Moral Dilemma: Kill One Tribe's Persons vs Kill Tribe Leaders
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I recently had a dream where I struggled over a moral dilemma.
You could kill an entire tribe's persons, except the leader, or you could kill the two leaders of two tribes. It's suggested that there will be unpredictable chaos and problems when the leaders die, because they are the only ones capable of leading the tribes well.
In the dream, I argued that both choices are equal (because killing the people means I am treating them as a means to an end, and saying some people are worth more than other people), but here I'm making a stand that you should kill an entire tribe's persons, rather than killing the two leaders.
Burden of proof is shared.
Argument - Concession - Con
Sources - Neither bother with sources - Tie
S & G - Neither appears under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - Tie
Conduct - A player offering a concession is very honest and gracious and deserves sometype of acknowledgement - Pro
Concession.
The set-up of this debate is confusing due to the lack of a declaration which argument is Pro's [the instigator], and, therefore, which is Con's. Con's first round argues this very point, whereas pro's first round is a vague as the Description. Pro's only valid argument is that, yes, the two distinctions, killing one tribe, or killing the leaders of two tribes, is laid out, but the conditions for cause of the dilemma, who does the killing, and which option is morally superior, let alone which optin either participant is to take, are all questions never answered by Pro. poor set up.
Argument: Pro effectively offers no argument other than from what is gathered from the Description and pro's R1: questions and no answers, let alone true argument. Con, by contrast, offers a perspective on all questions with arguments. Con wins the points.''
Sourcing: Neither participant offers sourcing, but the greater infraction is Pro's for never offering a positional statement; which participant shold take which side of the debate. Therefore, Con is left without a clear side by which to offer sources for arguments. Con wins the points by default.
Legibility. pro loses this point be having nothing but nebulous questions - effectively lack of legibility, of the Instigator side of the debate. Point to Con.
Conduct: By concession and forfeit, Pro loses. point to Con.
Pro conceded and forfeited. Pro had no arguments. A W for Con.
You're welcome
Thank you for the votes.
he conceded, btw.
Having just committed to reading the arguments and voting, I then read the Description, but no arguments, yet. Just by the description, I'm already concerned that a serious issue is enjoined with just two options and both concern doing some killing, allegedly to solve a problem; a problem that is not even defined, to wit, why do either the tribes' people or the tribal leaders need to be killed? I'm hoping that will come out in arguments.
There's plenty of time left, thank goodness. I commit to reading and voting.
This debate was conceded and may interest you to read.
This is Rated and conceded, I would highly appreciate a vote if possible.
Does the tribe's leader get counted in the tribe's people? A president is a citizen after all. I'd rather kill Joe Biden then 330 million Americans. I'm sure the tribe's leader has a 2nd in command that can fill the role.
Should?
More moral, or more effective? Is your goal to harm as little as possible or as much as possible?
Well that makes it not really a moral dilemma then if "magically make everyone get along" is an option
dream world logic
Could you elaborate a little more? Like why are these the only two options?
Itachi, Danzō and the third Hokage agreed with you, that's for sure.
Interested?