Well, if we change over to the question of pursuing immortality, that’s a different issue entirely. That being said, if we somehow got to a future where we could guarantee just 10 people would never grow old, I don’t know if that’s a good thing. 10 people could not repopulate the world just due to the shrunken gene pool alone, any of those 10 could still die due to external causes, and living an immortal life sounds like a nightmare, to be honest. Definitely don’t agree with the perspective that we’re all basically dead already simply because our lives are finite. In the grand scheme that may be true, but I think that undervalues life in general. Simply because it ends doesn’t mean it lacks meaning.
If you had gone this route in terms of responses, I would have changed up my tactics a bit, though it would have still sounded similar.
The argument that we can cause as much harm as we want right now as long as we reach some possible future utopia is a dangerous one. I usually don't do this because I think the comparison is used too broadly, but it's the same mentality as that used by Nazi Germany: if we can make a perfect future, it doesn't matter how much damage we cause now. I'm not equating your argument with that mentality, but it does have a similar ring to it - sacrificing the now and the short term future for a long term benefit. It's a classic deontological argument: the ends cannot justify the means because it's never OK to use bodies as stepping stones to some future utopia. You can argue that we save more lives in the long run, but a basic numbers game wouldn't necessarily win you this point, especially because there's a lot of "what if's" involved in just how many people will benefit and to what extent they would. In general, I think the point that we should sacrifice known lives in the present for future unknown (but potentially much larger) benefits to people we likely will never meet is a tough pill to swallow.
But a lot of my points would still stand regardless, especially my second and third point. Even if we could guarantee equal access to these technologies, that access does not address basic questions of how the market will engage with the presence of technologies like this, nor how societies will handle the greater burden of more people who aren't working. I think you had opportunities to address both of those. Remember, we're talking about some future theoretical world. Regulations on life-expanding technologies aren't nearly as theoretical as I made them out to be; companies can and have gotten approval for stem cell therapies and gene therapies, and those markets are tightly regulated, so you could have argued that the same would occur with life expanding tech. That would also do a lot to differentiate between tech that has gone through clinical trials and the snake oil products. As for retirement, life spans have increased dramatically in the last century and a lot of societies have managed that growing elderly population to varying degrees of success. The main difference here is two-fold: it would happen much more rapidly, and it would be in a world that's already overburdened with aging populations. You could have argued that there would be growing pains, but that they could be managed. Altering the age at which people receive benefits like Social Security and Medicare, finding new and exciting ways for aged populations to contribute to GDP after retirement, or modifying how we view the whole concept of aging as a society could all be effective responses. None of them are perfect, but they would have done a lot to mitigate my points.
Will say that I was hoping to see more votes on this. There's a reason we don't see a lot of high quality debates on this site - they just don't get the kind of attention that they used to on DDO. This was an impressive debate and it's obvious that both sides gave it their all. Here's hoping we get more like this in the future. Also, to blamonkey, I'd love to debate you sometime... when all my available time isn't taken up by writing my dissertation.
I think you need to define what you mean by "right to exist" in this context or change the wording. If it's about having a valid claim to the land, as you say in your description, then that seems distinct from the "right to exist" as a country now. Are you debating whether they should currently be allowed to reside in those lands and form a government? Are you debating whether the country should have been formed in the first place? You should really nail down what this debate is about before someone accepts.
I appreciate the input, though I will say that that was not the point I was trying to make. I did say that a greater disease burden is a problem, but the point has more to do with the impact of longer periods of time spent on the public dole. I don’t want to get into specifics because it’s not my aim to influence voters, but I do explain why this is a problem and what effects it would have.
Figured it would give me more time as well to address the next round. No rush on this, though I aim to finish this before I have to get back to work in earnest.
I figured as much. Given the title, it seemed like you wanted to go down the road of “if we assume this is going to happen, is it a good thing?” I think having a debate over whether something should happen automatically means that both sides accept that it could. Besides, it’s the reason I accepted. A technical debate about the feasibility of these technologies is fine, but I find the bioethics of it fascinating.
