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

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?