The user known as Wylted should commit suicide.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
This debate is about whether I should kill myself. I am pro, that I should kill myself, my opponent is against me doing so. I ask that voting is fair and based on who argued better. There is a temptation that because I am arguing in favor of killing myself, that voting against me will encourage me not to. I assure you, that you have no influence on my decision. Just vote fair. I'm also requesting that my opponent has an IQ of 120 or above (as officially tested) not by online tests pandering to you in an attempt to get you to buy your "full results".
I am a Bad Person
THE FACT YOU ARE SO HARD ON YOURSELF IS YOUR EXCELLENCE. You can only use today, you can only change your reputation by tomorrow. Killing yourself won't let you be the brother-dad to your siblings you could be had you lived. Fuck off with your excuses and hate yourself the right way. Change and be the best Wylted you can.
I don't know if he should die or not and it's easy to come up with weird arguments to support that or deny it but when it comes to if he should kill himself I find far more ways to win and I hope you, the reader, consider that I am not his therapist and that you and I together need to help Wylted in such a way that he genuinely wants to only die by the hands of fate itself or some other way, not by suicide.
Generally a life insurance policy will not pay out if the policyholder commits suicide in the first 12 months of the policy but it will pay out after that. This is so insurers can guard against clients insuring themselves to the hilt, then taking their lives to get their family out of financial difficulties.However, in some cases suicide claims are turned down because there has been non-disclosure about the mental health of the insured and whether they have been receiving medical or psychiatric treatment.
Outside of poker, GTO is usually introduced with the “prisoner’s dilemma.” In this hypothetical situation, the two of us are arrested for jointly committing a crime. If neither of us talks, we both get off with light sentences. However, if one of us snitches on the other, the snitch will get off with no punishment at all, while the person who doesn’t talk gets a harsh sentence. If we both snitch, we both get a harsh sentence, since each person’s testimony can be used against the other.Even though we would be best off with the first scenario (nobody talks), each individual is better off from collaborating with the authorities, regardless of what the other does (if I don’t snitch, you should snitch to get off free, and if I do snitch, you should definitely snitch as well). In an environment where players are rewarded for taking advantage of each other, it may not be worth acting cooperatively, even if all sides would be better off by doing so.
What will your family think about you if they think you were murdered? What will they think about you if they assume you had a fatal accident? What good will your money do them compared to what you could do them if you could not only share with them but be physically there for them, giving them advice, actively helping them through equal or worse shit than what you're going through right now?
So, while he can argue that completely decimating his well-being to the point where he's as impoverished as those he argues deserve help (so he's being hypocritical by neglecting and abusing himself to the level of making him that which deserves help)
- Let it get worse and worse until you snap and kill yourself (or get yourself killed by negligence).
- Do anything and everything (including the thinking itself to work out what the anything and everything is) to better the circumstances and after doing it enough to enough circumstances, finally solving the dilemma with the situation.
- He's truly evil/corrupt and yet knows it, comes here preaches it and begs for someone to talk him out of his agonising guilt-ridden state of mind that's lost all hope of a happy ending.
- He's absolutely going to make his family better off and do all the 'wrong' he did raising them as a drug-addicted sloth or whatever he was to his siblings that he adopted/fostered, by killing himself and faking it sufficiently to look like an accident and/or murder so that the life insurance pays out and his family (who are going to not know what the hell he did for them) are going to then go through grief, have just as shit memories of him as before and not remotely help any starving kids out there with the money unless they do that and then the entire point of him killing himself in that way or for that reason is negated.
- He should make himself become as poor and suffering as possible and drain himself of every cent because people who are in that exact state of living and being are the ones he absolutely deserves to commit suicide for not having helped.
- Anything I say that is purely rational, he ignores as not mattering to his urge to commit suicide.
- Anything that isn't purely rational, he says is irrational and therefore ignores the emotional and subjective aspects of suicide and the meaning(s)/purpose(s) of life.
- Every time I turn his own logic against itself to rebuke his points, whether it's living to give to the poor in and of itself until he's so poor he can't even afford food anymore or killing himself to help his family, I can keep again and again disproving what is raised and yet he will say 'but here's new reasons to kill myself and I want to do it anyway no matter what you say.'
You can only use today, you can only change your reputation by tomorrow. Killing yourself won't let you be the brother-dad to your siblings you could be had you lived. Fuck off with your excuses and hate yourself the right way. Change and be the best Wylted you can.
