The Instigator
Waffle_Man
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Lambos are rather superior compared to other types of cars.

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...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2015 Category: Cars
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 69777
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Waffle_Man

Pro

Lamborghinis are great cars, and are better than others for many reasons.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Waffle_Man

Pro

Lamborghinis are both tough and fast. The tough is the Lamborghini Urus and Cheetah. The Cheetah was made to be in the military so it was very tough. And the fastest is the Venneno which goes 221 which is faster than the ferraris fastest, the Laferrari which goes 218.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Thank you to PRO for this debate.

FRAMEWORK

The resolution poses an affirmative statement to the effect of "X is superior to Y." Therefore, PRO has the sole burden of proof in evidencing this claim. If he doesn't manage to prove this, or to establish a criteria by which we can objectively evaluate which car is "superior," you vote negative by default.


PRO states, "Lamborghinis are both tough and fast. The tough is the Lamborghini Urus and Cheetah. The Cheetah was made to be in the military so it was very tough. And the fastest is the Venneno which goes 221 which is faster than the ferraris fastest, the Laferrari which goes 218."

There are, however, several problems with this argument:

(1) There's no evidence for any of the claims he's making. His arguments can be taken as nothing more than statements of opinion or postulations, rather than hard evidence.

(2) He discusses qualities that Lamborhinis have, but doesn't provide any contrast to other types of cars. Even if we buy his evidence-less assertions, he has no way to link this to the resolution without some meaningful contrast.

(2) He assumes that possessing qualities of toughness and fastness - and, mind you, there's no reason at all to even buy these, because he provides no evidence - can establish a criteria for objective superiority. There are several things he needs to do in order to accomplish this:

(a) Establish an objective criteria of objectivity superiority. This is where his case fundamentally fails because preferences are completely subjective, and we're left in a position where cars possess different attributes, but some will prefer one car over another for entirely different reasons. PRO may prefer a lambo for X reason, whereas I may prefer another car for Y reason, but neither of us is objectively right unless he can establish this criteria of objectivity. In the absence of that, he cannot link to the resolution and cannot meet his burden.

(b) After establishing and defending that standards, he needs to provide evidence that lambos meet this standard.

(c) He needs to provide evidence for why lambos are superior to other cars - how do lambos meet this standard, but other cars do not?


Unless PRO can meet these challenges, his case completely fails to meet his burden of proof, and thus you vote CON by default.
Debate Round No. 2
Waffle_Man

Pro

You're good, but do you know anything about cars whatsoever. I think not. You should at the least state other cars to beat Lamborghini, instead you critique my writing. Bravo. You argued a topic you know nothing about.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

There are several key reasons that you're voting CON.


First, all of my arguments remain completely untouched, including my framework and burden analyis, as well as my analysis of what PRO needs to do in order to carry his burden. He has failed to do any of those things or to respond to any of my objections, so you're voting CON.

Second, he claims that I should "state other cars to bear the Lamborghini." This is a flagrant attempt to change the goalposts. The burden is on PRO to prove that lambos are superior to all other cars. It is not on me to prove that some other car is superior to the lambos. In order to win this debate - and PRO has no contested it, so you must accept it - is to prevent PRO from affirming the resolution, and by establishing the standards PRO would need to meet if he wanted to affirm the resolution (and the fact that he has failed to meet any of them), I have prevented him from affirming.

Third, he claims I critique his writing. That is utterly silly. I'm critiquing his arguments and his attempt to make a broad generalizaiton as though it is objective without the slightest empirical of philosophical backing, both of which ought to be discouraged in a debate - as this is, after all, a debate.

Fourth, he issues an ad hominem attack to the effect that I "know nothing about cars." It seems that PRO is fond of generalizations, because this is nothing more than yet another generalization, and there's no way that he can glean this from my arguments where, again, I only negated the resolution.

For failure to engage in any meaningful discourse, attempting to change the goalposts, and issuing a personal attack against me, I highly urge you to vote CON on conduct. For not meeting his burden of proof or challenging yet a single objection I put forward, I highly urge you to vote CON on arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by BrokenBlood 2 years ago
BrokenBlood
Sorry you had to deal with a Lamborghini fanboy.

They are in fact crappy cars compared to others.

I used to LOVE them, but these days their numbers just do not compete with other cars.
Posted by Waffle_Man 2 years ago
Waffle_Man
Rather Superior means better. And i didn't finish the last one because my computer was dead.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
You couldn't complete the last debate on the same subject.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
I'll potentially accept if you define "rather superior"
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
You sure about that?
Posted by Waffle_Man 2 years ago
Waffle_Man
Come at me bro, u cant beat da bull
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Waffle_ManResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 failed to present evidence to support the resolution. Pro made baseless assertions, which Con accurately exposed. Pro engaged in ad hominem and other tactics that cost him conduct.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
Waffle_ManResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: not in favor of noob sniping, but con was unrefuted and wins
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Waffle_ManResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Pro barely makes a case and doesn't really refute any of Con's arugments and thus Con wins the debate.