The Instigator
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
reconsqurl
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

American sports cars are better than European ones

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,930 times Debate No: 17785
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

In this short (4000 character) debate, I will attempt to prove that American sports cars are better than sports cars manufacted by European, Asian or any other.
I will choose 3 American sports cars: The Chevrolet Corvette, The Dodge Viper and the Ford Mustang and their variants to prove that American cars are better. My opponent will choose 3 cars: 1 European, 1 Asian, 1 of my opponent's choice. All 3 cars must come from different countries and none should be American.

In round one, my opponent will merely accept and fill in the blanks as he/she chooses which of his cars go against mine.

1) Chevrolet Corvette vs __________
2) Dodge Viper vs ___________
3) Ford Mustang vs _____________

In round 2, we both provide opening arguments for all 3 comparisons. Comparison based on emotion is allowed if articulated well.
In round 3, we refute each other's arguments.
Any qeustions or suggestions can be put in the comments section.
reconsqurl

Con

Before I can put any of my foreign cars against my opponents cars I need some clarifying information from the pro starting with the wording of the topic as the term "better" is too loosely defined and therefore I cannot pick cars to pit against my opponents cars as I don't know the criterion that makes a car "better" than other cars, and secondly with the brands of Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford, I ask the question are we only taking about American owned companies vs. foreign owned countries of are we talking about American manufactured vs. foreign manufactured? If my opponent can make these clarifications I am looking forward to this debate and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting and welcome him to DDO. "Better" is not defined. The purpose of the debate is so we can think up new ways of what "better" is, like faster, more hp, more torque, low price, higher luxury, anything and just convince the voters to vote for you by making a great argument.

The car must be by a foreign owned company. For example, Acura would count as a Japanese car despite only being made for the North American market.

Just to let you know, you can use the comments section for questions and clarification. Since you used it for a question and I used it to answer your question, we just lost a round. Since I couldn't make an argument, ehy don't just pick your cars in this round. I'll use round 3 to show why mine are better and you use your round 3 to show why your's are better. No rebuttals since we don't have enough rounds. Let the voters decide purely based on who made the better argument.
reconsqurl

Con

First off I would like to say your welcome for the debate, and second since my opponent who still will not be any more specific in the definition of "better" after I have asked him, I will then narrow the debate down and give my own definition to "better" and if my opponent tries to change the meaning of the word "better" as it pertains to this debate the voters should disregard any new definitions as my opponent has already has the opportunity to narrow this debate
which he has neglected to do. so going back to my opponents first speech he has left three lines for the con to fill out which I have filled them out with my car that I pick to go against the cars that my opponent has picked and after that I have chosen a category in which my cars are "better" than his. and as I have stated before in this speech if my opponent tries to choose a different category to use against my cars the argument is invalid because my opponent has had the opportunity to choose them which he had neglected to do so.

1) Chevrolet Corvette vs Toyota Tundra in turning radius
2) Dodge Viper vs Bugatti Veyron in speed
3) Ford Mustang vs

The Tundra beats the Corvette in turning radius 22ft to 40ft
The Veyron beats the Viper in speed as the Veyron is the worlds fastest car as the Viper is a two way tie for 9th
The Jaguar XJ220 beats the Mustang in horsepower 542 to 300

I got all of my stats either from thesupercars.org or from the manufactures themselves
Debate Round No. 2
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Pro

This is absolutely ridiculous. When my opponent posted in the first round asking for definitions, we lost a round in what was effectively a 2 round debate. I initially thought that it was because he was new and did not understand how DDO works. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and told him that we will just use round 3 to post opening arguments with no rebuttals. I also suggested that he use the comments section for further clarifications. If he did not like the fact that "better" was open to interpretation, he should have discussed it in the comments section. After his second round post, I can see that he is not intending to follow any of the guidelines I mentioned (which I have a right to set since I am the instigator).

The narrow definition of better is undebatable. I specifically stated that better was open to interpretation so we can argue better in whichever way we like. Instead he asks that the voters disregard any new definition. I ask the voters to disregard his definition as he has shown poor conduct.

I will argue my point in this round.

The resolution was "American sports cars are better than sports cars manufacted by European, Asian or any other"

1) Chevrolet Corvette vs Toyota Tundra
Toyota Tundra is not a sports car. It is a truck. [1] Since it doesn't meet the requirement, my opponent loses this one.

