Instigator / Pro
14
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Topic
#2341
Pressing a button that will make your life perfect
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 9,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
8
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
.You know.
Round 1
Pre-argument
This debate is unrated. No pressure and I am not ever afraid of losing loads of points in this mode.
I am going to argue my side through these fronts:
- A perfect life is perfect
The BoP is shared. Pro is arguing to press the button, Con is arguing not to press the button.
Argument: A perfect life is perfect
What is "perfect"?
Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect[1]conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type[2]Complete and correct in every way, of the best possible type or without fault[3]Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless.[4]
Of these 4 dictionary definitions, all point to something: Everything, I repeat, everything must go your way.
What does this mean? It means that Nothing can go wrong!
What a deal! If this button can make everything go my own way, then why not press it? I will explain further once my opponent responds.
Sources
Post-argument
I pass the talking feather to Con and wish good luck to him. No pressure at all, none. Even then, competition is still competition. If you voters think my arguments overall are more convincing, then please VOTE PRO!
Con assumes that perfection is good, but he does not realize that each person's "perfect" is based on what they themselves think is error or a fault. Consider democratic and republican having different thoughts about abortion, gun control, etc. What you think is having no errors (i.e. "your perfect life") does not mean it actually has no errors. Furthermore, if you are perfectly satisfied, then there is nothing left to live for, and you have no motivation left in life.
Round 2
Pre-argument
Con has used zero sources to back up his claim. Not even definitions.
Recap
In R1, my logic was such:
- P1: A perfect world is defined as one that everything is desirable
- P2: A hypothetical device can modify this world as such within a single button press
- P3: It is common sense that anything desirable is to be achieved, and anything undesirable is to be avoided.
- C1: Pressing it would make your world ultimately desirable, which is good, and you would press it.
Argument: The True Scotsmen
When is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy a fallacy? Let's look at this example[1].
- No Scotsman ever jokes the Scottish with the British(As it is considered impolite by them[2])(NOT PROVEN YET).
- My brother, from Scotland, often jokes the Scottish with the British(Being bad at manners does not wipe your identity).
- He is not a true Scotsman.
When is it not a fallacy?
- To be a law-abiding citizen, one mustn't break laws(TRUISM).
- Ted Kaczynski had broken laws[3].
- Ted Kaczynski is not a law-abiding citizen.
So you see, in order for it to be a non-fallacy or Sound, the initial statement must be true, or in other words, the discussion about the quality, within, the quality must directly relate to the state of being stated in the initial statement. Doing impolite stuff doesn't strip you of your culture, but breaking the law prevents you from being a law-abiding citizen.
Now, what do we have here?
This issue
We have discussed when the logic is right and when it is fallacious. Now, let's apply it in Con's R1 argument.
- The life the button creates brings utter perfectness of life(TRUE)
- Con mentions the non-perfectness of the life this button creates
- Thus, the scenario Con brings up represents not of a perfect life.
Remember, this is sound. Con did not illustrate a perfect life. This is like the case below.
- Cars are bad for the environment.
- No! Bikes are good for the environment!
- (regardless of whatever fallacy) Bikes are not cars.
If Pro is arguing something not depicted in the scope of this debate, then his argument holds no constructive value. I rest my case.
Conclusions
- I have illustrated why Con's case is not of the scope of this topic.
- Con did not sufficiently refute my R1 argument.
- My R1 argument still stands.
Sources
Post-argument
I thank Con for responding, and I thank Ragnar for providing a detailed guide for arguments[4]. It definitely helped!
pro's argument seems to make sense until you think about what it precisely entails:
- P1: A perfect world is defined as one that everything is desirable
- P2: A hypothetical device can modify this world as such within a single button press
- P3: It is common sense that anything desirable is to be achieved, and anything undesirable is to be avoided.
- C1: Pressing it would make your world ultimately desirable, which is good, and you would press it.