Just to reiterate, I am still working on this. I've finished reading, but it's going to take me a while to work through an RFD. I will say, I have a winner in mind, but it would not be the first time that my decision shifted as I was writing an RFD, so I'm not going to say who it is just yet.
Truth be told, I probably wouldn’t do that regardless because it’s never my aim to win a debate simply by exploiting a debate faux pas. It’s always my goal to have a good debate first and foremost, which is why I messaged you about this. I’d rather ensure that we’re both on the same page about the topic from the start. That being said, while you are welcome to post the specifics of your case in the opening round (in terms of being specific on what you’re supporting), that’s your choice. I do have some idea of what you’re going for now, though it’s still somewhat vague given just how much information is here to leaf through. If I accepted this, I would expect you to specify some things. If you leave things like what the technology will actually be able to do and what we can expect the availability to be out of that opening round, you’d be giving me room to define them for you, and you really won’t want that. Just giving you the heads up.
The main difference between that debate and this one is that we’re assuming a cure exists. The nice thing about that is that we don’t have to get into much discussion of the how, at least insofar as we assume that what accomplishes the task will be successful. What I’m getting at, and what you’ve partially answered, is the extent to which said cure is effective at countering the effects of aging. You can set that “value” wherever you want and establish its availability without adhering to what the most likely treatment would look like. I’d just like to know what I’m facing if I do accept this, as the topic has more to do with what comes after than what it is, but what comes after is in some ways defined by what it is.
What would this “cure” look like? What, specifically, would they be “cured” of? Would they simply be immune to all aging related diseases? Would the rate of aging, or effects thereof that are distinct from specific diseases (bone depletion, muscle wasting, etc.) also be diminished? Is this “cure” automatically available to everyone all the time? In what form is it available? Or are we just assuming blanket “what if everyone was just suddenly cured of aging-related diseases in perpetuity”? If it is the latter, would you invite discussion of the sudden appearance of what is basically deific intervention into human lives? I don’t mean to push this too hard, but depending on your answers, there are a lot of different avenues that can open up or close in debating this.
I don’t really have time to get into it right now, and I don’t wish to influence your vote while the voting period is still open. We can talk about it after it closes.
I’m a bit puzzled by some of the things you claim happened (and didn’t happen) in this debate, but I appreciate the vote nonetheless. I will outright disageee that my better tactic would have been shooting the brain instead, though that seems to be a personal quibble.
In terms of safety, I'll have to provide 2 quotes because I'm unclear precisely what you mean.
If you mean safety to those around the person receiving the gas (i.e. those who might unintentionally be exposed):
"78% of our atmosphere is nitrogen.[26] A single tank leaking into the environment does not displace enough oxygen to cause hypoxia, despite Pro’s unwarranted claims to the contrary."
If you mean safety to those exposed accidentally to more nitrogen in the air around them in some other circumstance:
"NA doesn’t cause pain, as even the worst symptoms of hypoxia are ameliorated by euphoria and elation.[16]"
I'm fine providing this so long as you're OK with it, bmdrocks21. I realize I'm just quoting myself, but even putting emphasis on something is going a step further than the debate itself, so I'd like to make sure I'm not doing anything you'd perceive as unfair or unreasonable.
I will also say that you are not required to defend a certain language or obviousness regarding this topic. All you have to do is defend its continued existence. You could say that that clarity is also beneficial, but that’s not necessary to win as Con. Declining immunity in all instances only has to be countered with the availability of immunity as an option. How many people are aware of that immunity is just a difference of degrees.
