The Instigator
mackoman_93
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Resolved: If possible time travel should not be researched and developed.

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 9 votes the winner is...
mackoman_93
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,702 times Debate No: 11763
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

mackoman_93

Pro

I affirm the resolution Resolved: If possible time travel should not be researched and developed. The ability to travel back in time opens the door for alterations to the time line. This would put the power to change the world in the hands of one person. But, changing the world would do far more than simply making a minor adjustment. Corruption of the time line could destroy the world as we know it.

Point one: Time travel would be dangerous for the present.

As previously established, time travel would open the door to changing history. Granted, one could rewrite the history books and prevent things like the Holocaust, and turn the tide of battles throughout history; there is NO telling what dramatic consequences it would have on the reality that the operator would be coming from. In the end, you could be causing the death of millions by so much as going back in time to save the person who has the cure for cancer. We simply do not know. Which leads me to my second point...

Point two: Time travel would be dangerous and unpredictable.

The only glimmer of time travel that we have is theories and the human imagination. This begs the question, what exactly will happen and how will we know that it's accurate? When Disney Land first opened it was a disaster, the pavement was wet and nothing worked as planned. This is because they weren't familiar with the idea. This is the same for almost anything, when one starts out one often needs to practice before one becomes proficient. Now, time travel is a thing of the imagination, but tomorrow who knows. All we can say for sure s that we can't say anything for sure, which is just the problem. We don't know. As my point one illustrates, the past isn't something that is safe to experiment and practice with, because the present and the future are at stake. Would you let a four year old make your eggs for breakfast? No, because you would probably get salmonella. Just the same, would you put the course of the present and the future in to the hands of someone who has little to no clue as to what to expect? Which leads me to my third and final point.

Point three: Time travel could be dangerous to the operator.

This is simple. Beyond the fact that we have no clue what biological effects it could have, there are also very real dangers. For example, where you time machine is now might be clear and unobstructed, but was it that way 20 years ago or 20 years in the future? Your body could form between two walls for all you know. this would be bad.

For these three main reasons and for reasons unknown. I urge you to vote affirmative.

Thank you.
Puck

Con

============================
1. The past be with you, and also with you.
============================

"Time travel would be dangerous for the present."

Actually we don't know. All claims related to time travel should be prefaced with a "what if" since absolute claims on this matter do not exist, and would require a knowledge base we do not have. The claim 'bad things will happen' then is at best a probabilistic model, one however that is unfounded as we simply do not know how time travel would work (granting that it could). As such we can call it a particular model (damage model) regarding the possibility only (unfounded) about causal events should time travel occur. It is a guess, nothing more, at a what if scenario.

It's on equal standing with any other model, say, time line primacy (an original time line reasserts itself upon paradox), or causal line splits (multi dimensions of each causal act of which we experience just one of countless multitudes).

"Granted, one could rewrite the history books and prevent things like the Holocaust, and turn the tide of battles throughout history; there is NO telling what dramatic consequences it would have on the reality that the operator would be coming from."

If we grant your model as true, then determinism of a single time line is asserted. Do all consequences need to be dramatic? Not at all. Are all consequences bad? Not at all. Can a decision be validly based upon a premise "no telling what" - poorly at best. In fact if we grant that particular model as true then it provides the best possible model of working out the function of what would occur given a specific event, not the opposite.

"In the end, you could be causing the death of millions by so much as going back in time to save the person who has the cure for cancer. We simply do not know."

Large issue here - it follows a very narrow allowance for action. By which, X will cause Y presupposes a narrow causal chain of events occurring in a global market of decision making. For example, 'X does Y, allowing uber Hitler person to arise whose actions put Hitler to shame in the genocidal hall of fame', disavows the plethora of decision making each individual makes, and equally, that individuals exist that make decisions. It's like damning the meteor that killed the dinosaurs that allowed mammals to prosper that gave rise to hominids and eventually gave rise to homo sapiens that led to the formation of the German state and the policies of the Third Reich. Simply because an event occurs prior to another, does not make it equally damnable as being responsible for it.

=========================
2. It's time, Jim, but not as we know it.
=========================

"Time travel would be dangerous and unpredictable."

Unpredictable =/= dangerous however. Rolling a thousand D20s is unpredictable - it's not however dangerous short of trying to swallow some.

