The Instigator
CriticalThinkingMachine
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dylancatlow
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

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 2 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,289 times Debate No: 25184
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (58)
Votes (2)

 

CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

I will be arguing that it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs. What I mean by this is that there are certain cases in which failing to come to a stop at a “stop” sign will not result in people getting into car accidents or nearly getting into car accidents, or increase the chance of people getting into an accident. I am not arguing that in these cases, people should not stop in certain cases, but simply that stopping in these cases is not necessary and that it makes no difference whether one stops or does not. My opponent must show that stopping at stop signs is necessary in all cases, or that car safety would be diminished if people did not always stop at stop signs, or that accidents would occur or be likely to occur unless people always stopped at stop signs.

Dimensions of the Debate:

category miscellaneous

resolution topic It is not always necessary to stop at stop signs.

position (pro/for)

number of rounds 3

time to argue 72 hours (3 days)

voting period 72 hours (3 days)

argument max 8000 characters


dylancatlow

Con

It is necessary to stop at all stop signs regardless of the driver's judgement. Stop signs are put up for a reason, for safety. They aren't just arbitrary signs to annoy us. They are a vital part of road safety. They are in such common use today that the average driver just automatically stops at them without really making an conscious effort. This is a good thing. Stopping at stop signs correctly ever time reinforces our habits. If drivers get into the habit of picking and choosing the stop signs they feel are necessary, they lose that automation and are at risk to running stop signs that actually matter. If there was some obscure hypothetical scenario in which a driver wanted to run a stop sign with zero change of causing damage or being injured, of course I wouldn't have a problem with that. This, however, is not the world we live in.
Debate Round No. 1
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

Thank you dylancatlow for agreeing to be the contender for this debate. I forgot to mention that I wanted the first round to be for acceptance only. This is typically how debates on this site go. I see that you’re new to this site, so you may not have known that. I’m pretty new myself, but I explored enough debates on the site to know this. I don’t have much of a problem with this, so I’ll allow it, and won't force you to forgo posting an argument for the last round. You’ll get an extra argument out of this! Now on to the debate.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

1- Stop signs are put up for a reason, safety. They aren’t just arbitrary signs to annoy us.

A- I agree that stop signs are put up for that reason but that does not mean that all of them actually do serve that purpose at all times. I may bake a cake for someone for the reason that I want to make them happy, but that does not mean it will actually make the person happy. Intentions and consequences are not the same thing.

B- I also agree that stop signs are not put up to annoy us. However, as I will explain in a bit, there are a few cases in which the placement of stop signs seems very arbitrary. But even if this were not so, the fact that they are not put up to annoy us does not prove that one must always stop at stop signs. Those are two different contentions. Con is arguing that the intention behind stop signs is valid, but my resolution is concerned with the consequences of stop signs.

C - Con is putting his emphasis on the placement of stop signs, but as you will see, only one of my three scenarios concerns the placement of the stop sign. The other two have to do with the situation one finds oneself in at a stop sign, not the placement of the sign.

2- They are in such common use today that…signs that actually matter.

A- It is never a good thing if people gain automation over any driving actions (though I can understand why automation might seem superficially beneficial.) It makes one form tunnel-vision habits that ignore things go out of the ordinary, and accidents are by their very nature out of the ordinary. Safety is created when drivers are alert and consciously judge each situation independently, anticipating mistakes, not following a rote routine. This is stressed in driver’s education. There is neither evidential nor logical reason to believe Con’s contention.

3- If there were some obscure hypothetical scenario…not the world we live in.

A- As I explain below, the scenarios are not nearly as obscure as you think. Also, you describe a driver “running” a stop sign. But this implies a false dilemma: you either stop at a stop sign or you run through it, when there is of course a middle option of simply slowing down (to a crawl in some cases). I never said that slowing down was a bad idea. Slowing down can be just as effective as stopping in some cases.

B- Con has overstated my burden. I do not have to show that there is no chance of getting into an accident if one fails to stop at stop sign (for there is a chance of anything physically possible happening) but that no accident would be caused by the failure to stop at the sign.

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

I can conceive of at least three scenarios in which stopping at stop signs will not increase the chance of getting into an accident.

