The Instigator
TeddyKyle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Brian314
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to the human race.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Brian314
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,854 times Debate No: 16231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

TeddyKyle

Pro

I will be arguing as con, opposing that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb will be beneficial to humanity. Simple rules will be arguing in good faith and be well mannered. No dirty moves like semantics, cheap shots, etc.

Hoping to have a fun debate! :)
Brian314

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to a good debate.

I would like to begin by clarifying the definition of "beneficial" as "conducive to personal or social well-being"[1]. As Con, I must show that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would in fact not improve our personal or social well-being.

I look forward to my opponent's case in the next round.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TeddyKyle

Pro

Ah, I actually meant that I will be arguing as pro for this debate, sorry for my trivial errors as this is my first time debating online. First of all, thank you Brian for accepting my debate.

Moving on, if any of us were to go back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb, there might or would be adverse effects associated to it.

In 1934 the idea of chain reaction via neutron was proposed by Le� Szil�rd, who patented the idea of the atomic bomb. The patent was transferred in secret to Britain's Navy in 1936. In a very real sense, Szil�rd was the father of the atomic bomb academically. [1]

Unfortunately the atomic bomb was bound to occur at some point, even if we've managed to go miraculously go back in time to stop Leo' Szil�rd from coming up with the idea. Much of the fundamental theory already existed then and the invention of the atomic bomb was just a matter of time before it happened. At that time, the bomb was high on the agenda for America and Britain mainly because of the fact that Germany was already researching this idea and this gave American and British scientists impetus to build a fully fledged nuclear weapon before them.

Eventually the Manhattan Project was formed which brought together top scientists around the world including exiles from Europe to make this a reality, funded heavily both the American and British government. The Soviet Union was kept in the dark about this but unfortunately, there were numerous people involved with the project that volunteered to spy for them, most notably being Klaus Fuchs. This gave fresh motivation for the Russians to also invent an atomic bomb which eventually led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons on both sides.

As it happens the bomb was not used to launch unilateral strikes on the USSR but instead was simply used as a balance to prevent a supposed Soviet ground threat to Western Europe. One might wish that the bomb was invented a few months later so as to prevent its use against Japan (which may or may not have saved lives).

However the bomb being invented by a relatively responsible power is a good thing. The scary prospect would be if the bomb had not been invented when it was yet a rogue state invents it then there is no deterrence to prevent them using it. Ultimately the scientific know how and ability was around - preventing invention from occurring at some point over the last 66 years would have be impossible.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Brian314

Con

My opponent appears to be confused as to what his stance is supposed to be. He begins by saying "I will be arguing as pro for this debate" in his Round 2 speech, and goes on to give reasons why the invention of the atomic bomb was beneficial when it was, which is what I am supposed to be trying to prove. My opponent's job in this debate is to be arguing why going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would be beneficial, and I am supposed to be arguing why it would not be beneficial.

I make the following arguments:

Even if we were to go back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb, the atomic bomb would be invented anyways, just potentially at a later date. If we were to stop the atomic bomb's inventor from inventing it at the exact moment he did, for all we know, that man could just as easily invent it a week later.

Secondly, and this is a very well touched-upon aspect of time travel, stopping the invention of the atomic bomb would theoretically cause paradoxical effects[1]. If we were to stop the invention of the atomic bomb, then the atomic bomb never would have been invented at that moment in time and there would be no reason to return to that time to stop the invention, therefore the atomic bomb would still be invented. This creates a closed loop and paradox, which, in theory, could lead to any kind of disaster to time and our world. Therefore, by attempting to get rid of the atomic bomb, we are essentially created a larger problem.

Since going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb doesn't stop the atomic bomb from appearing in society, and also creates the possibility of paradox, going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would not be beneficial to the human race.

[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...;
Debate Round No. 2
TeddyKyle

Pro

Unfortunately, I've categorized myself wrongly and was supposed to be con for this debate. I'll forfeit, my bad.
Brian314

Con

As my opponent has forfeited, I ask that you please vote Con. I wish my opponent good luck in all of his future debates.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TeddyKyle 6 years ago
TeddyKyle
My bad, I'll forfeit.
Posted by Brian314 6 years ago
Brian314
Also, for those who tried to click on my source link in Round 2, it appears to not be working. This is the corrected link.

[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
Posted by Brian314 6 years ago
Brian314
As two of the three rounds have already been completed, it is too late to switch positions, as you would not be given the chance to respond to my arguments. I recommend creating a new, identical debate where you ensure that you are taking the "Con" position, to avoid any potential confusion, and leave it open for potential debaters.
Posted by TeddyKyle 6 years ago
TeddyKyle
Yes I know, I've accidentally put myself as "Pro" for this debate although I do mean myself to be Con. Is there any way we can switch roles or fix this? Thanks, and once again sorry for the mess.
Posted by Brian314 6 years ago
Brian314
TeddyKyle, I believe you are misunderstanding. You signed up for this debate as "Pro". Therefore, it is your job to argue that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb WOULD BE BENEFICIAL to the human race. I, accepting the debate as "Con", know that I must argue that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb WOULD NOT BE BENEFICIAL to the human race.
Posted by TeddyKyle 6 years ago
TeddyKyle
I guess I have to be con even though I put myself as Pro, damn it.
Posted by TeddyKyle 6 years ago
TeddyKyle
Oh great, I got the pro\con thing messed up. I deserve a good slap to the back for this. Sorry. I'm such a klutz sometimes.
Posted by Brian314 6 years ago
Brian314
You cannot set up the debate in which you appear as Pro for a specific resolution and then in the round specify that you want to be Con. That would be like me accepting a debate in which I accept as "Con", and then saying "I would like to argue Pro in this debate." The stances of the debate as viewed from the description of the debate above are the stances in which the debate ought to take place.
Posted by Brian314 6 years ago
Brian314
To TeddyKyle- I do realize that in your opening statement you specified that you would be arguing as Con, however, by the resolution, and your stance as Pro, your job is to argue that it would be beneficial.
Posted by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
Lost me at semantics.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
TeddyKyleBrian314Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by lewis20 6 years ago
lewis20
TeddyKyleBrian314Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit