The Instigator
bcresmer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Steve221
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Cars were better in the 70's and 80's then they are today.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Steve221
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,952 times Debate No: 19725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

bcresmer

Pro

I believe that cars were better back in the 70's and 80's because they had better looks, more powerful engines, and you could do more to them then you can with todays cars.

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate.
Steve221

Con

Right off the bat I would like to state that most of my opponent's argument is that of opinion and therefore is hard to debate, That is choice. but what makes a car "better" I would like start my argument off my stating that a way a car looks and how cool it is, merely an opinion and cannot be proven either way. I do think that modern cars are better because
1. they are much safer.
in 1970 the fatality rate was 52,627 fast forward to 2009 and the fatality rate decreased dramatically to a 33,808
2. as my opponent had stated they were more powerful back in the 70's and 80's and that is just not true.
3. you can customize modern cars much more then you could with older cars.
Debate Round No. 1
bcresmer

Pro

My turn.

1) They are much safer. / I concide this point.
2) As my opponent had stated they were more powerful back in the 70's and 80's and that is just not true. / This is 50/50 true.
1968-1970 Dodge Charger B-body ( i was unable to get HP for the engines. sorry)
225 cu in (3.7 L) 1bbl I6 (1969-70)
318 cu in (5.2 L) 2bbl LA V8
383 cu in (6.3 L) 2bbl B V8
383 cu in (6.3 L) 4bbl B V8
426 cu in (7.0 L) Hemi 2x4bbl RB V8
440 cu in (7.2 L) 4bbl RB V8
440 cu in (7.2 L) 2x3 RB (1970)

2010 Dodge Charger
2.7 L (160 cu in) EER V6 190 hp (142 kW)
3.5 L (210 cu in) EGJ V6 250 hp (186 kW)
5.7 L (345 cu in) EZB/EZD HEMI V8 368 hp (274 kW)
6.1 L (370 cu in) ESF HEMI V8 425 hp (317 kW)

3) As seen above, they had more engine options then they do today.

My turn

1) They looked better in the 70's and 80's then todays cars.
2) Almost every car back then had a V8 in it.
Steve221

Con

While I have already won the argument that modern cars are much safer I would like to point out my opponent had agreed that not all older model cars are faster and more powerful then their modern day models.

I would also like to point out the fact that my opponent used one car for his example. On average the newer model cars come with a hemi engine and are faster.

engine options are still available so you can customize to your will and whim

counter point 1. basing cars on looks is an opinion and cannot be disputed. I like the newer Challengers compaired to the older models. however that does not mean everyone thinks its as cool as me.

counter point 2. most modern re-issues of cars come with a hemi option
Debate Round No. 2
bcresmer

Pro

(I would also like to point out the fact that my opponent used one car for his example. On average the newer model cars come with a hemi engine and are faster.)

They may have a hemi option, but they are nothing compared to the older versions

(counter point 2. most modern re-issues of cars come with a hemi option)

Only the Charger and Challenger have the optional hemi.

You can never match the sound of the old muscle cars starting up and revving. The newer cars you can barely even hear

Vote Pro
Steve221

Con

Cars get better over time I.E. Safer, more efficient and that is just a fact. One cannot debate opinion so I am not going to talk about which ones look better

be smart vote con
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
bcresmerSteve221Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments could have been far better (mpg, lifespan, relative cost, etc) but his arguments were enough to win the debate
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
bcresmerSteve221Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Safety was the winning argument from con for me. When he pointed out that almost 20,000 less people died in newer vs. older he got my vote.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
bcresmerSteve221Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won the debate. His arguments were more sensible.