2) Dodge Viper vs Bugatti Veyron
The Bugatti Veyron costs more than $1,7million [2]. The Dodge Viper only costs a little more than $90,000. It is much more affordable and a better value for money than the Veyron. It also gives a fuel economy of 13 city/22 hwy mpg [5].
It goes from zero to 60 mph in only 3.7 seconds [5]. The Bugatti is not much better while costing a lot more. You could buy about 15-20 Vipers for the price of the Bugatti.

3) Ford Mustang FR500GT vs Jaguar XJ220
The XJ220 was a massive failure. The car that the manufacturer's tried to build with a V12 never materialized. Instead they were forced to build a puny imitation containing a V6. They had over 350 people who wanted to buy them but reneged on their contracts because Jaguar did not live up to their expectations. They actually had to sue their customers [8]. The FR500GT was a great value for money. It was also highly aerodynamic and could race on a track for an entire season without an engine rebuild [9].
The Jaguar's 0 - 60 mph 4.0 seconds and costs $345 000 [6].
The Ford Mustang's 0 to 60 mph comes in 3.9 seconds and costs $225,000[7].

My opponent was just supposed to just pick the cars in the previous round but instead he made his argument. If my opponent posts in this round, I urge the voters to disregard his entire argument since he has unfairly manipulated the debate to get himself an extra round. Vote Con.

Sources
[1] http://www.toyota.com...;(Click on the truck tab and you can see the Tundra option)
[2] http://www.edmunds.com...
[3] http://www.edmunds.com...
[4] http://www.edmunds.com...
[5] http://www.edmunds.com...
[6] http://auto-specs.zercustoms.com...
[7] http://www.caranddriver.com...
[8] http://auto.howstuffworks.com...
[9] http://www.caranddriver.com...

PS: my opponent is not even funny. He also provides no sources, just claims that he got it from the manufacturer's website. If he posts the sources in the next round, disregard them (see above).
reconsqurl

Con

My opponent clearly does not understand what my point is with the loosely defined term of "better" if I say a car is better than one car because it is faster and my opponent tries to disprove that by claiming that his car gets better MPG we then are debating if speed is more important than MPG, and that answer being it all depends on the consumer. therefore my point about we need to define "better" still stands as we are comparing apples and oranges.
furthermore to go over my opponents comparison of his cars against mine I will concede that the tundra is a truck and not a sports car but the rest of my cars still are better because of the apple and orange debate from my opponent.

As I have stated before since my opponent will not agree on the definition that I have set on the term "better" which he had the opportunity to set as I had asked for in my first speech I have shown no form of miss conduct and if there is any miss conduct it should be on the pro as he did not set good enough guidelines (which is also his right) to allow either a educational or fair debate for either side.

and my final point is that there is no specific way that DDO works I have seen debates in many different formats including Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy just to name a few so when my opponent says that I don't know how DDO works its actually the other way around in that my opponent doesn't know how DDO works

so what we can boil this debate down to is that the pro has no grounds to make any argument against two of my three cars as I admit the tundra is a truck but the other two cars still stand as better cars because I have applied them within the defining term of "better" as my opponent is debating apples and oranges, secondly my opponent has neglected his right to set efficient guidelines to shape the debate which made the con sacrifice half of a speech to set guidelines that the pro should have done, and finally for my opponent to assume that someone knows something that they don't and to argue against them is unethical and also as he stated miss conduct. so because my opponent wont set guidelines, making apple and orange arguments, and showing miss conduct the con has clearly won this debate.

And just a foot note thank you to the pro for a wonderful first debate on debate.org and I hope to have more discussions in the future and to the voters thank you for taking your time and judging all of the debates on this website and in your community THANK YOU
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by reconsqurl 5 years ago
reconsqurl
I apologise for the error in my second speech as I do not have a car typed to go against the mustang and to clarify is is a Jaguar XJ220
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Sorry for the typo. I meant: Pick your cars in round 2.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
F-16_Fighting_FalconreconsqurlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
F-16_Fighting_FalconreconsqurlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: THIS IS NOT A VOTEBOMB. Conduct: Pro: Con screwed the debate over in round two when he obviously knew (or didn't) that pro meant 'on balance" Spelling: Pro: Con had some spelling and grammar errors which stuck out like a sore thumb. Arguments: Pro: Con's arguments held less water and con left many refutations completely alone, while pro was thorough in his explanation. Sources: Pro used a plethora of reliable sources, while con stated none.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 5 years ago
darkhearth
F-16_Fighting_FalconreconsqurlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: he presented a far superior argument.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
F-16_Fighting_FalconreconsqurlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: S