Wylted should not kill himself because, as I explain at the end of the previous Round, the scenarios where he commits suicide are all suboptimal. He loses, the others lose and the gain even if it is there is nowhere near to how much his siblings, friends, poor people he may meet and assist in life could benefit from his presence, effort and capacity to do things (even just physically do things, help a woman with severe arthritis cook dinner so she doesn't eat shitty food or have to cook on her knees that have eroded the cartilage and constantly have friction burns the more she moves). There's so fucking much to be doing with his life to do good and work his way up form the karmic debt he owes and whatever else he is saying he hates having the burden of but instead he argues he should be just as pathetic and evil as ever and say adios, helping no one on the long term or at least 'barely anyone'.
This debate has went off topic a few times by myself due to the relaxed nature of it, but it has remained almost entirely off topic on con’s side, because he either misunderstands the resolution or thinks he can win by making it seem like he is talking me down from the edge of a building.
Resolution- “The User Known as Wylted Should Commit Suicide”
You do this by weighing the impact of each argument, on it’s own merit and seeing which arguments would have a bigger and better impact on the world. Before we go into my impacts, I want you to notice a poor rhetorical strategy my opponent has used, that you should not fall for. Con says.
“ Wylted should not kill himself because, as I explain at the end of the previous Round, the scenarios where he commits suicide are all suboptimal”
The truth is he hasn’t shown that. He has merely insinuated that it is suboptimal because of a hidden premise that human life is special in some way, but since he has not shown the premise or argued for it, his presuppositions should be dismissed.
Con’s whole argument boils down to. “If pro doesn’t kill himself, he can be a better person and improve his life, he can be a better father or sibling”. All of which misses the point that the world would be better off without me in it. It also fails to address whether I should kill myself or not, it only says life gets better. Maybe I can start to live a healthy life and become a better person, it doesn’t mean the world wouldn’t benefit more from my death.
This is beside the point, and irrelevent to the impact analysis that should be done on the debate, but I would like my opponent to answer the following question. What happens if I improve in the areas you think I can improve in? I’ve succeeded in lots of areas, it doesn’t mean I’m happy with those areas. I play pool, I can beat my opponent pretty badly and I will still beat myself up about the result because I played imperfectly. I have came to this recent store to improve it, and in a few weaks, I have helped them reduce food waist, lower labor costs and dropped their average drive-through time in half. I still beat myself up because the numbers could be better. It actually seems like con is advocating for me to be more of a perfectionist. He advocates for me doing more. I’m not sure he realizes the danger of advocating for somebody who is prone to putting in 100 hour work weeks and, going days without sleeping... to do more. The black and white all or nothing thinking and perfectionism I clearly displayed here should have been red flags to not advocate for “doing more”.
Impacts- Round 2 I tell you this: “Rational madman has dropped my arguments that my family would be better off without me. ... He has stated I could turn things around, but even if improve my presence still might not have benefits as much as somebody who is already better than me. My existence probably denies my fiance and son the opportunity to have me replaced by somebody better. “
He hasn’t offered a rebuttal for this point. I mention how I could literally save the world from global warming in the following statement “just by existing I leave a carbon footprint that slowly is killing the world. If I killed myself, I could put a dent in stopping global warming. If my death could be done in a way that inspires the suicide of others, than I may make a huge dent in global warming. Suicides inspiring others to kill themselves have been known to happen”
Con drops this argument. The only argument I made that con has addressed is the one where I say I am a monster, and really his advice to stop being one is just a mitigating argument.
Conclusion: It is unusual for RM to argue quite this poorly, but he has. Maybe from focusing more on rhetoric and appeals to emotion than the substance of a debate. That’s not the judges problem, nor should you be taken in by his strategy. You should list the reasons why I should and shouldn’t kill myself and then vote on which reasons have a better impact on the world.
I think 10,000 characters would have been better. I didn't realize I would only have just enough room to bitch about my life and not even in depth.
I'm just fucking with you. I'm sure you meet the IQ requirements. You are smart. Unstable, but smart.
If you're really gonna play that dirty, you may well win. That would show everyone how low your IQ and capability are as a debater but you'd likely enjoy the win and rating boost. Try it and see where I take that debate.
Pros argument in the first round is that he is a terrible person, and it would be better for everyone else if he goes.
Cons response, is pretty clear: and is effectively that this may have been true up to now, but is not necessarily true: pro could be better and do better.
I felt this fully decided pros initial point.
The next round, pro focuses on his specific effects: his carbon footprint being a net negative, his fiancé not being able to replace him while he is alive, and that he isn’t helping starving children in Africa.
Con points out that pro is ignoring the positive impact of his life, and not providing an argument as to why one outweighs the other. While that is a good argument, as pro offered additional specific examples, I felt that con needed to give answers in return. But as he attacks the form of pros premise: that he is unfairly weighting life and not life - I can’t give pro the win on this round, and must score it a draw.
