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.
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.