I don't think the fact that you are among a minority in this view puts you in a difficult position, especially since your opponent's argument is to remove it entirely, which puts him in a more severe minority. As for stats, I don't think you have to stick to universities. I guarantee evidence exists that crimes committed in cities across the US aren't reported on the basis that the victims are afraid of reprisals from law enforcement. That's a huge untapped source of support for your side. Case studies help, but they're largely going to be appeals to emotion, so I'd pick one or two at most to focus on.
I will say I don't think your rebuttal was, as you put it, brutal. I think your wrap up was strong, but that's not rebuttal. If anything, I'd say your rebuttal was where you were most lacking. I think that's where a lot of this could have come in handy.
I'd go into detail on all the reasons that victims feel they cannot come forward. Then, I'd have taken the tack of examining the effect that fear of authority has had on reporting criminal acts, focusing particularly on rape. The logical route you took works OK, but it invites the question of whether or not that logic plays out in the actions of victims of rape. In this respect, yes, I think statistics are kind of necessary. You're talking about how a given policy affects action, not just how it affects perception, and support for a given action requires more than just a shift in logical paradigm. I would also have talked about recidivism among rapists, particularly in a setting like college where there is often a skewed sense of what's allowed, particularly in a fraternity setting. In that way, I would have directly and immediately contradicted the sentiment that Pro presented regarding the accused. The fewer victims that come forward, the more illegal actions students will take, which leads to recidivism in the world beyond college and long prison sentences. Addressing cases on the smaller scale of a college campus nips a lot of that behavior in the bud, not to mention protecting countless potential future victims.
I definitely find 10K characters constraining, but that's part of the beauty of it.
I guess I understand that tactic, though it makes for a very uninteresting debate. Much as Exile says most of the best points were saved for later rounds, I think almost all the debating was done in R1, given the lack of direct rebuttals. As I see it, there's a difference between keeping things narrowed down and both engaging on your opponent's arguments and building up yours, and the latter would have really improved on this debate. I will say you had a good final round.
Well, a shame we didn’t get more votes on this. Still, I’d love to hear from other people about how they think this went, even if it isn’t a formal vote. Thanks again to blamonkey for his in-depth analysis and vote, and of course to tejretics for debating me so well on this fascinating debate!
Thank you for the vote and the extensive analysis! This is my impromptu-style debate in... well, too long, and I agree with everything you said about structure and time allocation. Gotta get those skills back...
Yeah, that short time frame can definitely be difficult to work with, but it's also a lot of fun. Several styles of debate use it, and it's incredible to see how arguments build out of such a short period of prep.
Thanks! I'm not sure that we decided to go with a specific style here, it's sort of an amalgam. There's some Worlds in there and some NPDA, though we decided against the Opp Block. Cross-ex instead of POIs as well, so it's taking from a bit of everything.
I feel like I’m not getting a good idea of what you’re looking to debate, either. Your title and description indicate that you either want to debate the degree to which white crime occurs in the US by comparison to specific minority groups, or that you want to debate the existence of attempts to obfuscate or conceal actual crime data on the part of the US government. Maybe it’s both, but regardless, that doesn’t set up clear sides. What are you trying to prove with your argument?
Not interested, then?
If you want me to elaborate, I can. It's mostly going to be directly quoting Zaradi because you dropped his points on the matter, but I'm willing.
Well, if we change over to the question of pursuing immortality, that’s a different issue entirely. That being said, if we somehow got to a future where we could guarantee just 10 people would never grow old, I don’t know if that’s a good thing. 10 people could not repopulate the world just due to the shrunken gene pool alone, any of those 10 could still die due to external causes, and living an immortal life sounds like a nightmare, to be honest. Definitely don’t agree with the perspective that we’re all basically dead already simply because our lives are finite. In the grand scheme that may be true, but I think that undervalues life in general. Simply because it ends doesn’t mean it lacks meaning.
If you had gone this route in terms of responses, I would have changed up my tactics a bit, though it would have still sounded similar.
