The Instigator
august-korinu
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Cars are dumb

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Cars
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 67032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

august-korinu

Pro

Con goes first. Good luck!
Benshapiro

Con

Ok I'll go first but I'll just start by saying that the person making the claim has the burden of proof to show that cars are dumb. So if my opponent fails to make an argument that is properly defended, the debate will go to me by default.

That being said, I'll offer my own argument that negates the resolution.

By leaving the usage of the word "dumb" undefined, I'll produce the definition that shall be used for the remainder of the debate.

Dumb:
a. slow to understand
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

My rebuttal for negating the resolution is simple: Cars have no understanding because understanding is a cognitive process and cars are non-cognitive. Since cars have no understanding they cannot be slow to understand. Therefore cars cannot be dumb.

Over to pro
Debate Round No. 1
august-korinu

Pro

adjective: dumb

1. unable to speak, most typically because of congenital deafness:

"he was born deaf, dumb, and blind"

synonyms: mute " speechless " tongue-tied " silent " at a loss for words

Cars are dumb because they cannot talk. Unless you can prove cars can talk. There is no scientific evidence or anecdotes of a car that can speak or talk.

Over to Con
Benshapiro

Con

My opponent leaves my round 1 arguments and definition undisputed in his round 2 rebuttal.

In round 1 I said "By leaving the usage of the word 'dumb' undefined, I'll produce the definition that shall be used for the remainder of the debate."

This is an acceptable practice under general rules of debate.

"If the first Affirmative speaker fails to define the resolution he or she must accept any reasonable definitions proposed by the first Negative speaker. If the first and second speakers fail to define the terms, the right to define falls to the remaining speakers in turn." [1]

Dumb is reasonably defined as slow to understand.

I await my opponents argument affirming that cars are dumb per the definition in round 1.

[1] http://www.saskdebate.com...
Debate Round No. 2
august-korinu

Pro

If you wish to change the meaning of the debate I originally wished to engage in, then fine.

I will produce the definitions in this debate:

Definition of 'dumb' from Round 1:
slow to understand

Understand: infer something from information received

infer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

information: facts provided or learned about something or someone.

receive: be given, presented with, or paid

deduce: arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion

conclude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning.

reasoning: the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

logical: of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.

argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

reasoning: cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.

cause: make (something, typically something bad) happen.

unpleasant: not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome

desire: a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

feeling: an emotional state or reaction.

state: the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time

time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole

My full topic is "Some cars are dumb".

Some cars are slow at inferring something from information received, if they are able to at all. For example, some cars can detect how much weight is on a certain seat and will alert the driver or passenger to buckle its respective seat belt (usually with an annoying beeping sound). However, the car is unable to detect whether or not a person is sitting in this seat, so if one were to put a heavy backpack on a car seat, the driver would be alerted to buckle the backpack in. This is unnecessary. It is also inconvenient for the driver, because he will have to either move the heavy backpack to the floor or buckle it in to stop the annoying beeping sound.
Benshapiro

Con

Thanks pro.

My opponent begins by informing me that I had changed the definition that he had originally wished to engage in, but left my definition given in round 1 undisputed in his round 2 argument. The onus was on pro to contest this during his second round but did not.

My opponent begins by saying that cars "infer" from information received. Infer means to deduce or conclude from evidence and reasoning rather than explicit statements. Cars cannot deduce or conclude from evidence and reasoning because reasoning is a cognitive process and cars are non-cognitive. Reasoning means "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. Cars cannot reason because cars cannot think. Cars don't have a brain and brains are necessary for this cognitive process to occur. Thus my opponent had the BoP but has been rebutted and the resolution is negated.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by thatawesome 2 years ago
thatawesome
cars are not dumb if they were so dumb then nobody would make them
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zack95 2 years ago
Zack95
august-korinuBenshapiroTied
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: Pro maintained the current argument listed, also with good sources and reasonable information. Pro's argument maintained good examples and concluded with a more convincing argument. Contender instigated AND changed the starting debate and definition, Disgracing DDO intention of the Instigator, also referring direct commands to the audience to promote ones chances of winning the argument.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
august-korinuBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Cars are not dumb
Vote Placed by Benjamin_Manus 2 years ago
Benjamin_Manus
august-korinuBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Opposition/government had better reasoning and better sources
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
august-korinuBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to change the resolution , so conduct to Con. Con did well to set the definition in a such a way that he could easily tip the scales in his direction.