Pressing a button that will make your life perfect
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 9,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
.You know.
- A perfect life is perfect
Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect[1]conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type[2]Complete and correct in every way, of the best possible type or without fault[3]Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless.[4]
- P1: A perfect world is defined as one that everything is desirable
- P2: A hypothetical device can modify this world as such within a single button press
- P3: It is common sense that anything desirable is to be achieved, and anything undesirable is to be avoided.
- C1: Pressing it would make your world ultimately desirable, which is good, and you would press it.
- No Scotsman ever jokes the Scottish with the British(As it is considered impolite by them[2])(NOT PROVEN YET).
- My brother, from Scotland, often jokes the Scottish with the British(Being bad at manners does not wipe your identity).
- He is not a true Scotsman.
- To be a law-abiding citizen, one mustn't break laws(TRUISM).
- Ted Kaczynski had broken laws[3].
- Ted Kaczynski is not a law-abiding citizen.
- The life the button creates brings utter perfectness of life(TRUE)
- Con mentions the non-perfectness of the life this button creates
- Thus, the scenario Con brings up represents not of a perfect life.
- Cars are bad for the environment.
- No! Bikes are good for the environment!
- (regardless of whatever fallacy) Bikes are not cars.
- I have illustrated why Con's case is not of the scope of this topic.
- Con did not sufficiently refute my R1 argument.
- My R1 argument still stands.
- P1: A perfect world is defined as one that everything is desirable
- P2: A hypothetical device can modify this world as such within a single button press
- P3: It is common sense that anything desirable is to be achieved, and anything undesirable is to be avoided.
- C1: Pressing it would make your world ultimately desirable, which is good, and you would press it.
- The life the button creates brings utter perfectness of life(supported by evidence that my opponent does not object)
- Con mentions the non-perfectness of the life this button creates
- Thus, the scenario Con brings up represents not of a perfect life.
- Con presents that pressing a button is too easy, but ignores that it is the most efficient method of achieving a perfect life, which is defined by the definitions. Con's point here fails as it points out to no flaws. The definitions state that life is flawless upon the press of this button.
- Con asks me to prove why everything desirable will be achieved. Simple definition: How it is defined. You don't go to a Chemistry lecture and ask how does the professor know he is teaching chemistry.
- If everyone presses the button, everyone will live in harmony, perfectly. As if one's convenience is another's inconvenience, this action would be prevented automatically at the beginning as it prevents another button-presser to live a perfect life. If everyone presses it, it will bring out a life that everyone likes, instead of a life that contradicts person-to-person as the button asks for a perfect lack of conflict and sorrow.
- Con dropped my argument about No True Scotsman as he only worries about something this button would not create. I thus extend my previous-round arguments.
- This button creates everything to be desirable. Since you want the things that are desirable, you would want to press this button, right? Common sense yes.
- I have proven that pressing the button will make your life better. It's really true.
- Con failed to use any sources whereas I have used sources to an extent to demonstrate definitions, logical fallacies, and structure.
PRO left himself wide open by assuming that perfection is inherently good. PRO never defined who got to press the button when so really the only consideration on the table is a kind of wish fulfillment with the question of who defines perfect (and so sets the limits), left unsaid.
Think of all the literature that warns against wishing. I like CON's point that one man's perfect is not another man's but CON needed to lock down PRO on definitions. Maybe perfection somehow balances every man's perfect. CON needed to take some time to establish that this one person's personal perfection, imposed on others.
The best counterargument might be that perfection precludes necessity and necessity is the mother of invention and invention drives all human history, human progress.
Give a caveman his perfect button and he'll get a fat rabbit for dinner every evening and a fat wife and child and never stalk the mammoth herd with stomach rumbling, never learn the advantage of tribes. Give every caveman a perfect button and history essentially stops at a relatively unimpressive version of perfect.
PRO kept things vague and CON made the mistake of living in PRO's vagueness. CON should have worked the resolution to some unethical or impractical effect and then shut down our assumptions that perfection is good.
Interesting topic. Both sides kept it pretty light but ARGs to PRO.
The key problem to pro's case, was he was largely arguing by repetition, missing key details that would have easily defended his case. He did of course challenge the opposing argument as a no true scotsman (technically I think it was a Normative Kritic).
The key problem to con's case, was that he accidently built a good case for pro. The hypothetical that you're starving in Africa but you'll feel unsatisfied years later if you get fed, still leads to the conclusion that it is best to push the button and deal with the minor consequences later.
I would say the con case was more of challenging the premise of perfection being attainable, or even worth it if not worked for, but failing to show a worse negative from pressing the button than from not (as a note, pro really should have pointed to the damage to your life of regret if you did not press it). If not for the extreme example of you'll die if you don't press it, I might have made this debate a tie.
For some reason this debate made me think of Futurama:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2cbu4x/futurama-suicide-booth
this is actually harder than the wording "customization", because at least in I can I BB you can choose and pick certain traits.
will it alter the decisions I've made in the past?