"All we can say for sure s that we can't say anything for sure, which is just the problem."

Then all such claims of "it's dangerous" are void, since it presupposes a model where it is precisely *not* unpredictable.

"the present and the future are at stake."

Or are they? Again that presupposes a specific model of time travel and of causal chain events (causal chains may end in dead ends - there is no rule that states they should enact continuously in this regard). Such a model where one's actions create a causal split to occur leaving the 'original' time line free to occur is also for consideration. As such no negative (or any) consequences are applied to the time line (just an alternate one not for consideration). The fact we don't know nor can't say makes all such arguments largely void as they rely on a model that is unproven. Even if we grant it as true, it largely fails - basing a decision on non parameters is largely a contradiction.

"Would you let a four year old make your eggs for breakfast? No, because you would probably get salmonella. Just the same, would you put the course of the present and the future in to the hands of someone who has little to no clue as to what to expect?"

While this whole debate skims around appeals to consequence (yes I know, not all cases are a fallacy), this is probably the best valid example of the fallacy itself. Firstly, stating no consequences can be known, is not the same as consequences are available that should be avoided. Your own premise makes your argument void in this regards and again, assumes a specific model of time travel. Lastly, simply because something is unknown, does not make it invalid for consideration. Depths of the ocean are largely unknown, reaches of space are largely unknown - yet we still seek to explore these with relative impunity. We may awaken some leviathan sleeping in the cold dark ocean trenches (Cthulhu!) who devours us all - we don't let that explicit unknown stop us however. Simply, the unknown is an invalid marker for decision making on this scale. You would create stasis of intellectual advancement under this model.

================
3. Run away! Run away!
================

"Time travel could be dangerous to the operator."

And? So is eating triple patty, bacon cheeseburgers. Yet they are still allowed to be served. Individuals should be responsible for their own decisions, here it is no exception. A time traveller would be fully cognisant of the fact that 'this may be the end' - no one forces that action. It didn't stop space missions, it's not a valid excuse here either. It also need not require a living actor to accomplish - the required tech for time travel would easily put us on par with a tech level that allowed remote non human viewers (heck we do it already on Mars). Such mechanical observers also cut down worries about causal horror.

================

So what feasible good could come from time travel? History buffs need no longer rely on questionable artifacts to ascertain events, we now have observers to do that. In fact this could be feasibly managed for a great deal of missing knowledge - even prior to homo sapiens. The role of observers would allow a vast increase in the repository of historical knowledge, both human and otherwise. Tick one for knowledge. Yay knowledge.

Cures for diseases/illnesses could be retro placed in the hands of those able to make use of them, long before such diseases wreak havoc. Tick one for bleeding heart liberals.

In fact such causality mongering could preempt casualties from occurring in a lot of disasters after they occur - time travel advice - clear the area. That's another tick right there.

I'm sure Philip K Dick would be chuffed too, we now have time police. Tick one for justice.

Simply, the concerns are based on unwarranted assertions of a particular model. Even if such a model were true, the concerns are largely invalid or blown out of proportion. The benefits however, quite impressive.

==

:)
Debate Round No. 1
mackoman_93

Pro

My opponent would like to rely on chance.

Point one...

My opponent establishes the premise of speculative argumentation. He asserts that my claims are based on what-if's. [Attack #1] When my opponent says things like, "since absolute claims on this matter do not exist, and would require a knowledge base we do not have", he is trying to lead you into a mis-conception that since we cannot universally establish that bad things will ALWAYS occur, we cannot say that bad things will ever occur. However, his argument goes both ways. So let's phrase this argument in a more logical manner... Because we cannot assert that good things will ALWAYS occur we must assume that bad things will SOMETIMES occur. Thus as long as there is possibility that humanity will be destroyed (however small OR large) is it really worth it step into the realm of unknown consequences?

[Attack #2] His argument assumes that things will go well and that the time line would not be negatively impacted, this is not that case as there is an infinite possibility that any given chain of events would be adversely affected. This is not a utopia (the possibility of bad things happening is very real).

[Attack #3] The impact on the side of the affirmative outweigh those on the side of the con. Remember, on the affirmative side we have the possibility of: destruction of humanity, temporal cold war, loss of autonomy. My opponent defends against these by suggesting that good my also come. But, as long as the impacts on the side of the affirmative outweighs those on the side of the negative this argument holds no pull in the debate.

