Why shouldn't courts be permitted to argue,"what if" questions?

Question

Why shouldn't courts be permitted to argue,"what if" questions?

Answer 1

I'm no lawyer, but how do you sensibly argue hypothetical questions?  There's no right answer because you're dealing with something that hasn't happened and probably never will.  

Like, "What if someone offered you $10 million dollars, but you would have to choose a stranger to be killed?"  

How do you answer that?  It's never going to happen--and you can say whatever you want because you know it's never going to happen and nobody can dispute your answer.  You can say, "Oh, no, I'd never do that," and who can argue with it?  Maybe if you knew you'd really get the money, and nobody you care about would die, maybe you would do it.  But you're not going to say that, and you don't have to say that, because you know you'll never be faced with that choice.  

Answer 2

Because they are trying to deal with the facts of the case not worse case scenarios.  If they used "what if" the case could last for years.

Answer 3

First, courts don't argue.  Courts decide after people argue.  Courts generally will not use taxpayer money to decide hypothetical questions because every court decision will turn on subtle variations in the facts and hypothetical questions necessarily have incomplete facts.