The argument that we can cause as much harm as we want right now as long as we reach some possible future utopia is a dangerous one. I usually don't do this because I think the comparison is used too broadly, but it's the same mentality as that used by Nazi Germany: if we can make a perfect future, it doesn't matter how much damage we cause now. I'm not equating your argument with that mentality, but it does have a similar ring to it - sacrificing the now and the short term future for a long term benefit. It's a classic deontological argument: the ends cannot justify the means because it's never OK to use bodies as stepping stones to some future utopia. You can argue that we save more lives in the long run, but a basic numbers game wouldn't necessarily win you this point, especially because there's a lot of "what if's" involved in just how many people will benefit and to what extent they would. In general, I think the point that we should sacrifice known lives in the present for future unknown (but potentially much larger) benefits to people we likely will never meet is a tough pill to swallow.
But a lot of my points would still stand regardless, especially my second and third point. Even if we could guarantee equal access to these technologies, that access does not address basic questions of how the market will engage with the presence of technologies like this, nor how societies will handle the greater burden of more people who aren't working. I think you had opportunities to address both of those. Remember, we're talking about some future theoretical world. Regulations on life-expanding technologies aren't nearly as theoretical as I made them out to be; companies can and have gotten approval for stem cell therapies and gene therapies, and those markets are tightly regulated, so you could have argued that the same would occur with life expanding tech. That would also do a lot to differentiate between tech that has gone through clinical trials and the snake oil products. As for retirement, life spans have increased dramatically in the last century and a lot of societies have managed that growing elderly population to varying degrees of success. The main difference here is two-fold: it would happen much more rapidly, and it would be in a world that's already overburdened with aging populations. You could have argued that there would be growing pains, but that they could be managed. Altering the age at which people receive benefits like Social Security and Medicare, finding new and exciting ways for aged populations to contribute to GDP after retirement, or modifying how we view the whole concept of aging as a society could all be effective responses. None of them are perfect, but they would have done a lot to mitigate my points.
My availability is going to drop drastically on Friday, so I think it’s best to do it via the forums. Happy to discuss it further.
Will say that I was hoping to see more votes on this. There's a reason we don't see a lot of high quality debates on this site - they just don't get the kind of attention that they used to on DDO. This was an impressive debate and it's obvious that both sides gave it their all. Here's hoping we get more like this in the future. Also, to blamonkey, I'd love to debate you sometime... when all my available time isn't taken up by writing my dissertation.
I think you need to define what you mean by "right to exist" in this context or change the wording. If it's about having a valid claim to the land, as you say in your description, then that seems distinct from the "right to exist" as a country now. Are you debating whether they should currently be allowed to reside in those lands and form a government? Are you debating whether the country should have been formed in the first place? You should really nail down what this debate is about before someone accepts.
Thank you both for voting and for the extensive RFD!
I appreciate the input, though I will say that that was not the point I was trying to make. I did say that a greater disease burden is a problem, but the point has more to do with the impact of longer periods of time spent on the public dole. I don’t want to get into specifics because it’s not my aim to influence voters, but I do explain why this is a problem and what effects it would have.
Thank you for voting!
Sounds like that could have been interesting. Oh well, still enjoyed doing it, very interesting topic.
Figured it would give me more time as well to address the next round. No rush on this, though I aim to finish this before I have to get back to work in earnest.
I figured as much. Given the title, it seemed like you wanted to go down the road of “if we assume this is going to happen, is it a good thing?” I think having a debate over whether something should happen automatically means that both sides accept that it could. Besides, it’s the reason I accepted. A technical debate about the feasibility of these technologies is fine, but I find the bioethics of it fascinating.
Just to reiterate, I am still working on this. I've finished reading, but it's going to take me a while to work through an RFD. I will say, I have a winner in mind, but it would not be the first time that my decision shifted as I was writing an RFD, so I'm not going to say who it is just yet.
Not sure about the round on my end. Might be out tomorrow.
Same.