[Attack #4] Even if a positive change was to be yielded, one could not possibly make said historical change with the consent of all man kind. In this light, he is making a conscience decision for the whole of man kind. Are you comfortable putting the power to change the direction of the whole of the human race in the hands one individual?

In the end my opponent's attacks on my first argument fall when the simple fact is presented that although the possibility that a good outcome may be yielded exists, it doesn't matter as long as the possibility that far worse may result.

Point two...

[Attack #1] My opponent's entire argument against my first and largely my second point rely almost entirely on the flawed assumption that "Unpredictable =/= dangerous". This premise is flawed because when it comes to time traveling (unfortunately for my opponent) Unpredictable = dangerous. This was previously established in my defense of my first point.

[Attack #2] Just because Unpredictable (might possibly) = GOOD THINGS does not mean that we should ignore the fact that Unpredictable (could very likely) = WORSE THINGS. My opponent would like you to ignore the fact that HORRIBLE things could just as likely occur from time travel. He does this by saying that because we don't know what bad things will happen they won't. This is not logical.

Don't just focus on the good things, as FAR WORSE things could result. Just because bad things MIGHT NOT happen DOES NOT mean that they won't.

Point three...

[Attack #1] No link. Astronauts train for years before going into space. We cannot similarly say that we could train for the operator of a time machine to appear from the future in between the walls of a building because that is what was there 20 years ago.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

On to his case...

In the end of his speech, my opponent attempts to gain some sort of offensive grounds within the debate by establishing advantages. But, as long as the PRO's impacts outweigh the negative's advantages there is not way for his arguments to hold any clout.

If there is a 50-50 (which is rather generous) chance that we could either cure cancer or destroy humanity would you be comfortable making that choice on the behalf of all mankind?
Puck

Con

"My opponent would like to rely on chance."

Actually no. Certainly not in any meaningful sense of the term in regards to evaluating consequences, feel free to keep ignoring my arguments however ...

"He asserts that my claims are based on what-if's."

Incorrect. I stated that time travel is an unknown model, therefore all claims should be prefaced with what if.

""since absolute claims on this matter do not exist, and would require a knowledge base we do not have", he is trying to lead you into a mis-conception that since we cannot universally establish that bad things will ALWAYS occur,
we cannot say that bad things will ever occur."

Strawman; I did not at all deny that negative events can occur. I stated that *knowing* or *evaluating* negative consequences requires prior knowledge that does not exist in this case.

"we cannot assert that good things will ALWAYS occur we must assume that bad things will SOMETIMES occur."

False dichotomy. The evaluation of one action/consequence, good, is removed from the causality of another action being termed bad.

"possibility that humanity will be destroyed (however small OR large) is it really worth it step into the realm of unknown consequences?"

To be considered a feasible possibility requires prior parameters to be able to calculate a probability. These do not exist and your case is at best wish listing. Is it possible a giant sleeping leviathan resides somewhere in the deep ocean trenches, yes. Is this probable? No. Likewise you have a *possibility* of an event; this in *no way* relates to the probability of the event occurring.

"assumes that things will go well"

Strawman; I said no such thing. I stated that unpredictable is not equitable to dangerous, gave a valid example, and further explained that you presume a certain model that you cannot know is true. I also gave arguments on why one should not automatically presume negative events would occur on the scale of global destruction. That is far different.

We have a very good model to justify this claim: our current situation given our history. Such an event has not already occurred, despite the availability and motive for wanton destruction and ill intent. That we can have this debate is proof that individual action is highly unlikely to lead to the type of concerns you voice.

"this is not that case as there is an infinite possibility that any given chain of events would be adversely affected."

I walk outside my front door. An infinite number of possibilities are available to me? No. Again, read above for why this is false.

"This is not a utopia."

Strawman; I never denied that bad cannot occur, simply your methods for determining it so, invalid.

"possibility of: destruction of humanity, temporal cold war, loss of autonomy."

Such a claim requires, again, prior knowledge that such events can occur from the causal beginning of 'time travel'. This simply does not exist and your claims are baseless. You ignored this point from my prior round, it completely ignores the functions of other actors in the global market of decisions. Destruction is not simple, and it is certainly opposed by a vast majority - and this is precisely what acts as buffers to the claim that simply by a time traveller acting, disastrous events can follow. If true, that simple actions can arise to such great devastation, we would expect them more readily than actually occurs, very frequently in fact, since such actions are performed multitudinously by billions every day.