Con 2: 1
Round 3. Pro doesn’t seem to offer any additional argument or justification for the contention. He focuses on talking about himself, and poor decisions, and impact: but fails to explain why these events and actions necessitate or warrant him killing himself.
Con, having spent time being Pros counseller, despite saying not he wasn’t continues in this vein: despite pro making clear he is arguing whether he should, rather than whether he wanted to. However, after 90% of the round, he drops the killer argument again: this time phrasing it much better. The scenarios where suicide occurs are suboptimal as pro is measuring value based on past actions, not potential. That is a killer argument and wins this round.
Pro again continues to throw the same argument out - that he’s done bad things without justifying the debate contention. Indeed it’s not clear how most of this fourth round is relevant to the debate topic at hand, and is more self-flaggelation for no debate purpose.
Con reiterates his position of suboptimality.
From this point on pro offers no new arguments and so con wins on arguments.
Conduct to con: this is a shitty troll topic, and the very debate contention denigrates this whole website, and is a childish attempt at attention. It shouldn’t even be up here - the very nature of this debate existing and the topic is so troll like that it warrants conduct loss to pro for posting it in the first place.
In his opening arguments, Pro takes a two pronged approach to building his argument. On the one hand, he argues that he is a bad person, citing his job in fast food as making people fat, a vehicular accident in which a thief was killed, the poor upbringing of himself and his siblings, and his estranged son. The second prong of his opening argument is the hypothetical benefits of dying, on which he mainly focuses on him being unable to cause anymore harm and the possibility that his fiance may receive an insurance pay-out as a result of his death if he is able to fake a murder or accident.
Con made a rebuttal of several of these points. In a generic response to all points, Con insists that the negative events experienced by Pro have made him a better person. In specific response to the fast food point, Con asserts that Pro's job is still better than an illegal job such as drug dealing, and provides a positive economic benefit to society. Most prominently however, Con emphasizes that Pro being hard on himself is a way in which he can excel and be a better person in the future.
Pro's round 2 rebuttal starts by asserting that Pro didn't give him any reason to stay alive and "dropped" the point about the wellness of his family. Pro infers that his family would be better if he were "replaced" by someone better, and again suggests killing himself for the insurance money. He cites a website about saving starving children and claims to be responsible for their death by not sending all his money to them. Then he cites an article about copycat suicides and suggests that he could fight global warming by convincing other people to kill themselves too. Pro seems not to notice the obvious contradiction here that you can't both fake an accidental death for insurance money and inspire copycat suicides at the same time.
Con's next rebuttal directly targets the insurance issue, citing an article which highlights the safeguards used by insurance companies to prevent exactly the type of scheme Pro has suggested. Con also cites one of Pro's own comments from outside the debate, paired with an article on poker strategy, to build an argument that killing oneself is a poorer strategy than attempting to live as a better person.
Next round, Pro again claims some of his points were dropped, although this seems to be mainly due to the very small character limit which strictly limits how much can actually be said each round. Pro's main argument during this round is to argue that he is such a failure in life that he can't help anyone else, because his own advice has gotten him nothing but bad results, so it would get other people bad results as well.
Con's next rebuttal focuses on the contradictory nature of some of Pro's arguments, pointing out that he can't both be angry at himself over not being successful enough, supposedly doing too much harm to the world through his gainful employment and want to give away all his money (of which, he supposedly has little) to save starving children all at the same time, then somehow conclude that being dead and solving none of these problems would be any better than the current scenario. Con again asserts that Can cannot solve the stated problems by killing himself and would be more effective by staying alive and actually addressing the problems.
Round 4 opens with Pro insisting that he won the debate already. Huh? Pro then proceeds to tell the story of how he worked two jobs when he was 16 to provide for his siblings, which appears to contradict the earlier version of events he gave in the first round where he claimed to have ruined their lives with his bad example. Many of Pro's other statements during this round also seem contradictory of points raised elsewhere. Pro also describes his state of hyper-awareness and the manner in which he always has a plan to kill people around him. In a military context, this would actually be a positive benefit, not a particularly good reason to kill yourself, again contradicting much of his own argument.
Pro says one very important thing in this round;
"I don't care about winning this debate. I care about working through a math problem. The problem of whether society is better off with me dead or alive."
This statement really clenched the outcome of the debate for me.
If this really is a "math problem" for Pro, then the burden of proof shifts to him to prove that he could actually make the world a better place by dying, and he failed to do that. You can't make the world better by killing the general manager of a fast food restaurant, because that job will just be filled by someone else. You can't feed starving children by dying. You can't erase past events with a corpse. Although Pro gives a lot of reasons why his life is bad, none of them can be fixed by dying. His insurance scheme was rebutted effectively by Con, while his "global warming" take was never hashed out enough to be taken seriously.