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

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.