"defends against these by suggesting that good my also come."

Incorrect; read above for your errors in regards to my arguments. Positives are entirely separate from arguments of negatives that occur, not in opposition to.

"impacts on the side of the affirmative outweighs those on the side of the negative this argument holds no pull in the debate."

Fortunately claims with no basis are not valid claims on argumentation. The determination of negative events requires a type of knowledge neither of us hold and there a good reasons to infer that such claims as they are hold little merit.

"one could not possibly make said historical change with the consent of all man kind."

Why needed? Base claims do not an argument make. Which version of mankind? Those present from the time travellers age? In which case, largely irrelevant since it's not feasible to imagine a global democracy operating for every decision (nor is it a debate parameter). As for the past, not there either. Global consent to hand down a cure? Knowledge? Neither are feasibly 'globally owned' constructs that require consent before action is given.

"Are you comfortable putting the power to change the direction of the whole of the human race in the hands one individual?"

Wholly unestablished premise as already noted. Also, argumentum ad metum.

"although the possibility that a good outcome may be yielded exists, it doesn't matter as long as the possibility that far worse may result."

Again, strawman. My arguments on positive aspects were entirely separate from those evaluating your claims and is not at all what my case was. In fact the majority of R1 was precisely why your claim to doom is largely void of valid reasoning, all of which you have decided to ignore. In addition the evaluation "more likely" is a probabilistic one, requiring information not available.

"flawed assumption that "Unpredictable =/= dangerous". This premise is flawed because when it comes to time traveling (unfortunately for my opponent) Unpredictable = dangerous."

All you have done is made a base claim with no supportive premises that in essence is 'bad things may happen' - which is not an argument in itself. In fact, my example shows exactly why you can't simply equate unpredictable to dangerous, and your claims of otherwise are void. To judge an event as 'dangerous' requires knowledge of parameters to be able to evaluate it as so. In short, the claim dangerous requires prior information that would mean such an event is *not unpredictable* at all. The more valid your claim, that it is dangerous, the more invalid the claim is that it is unpredictable. The more knowledge one may have about the danger of the event, the more one can plan for it.

"This was previously established in my defense of my first point."

Base claims are your first point.

"Just because Unpredictable (might possibly) = GOOD THINGS does not mean that we should ignore the fact that Unpredictable (could very likely) = WORSE THINGS."

Strawman, ignoratio elenchi. My argument was never unpredictable may arise to good. The line was specifically "So what feasible good could come from time travel?" Note the word feasible.

"would like you to ignore the fact that HORRIBLE things could just as likely occur from time travel."

Just as likely, ignore? No. Such an evaluation (to belabour the point) requires knowledge not available. My argument is that your concerns are not largely feasible, however there are benefits that are and ways to minimise risk should we deem there to be some.

"we don't know what bad things will happen they won't. This is not logical."

It's also a straw man. I merely give arguments that show how your claims of doom are unlikely given a scenario we know incredibly little about.

"No link."

For? That space travel can be perilous?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org...

"Astronauts train for years before going into space."

Unrelated to my argument. Individuals are responsible for their own actions and as such a time traveller would not be forced.

===

My opponent ignores the availability of non human actors (robots/machines) being the travellers, making his arguments void. If we were to pursue his model consistently, no technical advancements would occur under the threat of the unknown. No new tech, no particle colliders and so on.
Debate Round No. 2
mackoman_93

