voter, even though I recognize the strength in the overpopulation argument, I am left with no way to weigh it against the PRO case. CON's last point about inequality falls a bit flat for me. As a voter I am told at the beginning of the debate that the "revival tech" is just the push of a magic button. I don't really see how CON made the connection between that and a corporation charging for its use.
PRO counters the bureaucratic hurdles argument and it is dropped from both side hereafter. PRO responds to the unpopular point by saying there is no harm in people choosing not to use the tech, but that it should be available because of its utility. Both of these responses work. However, PRO's response to overpopulation falls flat. His response to PRO's inequality point starts off strong: "What are you talking about? Why would corporations go bankrupt?" But then he accepts CON's framing of "the button will have a cost" and the rest gets weaker.
CON's response PRO on the unpopular argument doesn't do the greatest job here. Why is "violating religion" bad? I am given no real impacts to people dissenting from using this tech. CON wisely points out that "knowing" does not prevent people from selfishly reviving their relatives/friends. CON misinterprets PRO's response to the inequality point. I'm still seeing no evidence that any corporation or exchange of value is involved.
PRO has a weak R3. The first paragraph is nothing weighable, and the second simply addresses the overpopulation argument and nothing else. That said, his response does capture the essence of my problem with the overpopulation argument from PRO: "why is this a problem? I know there is a problem, but you're not telling me what it is"
CON tries to employ BoP but fails here, "his only justification is that I am wrong" isn't true to any observer, and with the right voter a statement like this would lose CON some credibility. CON gives several new arguments final round, something that is bad conduct as PRO can not respond to them (and yes, new impacts count as new arguments too. If it were new evidence to back up previous arguments/impacts that would be acceptable, but alas this is not the case). CON has had plenty of debate experience, I am genuinely surprised they would pull something like this. I am awarding conduct to PRO.
That said, their responses to the overpopulation refutation have merit, especially "Sadly, people have no such conscience." and "Suppose the earth can support two times the population now, which can be explained, and then the people who are brought back would obviously use it too, which would triple the population. and then quadruple, etc. Eventually, the world will be too crowded."
CON barely edges out PRO in arguments due to a weak R3 from PRO and a strong finish from CON, despite the new arguments at the end and a weak start. As a voter, at the end of this debate I'm only left with "immortal society with an impact of higher productivity and happiness" weighed against "exponential increase in population that will eventually overcrowd the world with no clear impact, but you can assume it's bad." While I hate to weigh the overpopulation argument for CON, the argument of exponential increase means that whatever the impact IS, it will continue to get worse and worse. Conduct goes to PRO for aforementioned reasons.