Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.

Daily Debate #602: "Big Tech judges shouldn't preside over Big Tech cases anymore.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Hannah Arendt.

What is sin if we use the knowledge to perform greater righteousness and completely cease to perform that same sin.

You're redefining sin away rather than confronting it. If ceasing the act erases the sin retroactively, then sin has no moral weight, only future utility. Does that mean nothing was wrong until you stopped doing it?

No. We learn from our mistakes but does it make sense then to make as many mistakes as possible to evoke solutions faster? Morality Speedrun, if you will

No, that's sophistry masquerading as optimization. Learning from mistakes requires suffering consequences—that's what makes them instructive. A "morality speedrun" just means causing needless harm to others while you optimize yourself. Why should they pay your tuition?

They shouldn’t. That is not the goal. The objective would be to find a more efficient path to what is good and truthful in a practical way. How else would you achieve this without making mistakes at a reasonable rate?

You're smuggling in "reasonable rate" to escape the real question: who decides what's reasonable, and who bears the cost? Trial-and-error works for individuals refining their own judgment. It catastrophically fails as a system when scaled across society. Why should anyone trust your calculation over their actual life?