Pro

Because time travel is indeed an unknown model, both sides are forced to work with claims that should be prefaced with what if. This entire debate is a what if debate. What if time travel is possible? The entire world we are talking about is one giant what if, so for my opponent to claim that only my points are what ifs while his are not is absolutely ridiculous. If he didn't want to get into a debate dealing with a different world in which time travel, and thus many what if's existed, then why did he except this debate. The issue still exists that bad things could very well occur, and my opponent has no more evidence of good things occurring from this than I do of bad things. Once again, in this debate we are dealing with a topic with a lot of unknown ground. However, just because we don't know whether this is a good or bad thing doesn't mean we should go out and try it. I'm not completely sure that if I jump out of my window whether I'll break both of my legs or manage to land safely and be able to have an escape exit in case of a fire. But I'm not going to go and try it, because the risk really outweighs the possible benefits that may exist. The same thing goes for time travel. We don't know what will happen, good or bad. But because the risk is so great (the destruction of humanity), it outweighs any of the good that could be possible. Nothing is certain in this debate. But I think we can all agree that the risk of breaking both legs is enough to sway the decision towards not jumping out of a window. The issue remains that the risk is there. We don't know whether this would create good things or bad things, but the fact that the risk is so large makes time travel not even worth it. Why should the entire human race possibly have to pay with their lives because my opponent wants to see if he can visit Honest Abe?
Puck, if you have an issue with debating in a world of if's and possibilities, then you shouldn't be here debating. My case may or may not be probable. Your case may or may not be probable. The fact is that the possibility of the destruction of humanity is there, just like the possibility of time travel being fun, fine, and dandy is there. But is it really your place to gamble with innocent people's lives just so that you can try something out? Have you made sure with every single person on the planet that it's perfectly fine with them that you do something that could possibly harm not only every single human being on the planet but every living thing as well? Have you gotten permission from the foxes, polar bears, spiders, willows, cacti, and every other living thing for you to gamble with all of life in order to try something out? I would bet that you have not.
Now Puck if you're claiming time travel's good then, "To be considered a feasible possibility requires prior parameters to be able to calculate a probability. These do not exist and your case is at best wish listing" Is it possible that going back in time you could maybe find something good? Sure, but do you have any evidence whatsoever saying that it is probable? No. But, Puck, where you and I differ is that I live in a world of reality where we can't time travel yet, so I don't expect you to have any concrete evidence. Your job is simply to explain to me why we should put at risk the human race's existence just so that you can jump on your time machine and rush back to see the Vikings. Puck, if you want a glimpse of history, why don't you visit a museum rather than gambling with other people's lives?
Realize that in the world we are debating, time travel does exist, while in the status quo in 2010, it does not. So, yes Puck, I wouldn't expect there to be terrible things that have happened due to time traveling yet currently, because *gasp* it's not possible currently! In the world where time travel is possible, however, the risks outweigh any gain, and a vote in affirmation would be the smartest, simplest, easiest choice. The possibility of the destruction of humanity outweighs the possibility of something good happening. Obviously.
There are infinite possibilities that time travel could lead to absolutely horrific things. When you walk out your door, you are faced with numerous threats (a rabid dog could jump out of a bush and bite you, or a file cabinet that your daughter accidentally knocked out of her window could plummet to the ground and crush you, or a drunk driver could mow you down with his or her hummer) but the fact that you need to get to work to feed your family and only you are affected would outweigh the risk. However, in the case of time travel, where your excursion to the past could destroy every living thing on the face of the planet, the risk outweighs the possible gain.
http://www.statemaster.com... The definition of possible "If it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it actually is true or false)". Destruction is not simple, Puck? Of course, you would obviously know, being the expert on the destruction of the human race. One example of possible destruction: during the cold war when both Soviet Russia and the United States had the ability to destroy the world several times, if you went back to the past and accidentally caused one nation (even due to a simple blunder dealing with some sort of miscommunication) to press the big red button, and the other in return, deciding that if they were going down, they'd take the others with them, responded to the attack with their own weapons, there goes the earth. Boom. That's just one example. There are many ways that time travel could destroy everything living on earth. And, Puck, I know you'd never do anything like that on purpose, but the fact that the risk is there makes it irresponsible to go back in time.
Positives are possible. Negatives are possible. "The POSSIBLE impacts on the side of the affirmative outweigh the POSSIBLE impacts on the side of the negative." Did that make you feel better? I certainly hope so, because I'd like for you to actually get to the meat of the arguments instead of yelling "he worded that wrong" every five minutes.
There's no evidence you'll do anything good by going back. You have no evidence that you'll be able to find the cure for cancer or anything else wonderful. It's an empty possibility which holds as much ground as mine (the destruction of life on earth) does. Once again, my POSSIBILITY (which I will continue to call it so that my opponent doesn't get angry about it, wasting an entire round again) completely outweighs his POSSIBILITY.
Now, at this point my opponent claims that he doesn't have any possible impacts because he never says it'll be a good thing. Alright so even if you haven't read anything I've been saying that destroys every argument of his, in the end you have the POSSIBILITY of death and destruction for not just humanity but every living thing if you vote con, versus his… nothing. He offers no argument FOR the use of time travel simply trying to scratch away at mine
So, for no reason Puck wants to go time travel. If he doesn't care about the effects of doing so on himself, be my guest. To the people reading this debate, please remember that I was just looking out for my opponent who really doesn't care about his safety. Even so Puck, even ignoring your safety, do I really trust the existence of life as we know it, in your hands? No. It's not your choice to make any of these decisions for all of Earth's inhabitants. Even with tech, the safety of everything alive is still an issue. All of the points my opponent says he already covered and wastes time repeating, just cross-apply the arguments I previously made against him.
Extend all of my arguments and POSSIBLE impacts (against his POSSIBLE impacts).
He gives no reason to do time travel or vote con.
In the end, by voting con, you'd be possibly destroying the entire world for no reason whatsoever.
And so, I urge you to vote in affirmation of this resolution.
Puck

