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

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.