Regardless of the framing, that question will feature in the debate. It's mainly just a question of what else will be in here. I'll accept.
Truth be told, I probably wouldn’t do that regardless because it’s never my aim to win a debate simply by exploiting a debate faux pas. It’s always my goal to have a good debate first and foremost, which is why I messaged you about this. I’d rather ensure that we’re both on the same page about the topic from the start. That being said, while you are welcome to post the specifics of your case in the opening round (in terms of being specific on what you’re supporting), that’s your choice. I do have some idea of what you’re going for now, though it’s still somewhat vague given just how much information is here to leaf through. If I accepted this, I would expect you to specify some things. If you leave things like what the technology will actually be able to do and what we can expect the availability to be out of that opening round, you’d be giving me room to define them for you, and you really won’t want that. Just giving you the heads up.
Cool. Just let me know when you update it and I'll take a look.
The main difference between that debate and this one is that we’re assuming a cure exists. The nice thing about that is that we don’t have to get into much discussion of the how, at least insofar as we assume that what accomplishes the task will be successful. What I’m getting at, and what you’ve partially answered, is the extent to which said cure is effective at countering the effects of aging. You can set that “value” wherever you want and establish its availability without adhering to what the most likely treatment would look like. I’d just like to know what I’m facing if I do accept this, as the topic has more to do with what comes after than what it is, but what comes after is in some ways defined by what it is.
What would this “cure” look like? What, specifically, would they be “cured” of? Would they simply be immune to all aging related diseases? Would the rate of aging, or effects thereof that are distinct from specific diseases (bone depletion, muscle wasting, etc.) also be diminished? Is this “cure” automatically available to everyone all the time? In what form is it available? Or are we just assuming blanket “what if everyone was just suddenly cured of aging-related diseases in perpetuity”? If it is the latter, would you invite discussion of the sudden appearance of what is basically deific intervention into human lives? I don’t mean to push this too hard, but depending on your answers, there are a lot of different avenues that can open up or close in debating this.
Bumping this debate. I’m in the process of reading through it, taking this one slow.
Needless to say, I'll be watching this one closely.
Looks great to me.
Alright, I'll likely get a vote up sometime tomorrow. Already watched them all, just have to rate them.
Hey, whenever this finishes, remind me to vote on it.
Awesome!
I could have done it that way, though it probably would have favored Virt more if I did. Round-by-round is just simpler for my purposes.
Congrats, man. Solid debate, well earned.
I don’t really have time to get into it right now, and I don’t wish to influence your vote while the voting period is still open. We can talk about it after it closes.
I’m a bit puzzled by some of the things you claim happened (and didn’t happen) in this debate, but I appreciate the vote nonetheless. I will outright disageee that my better tactic would have been shooting the brain instead, though that seems to be a personal quibble.
Got my disagreements, but nonetheless, appreciate the detailed vote!
@bmdrocks21
Cool. I'll restrict this as much as possible.
@Ragnar
In terms of safety, I'll have to provide 2 quotes because I'm unclear precisely what you mean.
If you mean safety to those around the person receiving the gas (i.e. those who might unintentionally be exposed):
"78% of our atmosphere is nitrogen.[26] A single tank leaking into the environment does not displace enough oxygen to cause hypoxia, despite Pro’s unwarranted claims to the contrary."
If you mean safety to those exposed accidentally to more nitrogen in the air around them in some other circumstance:
"NA doesn’t cause pain, as even the worst symptoms of hypoxia are ameliorated by euphoria and elation.[16]"
I'm fine providing this so long as you're OK with it, bmdrocks21. I realize I'm just quoting myself, but even putting emphasis on something is going a step further than the debate itself, so I'd like to make sure I'm not doing anything you'd perceive as unfair or unreasonable.
Yeah, there was a good deal of research involved from both of us, and yeah, lethal injection really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Sincerely tempted, but don’t have the time right now.
