The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
firefury14620
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

morality=survival truth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 888 times Debate No: 98543
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

if a gigantic powerful highly advanced friendly warrior robot crash lands on earth without possibility of escape, that if threatened or in the face of violence will protect anyone and itself, does it make sense to attack it?
firefury14620

Con

I will take either side of this debate, as I'm not sure which side you're on. Let me know in your next argument.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i am pro, pro is for
firefury14620

Con

This robot, while friendly, is, as you stated, a warrior. That means it has reasonable means to cause significant damage. Even though it is friendly, that may not last. Upon first glance, most things aren't exceptionally menacing, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a possibility that the robot could attack. Another factor to consider is citizens attacking the robot and spooking it. Individual citizens could fear the robot and attack it, cause mass destruction. If the technology is available, what would be the point of not destroying it if it could pose so many risks to society and humans in general.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

good points, maybe a nuke will destroy it.. does it make sense to attack it?

it only responds with violence in accordance with survival truth
firefury14620

Con

There's always a chance that someone will go and attack the robot, causing it to become aggressive and dangerous. There will always be people who are fearful of the unknown, and there will always be people who will respond with violence. Eventually, the robot would come in contact with one of those people and become hostile. Destroying it first would remove that as a possibility and possibly save lives.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

so you would blame the robot for defending itself?

what is the difference between them and the robot

they were hostile, it only defends itself
firefury14620

Con

I'm not saying those people are in the right, or that the robot is in the wrong, but the robot will protect itself at all costs, making it a danger. I can't blame the robot for defending itself, and the people who riled it up should be punished, but the destruction that a giant robot could cause is great and the amount of defense readily available in most places wouldn't cut it/ I'm thinking about the safety of the innocents. The safety of the people who did nothing but will still have to suffer because of the decisions of a few. I'm thinking about this in a pragmatic sense. Eventually, the robot will get attacked and will then be capable of mass destruction defending itself. I would want to destroy it quickly so there was no time for it to do any real damage.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

its a very precise robot..

seams we agree on this, dont attack the robot, no need to kill it

maybe a nuke wont work, then what
firefury14620

Con

I say we kill it first before someone else attacks it. Honestly, if I had more faith that the humans wouldn't attack the robot, I wouldn't kill it, but I don't have that faith, therefore the robot is a danger. By destroying it, we prevent any possible damage the robot could cause. I would say that it wouldn't be hard to figure out what would destroy the robot after an hour or two of figuring out what its made of and observing its mechanical systems. It wouldn't be exceptionally difficult with that information.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
xD
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
Glad you're finally admitting that you didn't understand. That's the first step it fixing it.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
it took a lot of lack of understanding
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
Would somebody please vote? It took a lot of willpower to write these arguments without laughing, and I don't want that to go to waste.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you are right you are a christian
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
self defence.
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
Exactly. Protecting itself could include violence. I'm done answering arguments in the comments. The rest of your attempts to get me to argue in the comments will be ignored.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
if threatened or in the face of violence will protect anyone and itself
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
read round 1 again
Posted by firefury14620 1 year ago
firefury14620
You had a chance to make these arguments during the debate. You didn't take that chance. You have what you have in the debate. Please do you use comments as a factor when voting, as they are not the actual debate. If someone doesn't put their arguments into the debate, it's their fault.
No votes have been placed for this debate.