Baby Hitler
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Baby Hitler: To kill or not to kill? (I will take the position that we should not to kill baby Hitler)
Rule: I pass the first round. You pass the last round.
Maximus argues from a timeline perspective. If he is talking about time travel: If you go back and kill him you won't be born therefore no one will be there to go back to kill him therefore you get born and grow up to go back and kill him and so on... Boring paradox. Solution: Don't kill.
But then kobayashi argues from a moral standpoint. And he is right. You would spare a lot of suffering.
But that would mess with the timeline so i cannot in my full consciousness agree with kobayashi because i am a fundamentalist. Even in a hypothetical scenario because traveling back in time is not possible.
However....... Let's not pretend that maximus did not have a selfish motive. He did. He did not even make the argument of the paradox. That was me. And i won't vote to my own decision but according to the arguments presented.
So, between both arguments-selfish and heroic- both being moral positions, the hero wins.
Unnecessary long comment for this debate.
Pro argues for preventing the deaths, con argues we should selfishly preserve ourselves at the expense of those deaths... Not a lot to go over, as an altruist more lives living and not suffering is best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxG3vv2-sOE
Your conduct here sheds a lot of light on the other voters. You know, they're representing that they think it's the right thing to do to sacrifice themselves and everyone they know and love at the altar of moral superiority. I do not believe that they would actually do those things. It strikes me as far more likely that casting votes the way they did is a way to virtue signal selflessness to their perceived community.
I hate time travel and multiverse theory.
. . .
Hm, shoehorn. . . What if I imagined fact that humans have memories, memories change get forgotten/buried. I have existed once, and will again, unless X changes then I would exist as X. Would I change X aspect of myself, to prevent future X?
Also, title might have been better as 'Kill' baby Hitler.
Con Round 1
Descriptions says they pass the first round.
Pro Round 1
Argues less suffering overall if we kill baby Hitler.
Claims it is unlikely another psychotic rug rat would emerge.
I'm not 'so sure of that myself, I 'think antisemitism was pretty high back then, Germans pretty unhappy about WW1 terms, some countries wanting to get back together, Russia problem, Unstable Germany, some argue many atrocities came about from ground level decisions of soldiers and generals doing what they 'thought Hitler expected.
Hard to say.
I skimmed this earlier, and I recall Con made an argument valuing the future/present that one has. 'Might be enough, but they'd do better to back their arguement with arguement of possible worse future as well.
Con Round 2
Argues the importance of the existent, over the nonexistent.
Well, it is 'an argument.
And until debate is further expounded, it's a bit value this or that.
Pro Round 2
Man I hate time travel.
Pro makes a decent argument for valuing 'currently non existent lives.
Con Round 3
Con makes an interesting argument, in how many people will be effected, and 'not be.
It 'was a world war, lots of people moving about, meeting people they would not have met otherwise.
. . . Course, , Then people are, , Wouldn't there be some future with a maximum number of people created? Should we only aim for that future?
Con argument makes sense from purely self interested and accepting of 'current self and people, but then what is 'now?
I hate time travel.
. . .
I'm not going to vote, I think.
. . .
Personally, even if it improved the so called current timeline, I would not do anything to change it.
I'm selfish,
I like myself, even any bad stuff in my life, it has made me, me, and I accept myself, love myself.
. . . Also, time travel is confusing, and I don't believe in time travel to the past.
Doesnt look like an accurate representation of my argument to call it selfish because the preservation of lives in existence today - almost all of which are people we do not know - is the value which is being argued for.