Instigator / Con
21
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#587

One who is alive today should Kill Baby Hitler if they got the chance. (You are Pro)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
9
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con presents better ethics and slightly better logic as to why babies shouldn't be killed
pros presentation of timelines would make the planet and thus life in general less sustainable should it be considered and negates the point of killing hitler in the first place
the potential of computers and technology that pro uses cannot negate the potential destruction mentioned by con

Due to forfeiting pro losses on conduct.
i leave con's sources aside in vote because it discusses debate construction, though interesting.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

Con makes a series of points of why you shouldn’t kill baby hitler. These are broadly.

- Potential Paradox.
- Butterfly effect of Changes making the world worse.
- You should not kill babies.

Pro doesn’t really address the first other than to say paradox would create multiple timelines. While I don’t think this is true - neither side really contest this (Pro could have gone for the classical approach in that paradoxes are not possible).

The second, pro relies on really a counter claim: that it won’t necessarily cause issues, and this timeline maybe doomed. As we don’t know, cons argument that there may be severely negative consequences is a good enough reason in my view to not kill hitler - just in case. While some of what pro mentions relating to computers and some advances are true: but the wider unknown sense - Con makes a compelling case.

The final point was not really engaged by pro.

Importantly, pros only defence of paradoxes is proposing multiple timelines - and it is pointed out by con that if this was the case then you shouldn’t kill hitler in that timeline as he may not be the same person if multiple timelines with different outcomes are possible.

Pros argument here is pointed out to be a concession: that if nothing has true meaning there is no need, or motivation to kill hitler in the first place.

Pro dug himself a hole, and makes me draw a conclusion on this debate, as to whether there can be any motivation or reason for any individual to kill baby hitler in a universe where nothing matters. Obviously not: so I side with con.

While pro concedes the resolution, even discounting this, cons first and second point were stronger and better argued and would still have won.

Arguments to con.

Conduct to con due to pros forfeit and no forfeit from con

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I enjoyed the time travel paradox discussions. Also I strangely liked con's opening lesson on debate logic, and hope he maintains it going forward.

Arguments: Both from ethics and logic, far greater reason to not kill some baby were provided.
Conduct: Forfeited round vs no forfeited rounds.
S&G: I wish I could give this to con for the organization and presentation.

Debate Highlights:
Nature of time travel and determinism from con, were barely even noted by pro. I think pro's main counter to this was trying to claim we might have doomed the current planet? Were that true, it implies strong odds that we already destroyed our planet in diverging timelines were more people lived.

Computers… we can call both sides assertions, but it's common knowledge than Alan Turing is the father of the modern computer. No war, no Turing Machine; no Turing Machine, no modern computer. A source to disprove this, would have given me some deep thoughts; and maybe won the source point (more likely it would have been the start to winning that, but maybe three thought provoking sources would have done it).

I am unclear why weakening the Rothschilds was a good thing. Con forgot Poe’s Law when sarcastically agreeing that weakening them was a good thing (at least I hope that’s what it was?).

Pro’s attempted K of the topic, fell flat to me. Con had pre-refuted it with a good ought. So if probably nothing really matters, why not attempt something good instead murdering babies at random in the name of nihilism? … Pro followed up with a chicken/egg riddle, in a bad attempt to shift the goalpost. To be clear, the resolution was that we should kill him, con’s side was not automatically that we should prevent his assassination. (I hate disregard for debate resolutions)

...

Educational supplement:
In case pro thinks there is no other way he could have argued this... A better argument pro could have made, was the sheer value in knowledge to be gained about time travel by killing B.H.. This debate pre-supposes that it is in some sense possible to kill the target. If possible, why not kill and gather all knowledge of changes, and then un-kill? (obvious counter is that you could just take him to the future; I said a better argument than pro's, not a winning argument).