The Instigator
DKguy0609
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,075 times Debate No: 1416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (17)

 

DKguy0609

Pro

The number of people that a person knows personally is on average 1,000 people. This means that the chances of the person being someone you know is one in six and a half million. The average number of people that a person knows impersonally is around 4000, still a very small percentage of the world's population. In fact, the chances that killing a random person will affect your life in any way is one in a million. With millions of people dying a day, what does one more person matter. Think about how many lives you could save with a million dollars. Also, think about the sweet pad you could buy, not to mention the gold-digger wife you will wed.
cody30228

Con

I am assuming this is a joke debate?
So a thing that can kill a random person for a million dollars is not worth it
Why?
One, if you would save lives with the money, you wouldn't be immoral enough to kill someone.
Two, what happened if you killed yourself?
Three, what happened if you killed one of your parents (and one was already dead)
Four, what happened if you killed someone very important in the world, like MLK JR. and then you screwed over a lot of people
Debate Round No. 1
DKguy0609

Pro

Number one, the chances of killing yourself or a parent or someone important are very slim (less than a one hundredth of a percent). Also, MLK Jr. is already dead, so I don't have to worry about him. Yes, a million dollars really can save lives. Have you ever heard of loan sharks. People in Africa are dying every day because they don't have enough money to buy food and the only loans they can get have to be paid back with excessive and unproportional amounts of interest. Thinking like a utilitarianist, every life is equally precious and i believe that by pressing the button, i would be making the world a better place because I can donate the money to charity and save lives.
cody30228

Con

One, if you would save lives with the money, you wouldn't be immoral enough to kill someone.
Two, what happened if you killed yourself?
Three, what happened if you killed one of your parents (and one was already dead)
Four, what happened if you killed someone very important in the world, like MLK JR. and then you screwed over a lot of people

One. You use teh argument of utilitarianism. Read Robert Nozik's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia"
HE states that you can not take any of his unalienable rights to save someone else. Even multiple people. He says that is his choice.
If you are so utilitarian. Kill yourself for a million dollars and donate of of it. Then you violate no ones rights
And life is an unalienable right that can not be taken away says our Constitution.

Two. You said the chances were small. But isn't every chance small? What are the chances the one time I need something, I forget it.

Three. Look at two,

Four. MLK JR was an example. You could kill Oprah. Then you just hurt a hell of a lot more starving kids in Africa. You could kill our next president. You could kill anyone of the influential people in the world.

But I think my point still stands. What gives you the right to violate someone's unalienable right to life?
Debate Round No. 2
DKguy0609

Pro

First off, I need to negate your argument that every chance is small. That is not true at all. Every event in the universe has a probability. Flipping a coin one thousand times, odds are that you will get heads about 50% of the time. That is not a small chance. That is just one of many counterexamples to your completely false statement.

But I guess the debate is turning to the question- which is more important, the wellfare of all humankind, or the wellfare of just one's self. You say that everyone has the inalienable right to life, but if everyone has this right than why do civilized democratic nations go to war to kill people. The answer is to save the lives of a larger number of people that would have died otherwise.

I think if you were put in a situation where you were forced to either kill one family member or friend or your entire family and all of your friends, you would choose to kill just one person. Any moral person would probably agree with this.

The difference in my hypothetical situation is that the choice is kill or don't kill. In the above example, it is kill or kill. In the above example, you don't have to live with as much guilt because you did not have a choice to save a life. But the results are the same in both cases. I don't think you can argue that one million dollars can save more than one life (At least the probabilities that it can are well above 50%)

So at first look, it might seem like a very immoral thing to do, killing a person for one million dollars. But if the intention is good and the results are good, then what is so immoral about it. You might answer, the means- killing a person. But we do have the power to see into the future in a way. We can predict outcomes based on probability. This is a fact that cannot be argued. Roll two dice 30,000,000 times and i can guarantee that 7 will be the most popular sum of the two dice. And if we can be sure of the end result and the benefits outweigh the consequences, then what is so immoral about killing a person for a million dollars?
cody30228

Con

So is this is where you lose
I claim that one life can not be sacrificed to save many.
I quote Robert Nozik, you quote nothing. You simply say it is.
You argue unalienable rights with war. War is different. War is kill or be killed. The USA has had a defensive position throughout history. Hell, our Navy (i know my brother is a lt. commander) can not engage an enemy ship without being attacked first. It is kill or be killed. But the person attacking us in war has violated our right to life. Such as, I can extend my arm, but i lose that right if it extends into your face. You have the right to life, until you violate someone else's life.
****You fail to prove utilitarianism and the fact that someones life is NOT merely a number

You ignore my argument that someone who is willing to kill someone for no fault of their own would not be virtuous enough to save someone else. Since you ignored this, and the round is over, we must accept that a killer would not save another one's life. So the ONLY outcome from this would be death.

Chances. Chances have a funny way of biting you in the back. What would be the chance that the one time i need my keys, i leave them at home. what would be the one time i forget my wallet, i need money the most. what are the chances that i just happen to get to faulty xboxs. in a row. what are the chances that the one time i eat a light breakfast, i am forced to skip lunch. we all have had these situations. The chances are slim but they occur. But these point doe snot even matter. If i win it, who cares. if you win it, all you prove is that chances are u will not kill yourself. But there are many good people in the world that you could kill.

*********************So like I said, I should win because I prove that one life is not worth many and I prove that a user of this would not have the intention of saving a life.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cjet79 9 years ago
cjet79
Wealth is not created out of thin air. So the million dollars would also come at a price. Either inflating the money supply or being taken directly from other people. Either way you are essentially just killing someone for your own personal wealth.

This is only justifiable if you work in government...cuz for some reason those a-holes have completely different moral standards from normal people.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
this is much too linear..."Its okay if I kill a man, just so long as it will help someone else live"

To you its just so long as the numbers are positive, you've been helping the world.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"You fail to prove utilitarianism and the fact that someones life is NOT merely a number

You ignore my argument that someone who is willing to kill someone for no fault of their own would not be virtuous enough to save someone else. Since you ignored this, and the round is over, we must accept that a killer would not save another one's life. So the ONLY outcome from this would be death."

You could've argued Deontology. But okay, this works.
Posted by DKguy0609 9 years ago
DKguy0609
Number one, the chances of killing yourself or a parent or someone important are very slim (less than a one hundredth of a percent). Also, MLK Jr. is already dead, so I don't have to worry about him. Yes, a million dollars really can save lives. Have you ever heard of loan sharks. People in Africa are dying every day because they don't have enough money to buy food and the only loans they can get have to be paid back with excessive and unproportional amounts of interest. Thinking like a utilitarianist, every life is equally precious and i believe that by pressing the button, i would be making the world a better place because I can donate the money to charity and save lives.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by erkifish26 9 years ago
erkifish26
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Debater2008 9 years ago
Debater2008
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by VantagePoint 9 years ago
VantagePoint
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by snoboguy1230 9 years ago
snoboguy1230
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lcm133 9 years ago
lcm133
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
DKguy0609cody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03