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

"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.