of duelists, stock-brokers, crystal ball readers, and economists. A couple of years of lucky hits do not impress us." He snorts. "We also keep records of the promises made by politicians. I'm sure no one would be surprised by the results of that comparison."
Hammond leads them halfway down to the audience area, where a pair of work stations sit in friendly proximity. The left work station display shows a section of the left half of the main display—the proponents half. Some early duelist has scratched PRO into the edge of the desk top. The right station shows a part of the right half of the display—the opponent's half; another duelist long ago labeled it CON. Bill runs his finger over the rough cuts in the desk top, amazed by the presence of such graffiti.
The cloth-covered arms of the work station chairs show frays and dark stains. Bill wonders how many hundreds of anxious decision duelists have sat in these chairs, rubbing nervous hands over those arms.
"We also keep score on the development of third alternatives that are better than either of the listed alternatives. In general, duels that settle on third alternatives find the best answers of all."
The lecturer drones on, but his voice blends into the scene as Bill watches the cursor on the main display flicker from point to point.
Beneath the blinking warning are the titles: YES, A USEFUL STRATEGIC DEFENSE CAN BE BUILT. And NO, A USEFUL STRATEGIC DEFENSE CANNOT BE BUILT. Beneath the titles are the assumptions, written in cautionary amber. About a dozen assumptions show for the PRO side, and another dozen on the CON side. On the PRO side is the comment, "We assume we are discussing alternatives for getting high rates of kill against ICBMs. We are not discussing engineering absurdities such as 'perfect' defenses."
Next to this assumption lies a picture of a button. When the arrow touches the button, a further discussion of this assumption—why it is necessary—expands into view.
On the CON side, one three-part assumption stands out. "A strategic defense system must pass three feasibility tests: It must be technically feasible. It must be economically feasible. It must be politically feasible."
Beneath the yellow assumption boxes are the opening arguments. The first of these are the cute slogans with much cleverness but little content, much favored by the media. The duelists put them up even if they disagree with them, just to get them out of the way. Appropriately, here the coloration of the text seems playful--purples and oranges and reds splashing about as though written with a child's crayons.
A purple background marks off a quote on the PRO side:
BUILD WEAPONS THAT KILL WEAPONS, NOT WEAPONS THAT KILL PEOPLE.
The CON duelist colored it purple because the statement has no meaningful content, only emotional appeal: whether a weapon kills people directly or not is irrelevant; what matters is whether the weapon increases or decreases the odds that more or fewer people will die.
On the CON side, the PRO duelist had marked a statement in red: PREVENT THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE. When Hammond's arrow touches this field, an explanation window blossoms to explain the fetal flaw in this reasoning. Space was already militarized: if a war started, 10,000 nuclear warheads could fall through space in the first half hour. Moreover, as with the purple comment on the pro side, the important issue was not whether a weapon was space-based—the question was its effect on human life. The PRO duelist had placed another purple, satirical statement on level with the PREVENT MILITARIZATION slogan, connecting them with a thin line indicating they were two different ways of saying the same thing. The satirical alternative to PREVENT THE MILITARIZATON OF SPACE was MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR NUCLEAR WARHEADS.
Beneath the opening comments the words shrank in size, becoming more densely packed as the two sides parried back and forth with increasing verbosity. Both sides agreed to the
Hammond leads them halfway down to the audience area, where a pair of work stations sit in friendly proximity. The left work station display shows a section of the left half of the main display—the proponents half. Some early duelist has scratched PRO into the edge of the desk top. The right station shows a part of the right half of the display—the opponent's half; another duelist long ago labeled it CON. Bill runs his finger over the rough cuts in the desk top, amazed by the presence of such graffiti.
The cloth-covered arms of the work station chairs show frays and dark stains. Bill wonders how many hundreds of anxious decision duelists have sat in these chairs, rubbing nervous hands over those arms.
"We also keep score on the development of third alternatives that are better than either of the listed alternatives. In general, duels that settle on third alternatives find the best answers of all."
The lecturer drones on, but his voice blends into the scene as Bill watches the cursor on the main display flicker from point to point.
Beneath the blinking warning are the titles: YES, A USEFUL STRATEGIC DEFENSE CAN BE BUILT. And NO, A USEFUL STRATEGIC DEFENSE CANNOT BE BUILT. Beneath the titles are the assumptions, written in cautionary amber. About a dozen assumptions show for the PRO side, and another dozen on the CON side. On the PRO side is the comment, "We assume we are discussing alternatives for getting high rates of kill against ICBMs. We are not discussing engineering absurdities such as 'perfect' defenses."
Next to this assumption lies a picture of a button. When the arrow touches the button, a further discussion of this assumption—why it is necessary—expands into view.
On the CON side, one three-part assumption stands out. "A strategic defense system must pass three feasibility tests: It must be technically feasible. It must be economically feasible. It must be politically feasible."
Beneath the yellow assumption boxes are the opening arguments. The first of these are the cute slogans with much cleverness but little content, much favored by the media. The duelists put them up even if they disagree with them, just to get them out of the way. Appropriately, here the coloration of the text seems playful--purples and oranges and reds splashing about as though written with a child's crayons.
A purple background marks off a quote on the PRO side:
BUILD WEAPONS THAT KILL WEAPONS, NOT WEAPONS THAT KILL PEOPLE.
The CON duelist colored it purple because the statement has no meaningful content, only emotional appeal: whether a weapon kills people directly or not is irrelevant; what matters is whether the weapon increases or decreases the odds that more or fewer people will die.
On the CON side, the PRO duelist had marked a statement in red: PREVENT THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE. When Hammond's arrow touches this field, an explanation window blossoms to explain the fetal flaw in this reasoning. Space was already militarized: if a war started, 10,000 nuclear warheads could fall through space in the first half hour. Moreover, as with the purple comment on the pro side, the important issue was not whether a weapon was space-based—the question was its effect on human life. The PRO duelist had placed another purple, satirical statement on level with the PREVENT MILITARIZATION slogan, connecting them with a thin line indicating they were two different ways of saying the same thing. The satirical alternative to PREVENT THE MILITARIZATON OF SPACE was MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR NUCLEAR WARHEADS.
Beneath the opening comments the words shrank in size, becoming more densely packed as the two sides parried back and forth with increasing verbosity. Both sides agreed to the
Similar Books