1- when a stop sign is placed at anyplace other than an intersection

This is rare but it does occur. I cannot reveal a specific location because that would give members of this site an idea of where I live, and to reveal information like that is inappropriate, but take my word that there is a location in which a stop sign exists in the middle of a long strip of road. Surrounded on either
side of the road are large sections of grass. There is no intersection at the stop sign, just more grass. There is no crosswalk intersection either. Since there can be no intersecting cars or people, how can a car accident occur here if a driver goes through the sign? This is also an example of an arbitrarily placed stop sign, and if there is at least one, you can bet that there are more.

2- when a driver can clearly see that there are no other cars approaching the intersection

If a driver is approaching a stop sign and can clearly see that there are no other cars or people at the intersection or cars or people approaching it for a considerable distance, then there is no way that he can get into an accident if he skips the stop sign, for there is nothing or no one with whom he can collide. I would suggest slowing down a bit though.

3- when slowing down and coming to a crawl is sufficient to allow other cars at an intersection to go

If a driver comes to an intersection where he must let another driver intersect his path, coming to a crawl (perhaps at 1 mile per hour) provides enough time for the intersecting driver to continue his path. It has the exact same effect as stopping. If he crawls at an appropriate point, he can reasonably maintain the crawl for perhaps 10 seconds (while never entering the intersection) which is clearly more than enough time to allow the other driver to go.

Conclusion

The rule that one should always stop at stop signs was created by and is held by overcautious people. As I have clearly explained, stopping at stop signs is not always important, and in the cases I have pointed out, failing to stop at stop signs will not increase the chance of getting into an accident. The rule of stopping at stop signs was universalized out of intellectual laziness. It was done out of failure to acknowledge the three scearios I have just pointed out.





dylancatlow

Con

I thank my opponent for his thorough response. I think he has made some very valid points but his logic is still sophism. He is confusing " it is not necessary to stop at all hypothetical stop signs" with "therefore we don't need to stop at all stop signs." Just because in a hypothetical scenario one has good judgement doesn't mean that applies to all drivers in your scenarios. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need stop signs at all because people would have perfect judgement and stop every time necessary. Stop signs are meant to cover all drivers. In a scenario in which there is a stop sign and the driver might go and might not go, this would create much confusion and might be more dangerous that simply not having one. It must be either one stops at a stop sign or one doesn't. If there is a stop sign in an arbitrary position, remove it. Don't get drivers into the habit of deciding for themselves. We shouldn't let stop signs that don't keep us safe taint those that do.
Debate Round No. 2
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

What Con has just presented is not an argument or arguments, but an agglomerate of unconnected
points. It’s hard to get at the essence at what he is saying here. I figured the best way to respond to this was to just individualize the points and criticism them in turn.

1- I thank my opponent for his thorough response. I think he has made some very valid points but his logic is still sophism.

I wish you would say which points of mine you think are valid, and which ones you think display sophism.

2- He is confusing " it is not necessary to stop at all hypothetical stop signs" with "therefore we
don't need to stop at all stop signs."

I do not see how they are not simply different ways of saying the same thing.

3- Just because in a hypothetical scenario one has good judgment doesn't mean that applies to all drivers in your scenarios.

My resolution is not concerned with whether or not all drivers will have good judgment in my scenarios, my concern is with certain stop sign situations in which a driver might find himself, and how these situations allow for not stopping at stop signs.

4- In a perfect world, we wouldn't need stop signs at all because people would have perfect judgment and stop every time necessary.

In a perfect world we would not even need cars. But that is a minor point. The bigger point is this: What does this have to do with my resolution?

5- Stop signs are meant to cover all drivers.

True, they are meant to, but that does not negate my resolution that not it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs.

6- In a scenario in which there is a stop sign and the driver might go and might not go, this would create much confusion and might be more dangerous that simply not having one.

This needs to be argued, not asserted. Con says it would create much confusion, but for whom? Two of my of my scenarios involve only one driver. There is no one whom he can confuse by his actions for there are no other drivers. The one which involves multiple drivers has to do with a driver slowing to a crawl if he must let other drivers go first, not confusingly running through stop signs.

7- It must be either one stops at a stop sign or one doesn't.

Sure, and I have argued that not stopping at a stop sign is not always necessary. What does
this comment have to do with my resolution?

8- If there is a stop sign in an arbitrary position, remove it.

So Con implicitly concedes that some stop signs are arbitrarily placed, against his post in round one. And I agree that they should be removed, but that is irrelevant to my point that this is an example of a stop sign that it is not necessary to stop at.

9- Don't get drivers into the habit of deciding for themselves.

