Instigator / Con
21
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
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

-->
@Alanwang123

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alanwang123 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct

RFD: Reason: Con produced better reasons and arguments to why babies shouldn't be killed.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules

(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

(2) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
******************************************************************

I use logic as well, just not the weakened form of logic that most people use now days.

-->
@RationalMadman

I think it is a waste of time to talk to theists.

Your potential opponent said this "unless you refer to scripture that is not possible"

That to me doesn't sound like he is open to having his mind changed. Bear in mind he doesn't use logic. He uses "spiritual revelation" to get to his point.

-->
@Melcharaz

"The lord doesn't want any to die."
With time travel, we could send everyone into the very end of time at the precise moment before their death. Thus no one dies...

in what way would you prove me a hypocrite? unless you refer to scripture that is not possible. The makes it clear that All are worthy of death, yet the lord doesn't want any to die.

-->
@Melcharaz

Go ahead, challenge me to it and try to ignore those implications. I'll prove that you're a hypocrite.

i think this debate should have went over the implications of time travel more than the "moral" discussion of killing hitler.

https://www.debateart.com/rules
1. Doxxing
Doxxing is posting in public or in private any real-life or personally identifying information about another site user against that site user’s will or without that site user’s consent. Doxxing is strictly prohibited. It’s not doxxing if the information already has been posted on the site by the user or with the user’s consent.

"I reside in a nation that lacks USA's First Amendment" What country is that?

We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Hitler. Different people would be here instead. It's true because his life had a large impact on the timeline. Better not to mess with that.

https://youtu.be/qt93wUzb2E4?t=8

-->
@Lernaean

I know who you are and who you are mocking with your about me. Do not think you will succeed in fucking with me in the long run, MAR.

-->
@RationalMadman

Fine, I will discuss this after the debate is over so that the opponent doesn't find arguments in what I'm saying.

And it is unwise to tell voters what can and cannot constitute a RFD. If you'd have referred to my profile, you'd have seen by judging paradigm. Good luck on your debate.

-->
@Lernaean

Also, that cannot be your RFD. You cannot bring your own arguments or help a debater in the comments section like this.

-->
@Lernaean

If you mean glossing over the specifics within the thought experiment that lead you to conclude the conclusion they are trying to seem smart and superior to you by making you feel stupid for not having concluded, yes indeed.

I don't care how I originated there, I care only about the situation and analysing the odds that would lead to me making a gamble of it being morally optimal (AKA consequentially good) to 'kill' as opposed to 'not kill'. There's no third option as far as this thought experiment goes and that's fine, the point is that the gamble on it being 'good' not only is stupid, it defeats itself in that it forgets how much (including computers, many psychological, biological and chemical discoveries and the inhibiting of the Illuminati family Rothschild happened indirectly or directly due to Hitler's reign)

-->
@RationalMadman

What?

Are you saying that you don't like people glossing over the specifics of how a thought experiment would physically come about?

-->
@Lernaean

I vehemently loathe the ethics professors that bring this up and go 'heee heee you are wrong for not killing the baby and not considering more than just the scenario in and of itself in the blinkered view I want you to take it in to prove myself correct.'

If you give an analogy to prove that killing a baby is good, prove the student who says 'I actually have legit reasons to not kill the baby.' wrong without dismissing them as a subjectivity-clouded moron.

Taking what is primarily an ethical thought experiment and arguing about the technicalities of time travel sort of misses the point, no?

-->
@Alec

Yes I forfeited a lot of debates out of a combination of laziness, busyness, and the feeling that it was pointless to try and change anyone's mind. But at this time I am in debating mode.

Not saving anyone in your/our timeline **

I see type1 isin't forfeiting anymore.

-->
@Type1

He often responds close to last minute.

-->
@RationalMadman

You do realize you're still supposed to post the first argument right?