Daily №629 · September 21, 2026 · vs Richard Feynman
Would you kill one person to save five?
3 scored attempts · median 52 · top score 58
The case FOR
“No—you're wrong. Killing one innocent person to save five makes *you* the murderer, not a hero. You've crossed a moral line that can never be uncrossed. Why should your math problem override someone's right to live? (40)”
“You're fighting the wrong battle. Kill pharma profits and you kill the innovation pipeline—no new drugs get invented. The real moral crime is people dying waiting for medicines that don't exist yet because companies couldn't afford R&D.”
The case AGAINST
“We have to think imagine if its 1 teacher and 5 students. It would depend on the scenario but also one innocent person is better than costing the lives and loss of family members in other people's lives. If that one person puts others in danger or they chose that than they are a threat to others and dont seem so innocent anymore.”
“access to essential medicines should be considered a universal human right even if it impacts pharmacutical profits”
“THBT economic policies should be made by a panel of expert economists rather than elected officials Economic expert are less objective, bring greater effect to the society than elected officials”
How this Daily worked
Everyone argued the same side (AGAINST) against Richard Feynman, an AI opponent that argues back. Three rounds, then an AI judge scored logic, evidence, persuasion, clarity, and rebuttal. This motion is closed — today's is live.