Why drivers should not get into the habit of deciding for themselves needs to be argued, not asserted. And I never argued that drivers should get into the habit of deciding for themselves.

10- We shouldn't let stop signs that don't keep us safe taint those that do.

Agree, but how does this negate my resolution?

CONCLUSION

Con made interesting points in the first round about the intention behind stop signs, the effect of automation driving, and the obscurity of situations in which one needn’t stop at stop signs. These points were either irrelevant, poorly though out, or just plain wrong. In round two, he did not present any arguments but simply asserted interesting but irrelevant points. He has responded to the fact that I have argued my resolution, but he has not actually responded to any of my arguments, so they still stand.

Thanks for a great debate!


dylancatlow

Con

You see, I didn't really allocate myself enough time to make my argument as accessible as you did. This is my first debate and I really did enjoy it! Going in, I didn't think the people I would be debating would be so, well, uninternet-like. They use esoteric language, sure, but at least they are words!( haha, as if uninternet-like is)

I still believe you are missing my point. I have made your resolution unnecessary by offering an alternate scenario in which not stopping at a stop sign where one is not supposed to is non-existent. Replace stop signs with "yield" signs if the driver really doesn't need to always stop. Stop signs are not a suggestion and should not be treated as such. I honestly believe that anyone who creates a debate in defense of the fact that it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs would not put anyone in danger. I honestly feel you have the judgement to make that call. I do not, however, believe that everyone will.

In my future debates I will spend more time creating my case! I really didn't spend more than a few minutes and it shows! Good debate! I still believe with my single argument, I have won.
Debate Round No. 3
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Actually, I've seen no credible source against Chris Langan have an extremely high IQ.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I love how MBP just says things without backing them up with arguments.

-My resolution was god-awful?
Please, MBP, tell me why you think it was god-awful.

-I could have worded it correctly?
Please, MBP, tell me how else I could have worded it without making the debate about something else (something I do not believe).

I'd really like to know.

Why don't you start a debate and form a resolution yourself, since you're obviously such an expert on well-formed resolutions.
Posted by Manbearpanda 4 years ago
Manbearpanda
Dylan, I'll participate in a debate if and when someone highly intelligent posts a well-constructed resolution with which I happen to disagree on an interesting topic which warrants essay-length discussion with feedback. Don't hold your breath.

Also, do some more research about Langan and you'll find out that he's nowhere near as intelligent as he claims to be. I'll read the CTMU paper and see what I think of it, though.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
I know your reservations, but I still would like to see it.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Manbearpanda, it would be interesting to see you participate in a debate. The only frontier I've seen you explore is that of the comments section.
Posted by Manbearpanda 4 years ago
Manbearpanda
CriticalThinkingMachine, I've explained why your resolutions is malformed. Quite frankly, it's a god awful resolution. As I've also explained, it's not difficult to word such a resolution correctly; saying that your resolution was worded in 'the only possible way it can be worded' only serves to make you look stupid.

As for Dylan's resolution, just read the resolution again and realise you're wrong. Ironically, what you're completely failing to understand is very, very simple critical thinking. 'A' is not the same as 'any'. lol.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
MBP, my resolution is formed very well, thank you. It was not won with semantics. It was won with empirical evidence and reason. As I said, the belief that one should ALWAYS stop at stop signs is a very popular belief, and I worded it the only possible way it can be worded. No traps. No trickery. Dylan would have lost even if he had touched the subject matter because my examples support my resolution.

And you are completely wrong about Dylan's resolution for his debate about the burden of proof being on the theist. You said "He said the theist has the burden of proof in at least one debate." That's blatantly false. He said that "In ANY theist versus atheist debate, people supporting theism have the burden of proof". You need to learn to read things more carefully. Semantics are very important.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
*Not about the being flawed part, about why drivers shouldn't be making their own decisions.

Given all the facts and infinite intellect, any wrong conclusion is obviously false. Debating is still necessary lol.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
Yes, I agree with you completely.
Posted by Manbearpanda 4 years ago
Manbearpanda
That resolution is clearly flawed, since the majority of drivers are idiots and shouldn't be making their own decisions about The Highway Code.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
CriticalThinkingMachinedylancatlowTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro showed that there are cases where stopping is unnecessary it would mean that one doesnt necessarily need to stop. If the reason to put stop signs is for safety and some cases dont have safety hazards, Pro wins.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
CriticalThinkingMachinedylancatlowTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave examples of times where stopping is unnecessary to which Con failed to discredit.