Con

Note non human travellers was again ignored.

"so for my opponent to claim that only my points are what ifs while his are not is absolutely ridiculous."

Strawman. Nowhere have I claimed my statements or arguments are 'true' statements in regards to what occurs when time travelling. The term I used was feasible. What if only denotes that this debate is in the realm of the hypothetical, it is not an argument in itself.

"my opponent has no more evidence of good things occurring from this than I do of bad things"

False. While my opponents arguments for feasible harm were base claims, 'bad things could happen because bad things could happen' I specifically detailed why (since we are dealing with causality) such doom mongering fails to pass reasonable standards given what we know (and as a hypothetical with no explicit model, given what we know is all we have to work with). Pro's claim is simply the possibility exists. However my counter points to those claims were based on how causality of human action works - and how evaluations of claims work in regards to possibility vs. probability.

As for the issue of good things occurring, again, it exists in the realm of what if ... (... time travel was possible and we did it) then there exists the feasible benefits that I listed in R1. Risk requires some degree of knowledge to evaluate it as so, and as I argued in my prior rounds, such knowledge does not exist (an issue with the loose parameters of the debate i.e. no model of time travel). I argued that since such knowledge does not exist, we only can look at what we do know - how human causality works now in regards to destruction and apply it to human time travellers.

"I'm not completely sure that if I jump out of my window whether I'll break both of my legs or manage to land safely"

It's fairly easy to see how this isn't remotely analogous. It's quite easy to determine safe jumping distances from heights. Parameters are known, measurable and able to be calculated fairly easily.

"because the risk is so great (the destruction of humanity), it outweighs any of the good that could be possible."

We don't know its bad but bad could happen so we shouldn't. As noted often, the claim great destruction isn't a very feasible one. My opponent never makes any plausible chain of events where this would arise and ignores counter claims consistently that human action so far is the best model we have to work with and shows that such doom mongering is largely baseless.

Stepping on Mars may cause Jupiter to implode. We don't know why, we don't have a model for making that claim evaluative in itself. We should not step on Mars. Ever.

It's easy to see when applied elsewhere how weak Pro's argument is.

"Puck, if you have an issue with debating in a world of if's ..."

Perhaps one should read my arguments carefully then.

"is it really your place to gamble with innocent people's lives ..."

My place? Goodness. What power I have. And I am the one having trouble dealing with what ifs? :)

"Have you made sure with every single person on the planet ..."

I was not aware I had the awesome power of time travel in my hands. Now that I know I do, I will go back in time, without anyone's permission, tell my past self to type "1. The past be with you, and also with you." - come back and type this reply and if anyone reads it, we can see all that fuss about doom was for nothing.

"Have you gotten permission ..."

Do you when you step outside your front door? The possibility simple actions may cause destruction is the argument after all. There is nothing about time that you argued that changes causality itself so we must (to reiterate the R2 point) assume such actions are occurring at present too. Do you ask the neighbours cat to walk outside each morning?

"Sure, but do you have any evidence whatsoever saying that it is probable? No."

