CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
1
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:4
Arguments:5
Total Votes:5
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (3)
 
 Disagree (1)

Debate Creator

DrRSaunders(70) pic



The "Prisoner's Dilemma" model can be applied to the nuclear weapons crisis.

For those of you who have yet to hear about the prisoner's dilemma, I shall try give you a brief explanation, there are many versions of this, but they have little differences.

Imagine that you and an aquaintance have committed a crime, which the local constabulary have apphrended you for. However the only evidence that they will be able to convict you with is a confession which they have yet to obtain. To try get either of you to confess they provide you with the following options:

  • If neither of you confess then you'll both be delayed for a period of 1 month and then the police will be forced to release you.
  • If both of you confess then you are jailed for 6 months.
  • If one of you confesses then they will be released immediatly while the other is put in jail for 1 year.

This game works on the principle that each 'player' will choose the opition which gives them the most benifit. It is easy to realise that the best option to take is to confess.

However, both the parties confess (because it is the better option for them individually) but it would have been more beneficial for them to both not confess. (For those who still cannot grasp this theory, please mention so in your argument and I will try to reply).

This brings me to the nuclear weapons crisis, while many countries with nuclear weapons (or WMDs) feel it is in their best interest to keep hold of them, it would equally be better for none of the countries to have nuclear weapons.

Agree

Side Score: 3
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 1

How is the prisoner's dilemma resolved? Can the prisoners talk to each other and agree not to confess? That would be like countries signing a treaty not to stockpile nukes.

Side: Agree
1 point

No, the two prisoners can't discuss together. They only have the same level of reasoning and will only do what they believe to be most beneficial to themselves.

If one thought that the other person was not going to confess, then it is still in their best interests to confess (as thy then get to go immediately).

The same can be applied to a signing of treaty, as soon as a country knows that everyone else is going to get rid of their nuclear weapons then it is within their best interests to keep hold of their own.

Side: Agree
Buddhist(318) Banned
0 points

There is no relation at all. Which PhD led you to this?

Side: Disagree
DrRSaunders(70) Disputed
1 point

I have yet to mention my PhDs in this debate, I have no idea who you are and I feel that for reason unknown you are attempting to mock my position.

If you are not going to take part in this debate properly, then i'm afraid I may have to ban you.

Side: Agree
Buddhist(318) Clarified Banned
1 point

Okay Mickey Mouse.

Side: Agree