This brings up a few problems:
1) Why must you press a button in order to make your life perfect? Firstly, consider that some people, especially monks, are able to meditate and transcend enlightenment on their own, and achieve their own perfect life. The journey that gives you a sense of accomplishment would be far superior to pressing a mere button, and thus defeats pro's argument. Consider the following possibilities:
a) you press the button, which takes no effort and is not desirable on its own, as a blank slate.
b) you transcend your own self, which takes true virtue and makes yourself a desirable person as well as making yourself perfect
As you can see, the problem with pressing the button is that it is far too easy and as such not as desirable as the potential scenario of meditating to achieve enlightenment.
2) How do you know that "anything desirable is to be achieved"? Remember, I already said people's morals and thoughts usually change over time. Consider this, let me be a poor person in Africa living under minimum wage and am anorexic, near death. It would already be perfect just to have a fulfilling meal and a good sleep. I press the button. But after a few years I realize that this is actually very average for a first world country. I look at all the rich people in the world and think about their luxuries and pleasures. I think, that would be perfect. I press the button. Now, I am among the richest people in the world and I have everything I think I wanted. But I still feel like I didn't have enough, and we must have everyone have this incredible life. I press the button. Let's invite some aliens, the world is lonely. Press the button. Let's give people hope by making myself God, since there is none. I press the button. No good, there are still sinners in the world. Press the button. Press the button. Press the button. Let's face it, every single time you set the standard for what seems "perfect", there always seems to be more, there always seems to be something better. If the button gave you the biggest finite number you could think of, that number is still incomparable to true infinity. You would never ever be satisfied with pressing the button. Have you ever heard an end to human greed and ambition?
3) Pro misses out that it is YOUR life only that is being perfected, not everyone else's lives. He thinks on an egoism level where everything desirable is achieved, but if everyone was given their button and pressed it at the same time, it would either be impossible to satisfy everyone's need, or paradoxes would simultaneously occur and life would become chaotic and absurd. On a utilitarian basis, pressing a button that makes YOUR life perfect is unsupported by pro, unless the person pressing the button is John Stuart Mill, and even for him, it might just make him the Happiness Monster, which is extremely controversial and denies the value of human beings themselves.
My case stands.
Round 3
Pre-argument
My previous round conclusion is this:
- The life the button creates brings utter perfectness of life(supported by evidence that my opponent does not object)
- Con mentions the non-perfectness of the life this button creates
- Thus, the scenario Con brings up represents not of a perfect life.
Summarization of Con2
Con's second round did not successfully refute my argument. Here is why.
- Con presents that pressing a button is too easy, but ignores that it is the most efficient method of achieving a perfect life, which is defined by the definitions. Con's point here fails as it points out to no flaws. The definitions state that life is flawless upon the press of this button.
- Con asks me to prove why everything desirable will be achieved. Simple definition: How it is defined. You don't go to a Chemistry lecture and ask how does the professor know he is teaching chemistry.
- If everyone presses the button, everyone will live in harmony, perfectly. As if one's convenience is another's inconvenience, this action would be prevented automatically at the beginning as it prevents another button-presser to live a perfect life. If everyone presses it, it will bring out a life that everyone likes, instead of a life that contradicts person-to-person as the button asks for a perfect lack of conflict and sorrow.
Overall, Con's argument does not prevent my argument from standing as it worries about only something that this button cannot create. Everything you do is good, good good, regardless of what you are. Why missing out on it?
Conclusion
- Con dropped my argument about No True Scotsman as he only worries about something this button would not create. I thus extend my previous-round arguments.
- This button creates everything to be desirable. Since you want the things that are desirable, you would want to press this button, right? Common sense yes.
- I have proven that pressing the button will make your life better. It's really true.
- Con failed to use any sources whereas I have used sources to an extent to demonstrate definitions, logical fallacies, and structure.
Post-argument
Vote CON!
the problem with pro's argument is that he assumes one person's desires ("make YOUR life perfect", not "make everyone's lives perfect) is enough to encompass the world. This is not good. Once again, if that person is the Happiness Monster then it would be illogical as all humans would go extinct for the sake of one person. That demonstrates an idea of why you shouldn't make your life perfect, as your own wants and desires may not reflect everyone's wants and desires.
For some reason this debate made me think of Futurama:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2cbu4x/futurama-suicide-booth
this is actually harder than the wording "customization", because at least in I can I BB you can choose and pick certain traits.
will it alter the decisions I've made in the past?