I assume you've heard the Red vs. Blue button debate. You need to anonymously pick between a red or blue button where picking Red means you live and everyone else dies unless over 50% pick the blue button.
This wording makes it seem obvious that you should pick the blue button as it guarantees the survival of everyone. I completely disagree however.
For starters, in a real world scenario it's almost certain that people pick the red button to save themselves. I am insanely annoyed at the people who try to use twitter polls as a way to prove a point. And even then, a lot of the online polls I see aren't even blowout wins, it's often within 5%, which just simply isn't enough security.
Trying to argue to a wall won't work, so let me break down why it's objectively better to pick the red button.
The simplest terms
If you pick red, the most people who can die is 50%. However, the least that can die is zero. If you pick blue, the most people who can die is also 50%. Obviously the least that can die is zero, but that has an extra requirement of needing 50% of people to pick blue. Otherwise, there will always been a guaranteed death with blue. Essentially, for everyone to survive with blue, you require and extra stage, otherwise blue just causes death.
Everyone says 'Oh, it's easier to rally 50% of people to pick blue.' Which is theoretically correct, but in practice it's a lot more complicated than that. The main think you need to remember is that there are 8 billion people on earth. Even if you managed to convince the entire population of every country in Europe and the Americas, you still don't reach this 50% mark.
Now looking at the numbers. In a situation where 49.9% of people pick blue, you only have 50.1% of the world who lives. Now if you think that's a close margin, you were still over 15 million people short of reaching the mark to get 'everyone saved'. (For the record, that is roughly the same amount of total Jewish people on earth today.)
And also, many of the arguments people try to give for the blue button quite literally contradict the rules of how the game works. The original game said it was a completely anonymous vote with no prior strategy. So anyone using the argument of 'but what about if you have a family member who is 100% sure they press blue no matter what.'
That breaks the original point. In this theoretical universe there was never a debate to be had, it was an immediate choice.
Also, you have to have learned about the bystander effect. In the real situation a majority of people will pick red because they assume that others will pick blue to save them, and that significantly dulls the number of people picking blue.
Getting away from the point; Overall, if you pick blue you a completely forced moral pressure onto 8 billion other people to risk themselves (even though they won't) to save you. If you simply pick red you live, and don't expect anyone else to save you.
Also to the people who say "I don't want to live in a world of red button pushers 🤓". Good for you, your fake morals got you killed while we stick around.
Final point, unless your middle school systems failed you, you almost certainly know fallacies. And that's all that blue has going for them. The biggest one is where you say 'but you KNOW someone will pick blue, so you're condemning them to death?" Neither you or me knows for a certainty someone will pick blue, and so it is still safer to pick red.
Basically (if you lack reading comprehension like most of the people in this debate): Picking blue is more selfish, prove me wrong.