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.
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?