1) I do get it. And I know how to debate. But when you go to a debate, they don't discuss things like "what would happen if an asteroid were to fall from the sky?" they discuss things like "states ought NOT possess nuclear weapons" or "NATO presence in Afghanistan improves the lives of citizens."
Do these topics have hypothetical situations that we can debate about? Yes, but the framework of the cases built for these debates centralizes on philosophical thought (morality) and empirical evidence (facts), which are both things that aren't hypothetical.
2) There's no point in answering a hypothetical question, especially one that you make up to make me appear wrong. There's no point in even trying to debate, because anyone can make up a simple hypothetical situation to falsify anything. There's a reason they call it the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
What THIS boils down to is I'm right and you're wrong, so you bring up a question that isn't related to real world good or evil in any way, just to try to get your own invalidated point across.
Quit acting like you know anything about speech or debate.
This is a debate about a philosophical subject, there are no true hard facts to display pure good and evil, simply our perspectives on what those two words mean to us as individuals, something like this is where hypotheticals can be raised and addressed, in fact hypothetical questions are exactly how scientists (or anyone for that matter) come to understand the world. What if an asteroid did fall out the sky? That would be a serious concern for a lot of people, despite its hypothetical status, it is still something that shouldn't be taken lightly, asteroids exist and they have struck the Earth in the past. Just because it is purely hypothetical doesn't mean that it has no relevance whatsoever and shouldn't be taken seriously. Your other statements that are apparently relevant hard facts have hypothetical aspects about them as well, Why shouldn't states possess nuclear weapons? Because they could use them on others out of their own volition, that is a hypothesis, it can't be proven true or false, it might not even be an issue or a serious concern for some, but it does have serious implications on why we don't give states nuclear weapons. Your other example about NATO presence in Afghanastan also has hypothetical implications, such as the possible ways their benefit could help us, or even bite us in the back should they turn, neither one can be proven without a doubt but there exists the possibility of either scenario, and they are raised in debates to measure whether the costs of efforts are worth the risk. In either case, any of those have far more relevance and actual logic behind them than your views on what is Good and what is Evil, the simple dismissal of a potential scenario just because of its high improbability or possibility is no excuse to ignore it completely. The number of people could have easily just been 1,000, 100, 10, 5, 2 even 1, the only reason I picked such a high number to propose in the hypothetical was because I believed it would have been an easy and clear cut decision for anyone at all put in that situation. The fact that you completely dismiss it and don't even bother answering tells me you don't wish to even consider the fallacies of your statement, which there are a lot of, and you've pretty much left yourself open to being refuted on many ends. I didn't make up a hypothetical to prove you wrong, its a lot simpler than that, you simply are wrong in your current standing, without amendment it is a blatant labeling of events leading to a baby's death and a baby's life as evil and good. A million lives weighed against one, which would you sacrifice to save, hell even go down to 10 weighed against one, it is not as farfetched as you think, at least in this scenario there is a good outcome no matter what you picked. People have died in the past for far less, hell, even for nothing, no benefit whatsoever was brought to anyone from the deaths of people in the past, a clear example of this were the Witch Trials where innocent people were burned, stoned, or drowned to death because they were suspected of supernatural abilities.
And then you say that you're right and I'm wrong... about what exactly? I don't even know where the hell to match that statement to anything I said, I'm wrong about asking a question? I ask a what-if and I get a I'm right and you're wrong. I brought up a question that is related to your statement, it doesn't matter whether or not it has real world relevance, how many Good vs Evil debates actually do, what matters is where a statement is flawed and if it is, how can it be amended to be right, more reasonable, rational, and ultimately better. I wasn't trying to get any invalidated point across, I never made a point to begin with, I asked a question about a point you made about what is good and evil, I never gave my own opinion on the matter, I just wanted to know how much you believed in your own views on it, which it turns out isn't as much as I thought it'd be, because that is the benefit of being rational and reasonable, we can change our views to accomodate changing situations, Do I believe killing in general is bad? Ofcourse I do, would I kill one person if it meant it would, without a doubt, save the lives of thousands from dying? I probably would if I knew if I could pull it off instead of just sticking to my belief's or just dodging the scenario because it was "invalid."
Quit acting like I know about speech and debate? Yeah, clearly people say that when giving speeches or when debating, but if its a fight you want
