The Instigator
rob_d
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

is focusing on making cars more "green" hurting progress in creating improvements for them?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,164 times Debate No: 13847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

rob_d

Pro

My argument here is that scientists and designers have worked backwards in attempting to create cars that are safe for the environment when we could potentially have cars that are flying or are near to it if we hadn't been focusing on making everything "green"
Atheism

Con

//we could potentially have cars that are flying or are near to it if we hadn't been focusing on making everything "green"//
We do have cars that can fly.
That, or we are extremely close to it.
http://www.terrafugia.com...
This invalidates my opponent's argument that scientists are only working on making cars green.

I suggest my opponent read the news more often.
Debate Round No. 1
rob_d

Pro

first off, that is more of a car that transforms into a plane than a flying car. But i do agree, yes we have flying cars, but could you be so kind as to provide me with a ratio of prius or smart cars you've seen while driving as compared to flying cars? while we have cars that fly, they are prototypes, they are not extremely available to the public and they're not quite ready to market to the public due to being to complicated, unsafe, hard to pilot, etc. Had we not been working on making cars "green" we might be several large steps closer to having flying cars as a part of our every day life as opposed to watching them on the discovery channel.
Atheism

Con

There are many models of flying cars, not just that.
Anyways. for your argument to have any weight whatsoever, you would need to prove your conjecture.
Debate Round No. 2
rob_d

Pro

The proof is everywhere. Just look on any highway. You will see plenty of hybrid cars and smart cars but you won't see a flying car, or a car that works off of something besides an internal combustion engine. My entire point is that rather than working with old technology and making it "green" we should spend more time, effort, and resources to produce something else; something better. We have flying cars that aren't extremely far away to being usable by the general public. So yes, scientists have obviously been working on flying cars, however, if car companies used their vast resources to push the flying car out of prototype stage instead of developing environmentally friendly hybrids, the automobile as we know it could have evolved into something better by now. This isn't a debate as to whether or not flying cars exist, its whether or not we're shooting ourselves in the foot by working to make old technology environmentally friendly, rather than working towards creating something new, and better. Instead of working backwards, we should use the majority of our resources to push forward to create something better.
Atheism

Con

'Instead of working backwards, we should use the majority of our resources to push forward to create something better.'

Something better being flying cars? Why are flying cars better then cars that would run out of the un-reusable fuels we are running out of?

'The proof is everywhere. Just look on any highway. You will see plenty of hybrid cars and smart cars but you won't see a flying car, or a car that works off of something besides an internal combustion engine.'

This is unsupported and unsubstantiated. My opponent has failed to prove or show that any of his conjectures are true. he simply asserts them and gives no facts. He says that if scientists did not focus on cars fueled by biofuel, we could have flying cars. I showed him a flying car. he says it is not a flying car, just a car that can fly. If he does not accept that, then I think the 'flying car' he is looking for would be an airplane. He has not correctly defined what he believes to be a flying car.

In closing, this was basically a terrible debate because of my opponent's pure conjecture and failure to define key terms. He has failed to fulfill his burden of proof.

I apologize for a wasted debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Wtf happened?
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Meh.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
rob_dAtheismTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
rob_dAtheismTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
rob_dAtheismTied
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 
Vote Placed by mds1303 6 years ago
mds1303
rob_dAtheismTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05