I will also say that you are not required to defend a certain language or obviousness regarding this topic. All you have to do is defend its continued existence. You could say that that clarity is also beneficial, but that’s not necessary to win as Con. Declining immunity in all instances only has to be countered with the availability of immunity as an option. How many people are aware of that immunity is just a difference of degrees.
I don't think the fact that you are among a minority in this view puts you in a difficult position, especially since your opponent's argument is to remove it entirely, which puts him in a more severe minority. As for stats, I don't think you have to stick to universities. I guarantee evidence exists that crimes committed in cities across the US aren't reported on the basis that the victims are afraid of reprisals from law enforcement. That's a huge untapped source of support for your side. Case studies help, but they're largely going to be appeals to emotion, so I'd pick one or two at most to focus on.
I will say I don't think your rebuttal was, as you put it, brutal. I think your wrap up was strong, but that's not rebuttal. If anything, I'd say your rebuttal was where you were most lacking. I think that's where a lot of this could have come in handy.
I'd go into detail on all the reasons that victims feel they cannot come forward. Then, I'd have taken the tack of examining the effect that fear of authority has had on reporting criminal acts, focusing particularly on rape. The logical route you took works OK, but it invites the question of whether or not that logic plays out in the actions of victims of rape. In this respect, yes, I think statistics are kind of necessary. You're talking about how a given policy affects action, not just how it affects perception, and support for a given action requires more than just a shift in logical paradigm. I would also have talked about recidivism among rapists, particularly in a setting like college where there is often a skewed sense of what's allowed, particularly in a fraternity setting. In that way, I would have directly and immediately contradicted the sentiment that Pro presented regarding the accused. The fewer victims that come forward, the more illegal actions students will take, which leads to recidivism in the world beyond college and long prison sentences. Addressing cases on the smaller scale of a college campus nips a lot of that behavior in the bud, not to mention protecting countless potential future victims.
I definitely find 10K characters constraining, but that's part of the beauty of it.
I guess I understand that tactic, though it makes for a very uninteresting debate. Much as Exile says most of the best points were saved for later rounds, I think almost all the debating was done in R1, given the lack of direct rebuttals. As I see it, there's a difference between keeping things narrowed down and both engaging on your opponent's arguments and building up yours, and the latter would have really improved on this debate. I will say you had a good final round.
I will try to get to this before time is up, though things have been intensely busy on my end.
Well, a shame we didn’t get more votes on this. Still, I’d love to hear from other people about how they think this went, even if it isn’t a formal vote. Thanks again to blamonkey for his in-depth analysis and vote, and of course to tejretics for debating me so well on this fascinating debate!
Thanks for voting! I appreciate the analysis and I agree, this was a very close debate.
I've read through it, haven't had much time to sit down and write out an RFD just yet. Should be working on that this weekend.
So, I have to ask: is God responsible for all symmetrical forms that exist? Or just for the symmetry of our bodies?
You did not come off as harsh at all. I take the positive with the negative, and appreciate it all.
Thank you for the vote and the extensive analysis! This is my impromptu-style debate in... well, too long, and I agree with everything you said about structure and time allocation. Gotta get those skills back...
Yeah, that short time frame can definitely be difficult to work with, but it's also a lot of fun. Several styles of debate use it, and it's incredible to see how arguments build out of such a short period of prep.
Thanks! I'm not sure that we decided to go with a specific style here, it's sort of an amalgam. There's some Worlds in there and some NPDA, though we decided against the Opp Block. Cross-ex instead of POIs as well, so it's taking from a bit of everything.
I feel like I’m not getting a good idea of what you’re looking to debate, either. Your title and description indicate that you either want to debate the degree to which white crime occurs in the US by comparison to specific minority groups, or that you want to debate the existence of attempts to obfuscate or conceal actual crime data on the part of the US government. Maybe it’s both, but regardless, that doesn’t set up clear sides. What are you trying to prove with your argument?