It's simply a matter of looking at what I claimed was feasible good. In this debate time travel to the past is possible - a past = history. We can have observers placed in the past (history). That one passes. We have tech available to time travel = advanced tech (even if not given we can simply use current tech level as a measuring stick it doesn't matter) - meaning we have medical knowledge and means greater than prior time periods. We can travel back in the past - time medicine passes. Existing in the present (at any future date where time travel is possible) will give us knowledge of the present that may be useful prior to knowing it. We can time travel in the past - that one passes. Crimes occur. We can know when and where crimes occur. We can travel back to those times. That one passes.

The claim my claims are baseless is false. They follow a reasoned course form what is known about parameters in the debate and what can be feasibly reasoned form there. In contrast Pro's argument from doom must ignore and bypass those same controls of what we know now since such a standard argues against his claims (see R2).

"why don't you visit a museum rather than gambling with other people's lives?"

To gamble requires a probability, that does not exist here. If you think our knowledge of history is complete, please re educate.

"possibility of the destruction of humanity outweighs the possibility of something good happening."

Possibility =/= probability.

"your excursion to the past could destroy every living thing on the face of the planet"

Still no reasoning on *why*. Until such arguments exist, the claim belongs to the same class as my example this round.

"Definition"

Have I ever denied it was possible? No. Nor was Cthulhu hiding in the deep trenches of the ocean. The claim of possibility simply means we can argue about it. It does not give weight to the occurrence or argument of it. It is possible beings exist that monitor time lines to ensure no destruction occurs. Just as possible as your claim, and it's easy to see the claim on possibility is not a real argument.

"Destruction is not simple"

That your examples didn't occur to their full extent argues in my favour not yours (see R2).

"The POSSIBLE impacts on the side of the affirmative outweigh the POSSIBLE impacts on the side of the negative."

It is possible that upon time travel a higher race of beings will recognise our intelligence and usher in a new age of utopia. Again, "possible" is not an argument.

"I'd like for you to actually get to the meat of the arguments instead of yelling "he worded that wrong" every five minutes."

Feel free to read them then. After this round that will make 3 rounds for you to peruse from. :)

"There's no evidence you'll do anything good."

Evidence is not required. Again, feasible.

"You have no evidence that you'll be able to find the cure for cancer"

Read above, even if given our current medical knowledge it works.

"completely outweighs his POSSIBILITY"

Ah despite claims to not fall into it, it is here. To weigh the consequences of something requires known factors to do so, i.e. it requires a probability.

"in the end you have the POSSIBILITY of death and destruction for not just humanity but every living thing if you vote con"

Voting for me will end the world? Goodness. Also, argumentum ad metum.

"He offers no argument FOR the use of time travel simply trying to scratch away at mine"

You are inconsistent. You just argued that my proposed benefits wouldn't/shouldn't occur. See also R1.

"POSSIBLE impacts (against his POSSIBLE impacts)"

It is possible upon time travel not only will this age of utopia begin that chocolate houses will in fact be created. Utopia and chocolate houses. That's some possibility ...

"In the end, by voting con, you'd be possibly destroying the entire world for no reason whatsoever."

All together now. Argumentum ad metum.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
I'm sure it has nothing to do with you all being friends. :)
Posted by shlebear_94 7 years ago
shlebear_94
Because he quite obviously did, Puck.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Curious as to why you think mackoman had better arguments, Me100.
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Ha ha.. Puck XD
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
ha ha, this is fun :D had a debate like this.. my opponent forfeited o.O
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Reminds me of my first good debate...
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
basically, if we could research and develop time travel, should we?
Posted by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
I am refering to, if it were determined to be possible we should not delve into enabling the action of time travel.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
The lack of comma makes it unclear is all. :)
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Quick clarification - by 'if possible' are you indicating "in a scenario where it is possible, we should not" or "we should never delve into learning how ever" ?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by shlebear_94 7 years ago
shlebear_94
mackoman_93PuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlazingSleet 7 years ago
BlazingSleet
mackoman_93PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Me100 7 years ago
Me100
mackoman_93PuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Digamma 7 years ago
Digamma
mackoman_93PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Vote Placed by UnFascism 7 years ago
UnFascism
mackoman_93PuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
mackoman_93PuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mackoman_93 7 years ago
mackoman_93
mackoman_93PuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
mackoman_93PuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Batmon 7 years ago
Batmon
mackoman_93PuckTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60