Instigator / Pro
8
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2380

If scientists could create artificial but convincing memories for consumers for free, they should

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRJ_DuXP6IM&ab_channel=Krinku1

If any word is unclear, ask in comments first before accepting.

-->
@Barney

Thanks, Ragnar!

-->
@whiteflame

Removed by request (no points scored):
Whiteflame's RFD...

I'll keep this one short.

While I do think both sides put up a decent effort, each side has their problems in this debate. Pro starts off with three advantages, the last of which is basically just pre-rebuttal without any offensive substance. While that does hinder his case a bit, the bigger problem is that there is no specificity regarding how this artificial memories would work, and that allows Con to drag Pro down a rabbit hole. Pro, really all you had to do here was say that they make memories with all the various sensations associated, and that we should assume this is a science fiction version of our world with the tools to generate memories with all the associated facets (like all 5 senses). I got from the outset that that was where you should have been going, but since you didn't define it that way in your opening round and your responses were focused on single senses, you got lost on this one, and it made your second contention virtually disappear. So your only offense going into the final round was your first contention.

Con, I get how your strategy works, but I don't see you doing the requisite weighing analyses that could have made this an easy win for you. You include substantial discussion of how important it is to learn from our past pains, but it's pretty vague. It's unclear how I should weigh this against the possibility that people can manage past pains and move past them, and while you do mitigate that argument, it's hard to tell how well this weighs against that. Pro also had the opportunity to argue that this capability to craft artificial memories could further your cause, since not all memories have to paper over past events. He could even argue that introducing past trauma through memories can similarly help us to improve without the added risks of actually experiencing those traumas, a point that would have turned what I consider to be the main argument against his case.

Nonetheless, I do think the debate swings towards Con. Pro largely allows his argument to be directed by Con, and efforts to paper over past events with poor facsimiles are going to make it difficult for Pro to achieve any of his advantages. The ability to gain skills is effectively mitigated into oblivion by uncertainty, and the morality side is challenged pretty harshly with the reality that, unlike just forgetting a memory, someone is imposing this loss on you. I'm not clear that doctors/scientists have an absolute adherence to truth as part of their doctrine, but Pro doesn't provide adequate responses to show that this isn't the case, so Con is winning on this point as well. Much as it is unclear just how much Con is garnering from his side of the debate, Pro's benefits are obfuscated enough that I have more trouble nailing down what he actually gets. That nets Con the win.

-->
@seldiora

Huh, just realized I forgot to add points to the RFD when I cast it. Will try to get it removed and replaced, same text, though.

I think the best place to start for any sci-fi debate is to clearly establish what the differences are from the outset. Grounding your world gives you and your opponent concrete details to work with, and much as you don't need to prove that these things are possible as Oromagi said, you do at least have to establish what they are and state that they are, essentially, givens in this world. That gives you the ability to craft solid advantages, and it could be built around a game plot, but as the game probably leaves out many of these details, you'll have to fill in some gaps.

As for stressing the power of fulfilling dreams, I don't know if I would have gone that direction, largely because it's hard to impact those out. However, I think there are lots of ways you could insert memories to make peoples' lives better. Things like exposure therapy could be dramatically shortened and, for conditions like PTSD, made a lot more effective if you're careful about how you manage it. You also have to be aware that the tool can be used in extremely negative ways, so it's mainly a matter of assessing what that means. You could argue that people should be able to choose their memories, taking the libertarian ideal that what we would consider to be bad choices are theirs to make regardless. You could even argue that, in the same way that a doctor has a duty to those who are dying to provide them with a less painful option for death (which appears to run contrary to the "never do harm" principle), doctors have a duty to see to the psychological wellbeing of their patients. We do that with drugs all the time, often doing more harm in the process. Why is modifying their truth any worse?

-->
@whiteflame

Do you think it would’ve helped to stress the power of the dreams fulfilled? I guess my side is really hard to craft solid advantages for because it’s just a game plot

Morty: I-I'm just trying to figure out why you would do this. Why anyone would do this.
Pickle Rick: The reason anyone would do this is, if they could, which they can't, would be because they could, which they can't.

-->
@Barney

hey man you wanna try voting?

1 week left to vote. bumpin

Read through it. Going to need to chew over this a bit, probably will read through it again to come to a decision, might not happen til the weekend.

-->
@seldiora

R3 SOURCES

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm#:~:text=There%20are%20several%20reasons%20why,the%20truth%20and%20minimize%20error.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/02/overprescribed-americas-other-drug-problem/#:~:text=More%20than%20one%2Dquarter%20of,and%20nearly%20150%2C000%20premature%20deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Impact_of_colonialism_and_colonisation
https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/those-who-cannot-remember-past-are-condemned-repeat-it-george-santayana-life-reason-1905

-->
@seldiora

R2 SOURCES:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631672/
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faithful
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

-->
@seldiora

Sure, I’ll give it a read and a vote.

-->
@whiteflame

since we debated a variation of this, I think you're most qualified to vote. Take a look when you have time please?

-->
@seldiora

"to be fair, GTA doesn't paint murder in an incredible powerful idea that evokes back to feelings of love, of regret."
I guess you haven't played Grand Theft Auto, then

-->
@oromagi

to be fair, GTA doesn't paint murder in an incredible powerful idea that evokes back to feelings of love, of regret.

"have you played To the Moon? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to disagree with the idea"
Have you played Grand Theft Auto? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to object to murder

-->
@seldiora

R1 SOURCES:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/scientist
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/artificial
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/for_free
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Moon

-->
@oromagi

have you played To the Moon? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to disagree with the idea. That beings said, there are two ways I can see you winning this:

1) You agree with To the Moon's precise philosophy, that no one other than near death individuals deserve this technology
2) You disagree with To the Moon's fantastically made story as Johnny could be one outlier out of all the people they serve