The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

smart cities lead to inflation

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 362 times Debate No: 90947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Let me clarify that I am not a Luddite who is against deploying new technology. I am merely arguing that technology is a useful tool for achieving other objectives and is not a goal in itself.
smart cities are ultimately about clustering smart people and not steel-and-chrome towers: s. Building human capital clusters also requires active management and investment. One obvious strategy is to weave educational, cultural and intellectual institutions into the fabric of the city. Yet, Indian urban planners are doing exactly the opposite. Universities are not being built as part of the city but as large stand-alone islands outside the city. This is not just a waste of land and amenities, but also gets in the way of creating clusters. Similarly, the smart city advocates say little about the need to make space for museums, think tanks, theatres, temples, sports facilities or iconic buildings. No amount of digital technology can create a human capital cluster without investing in such cultural and intellectual institutions


I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.


My opponent plagiarized his entire first round argument from the following website:

I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I my views Smart cities are empty hype. They lead to rise in cost of living in the following way:-
1)The land required for completion of the projects is purchased at ridiculously high rates which is tried to be recovered from the taxpayers. Sometimes the farmers who are unwilling to sell their land are exploited thus finally it is the poor who suffer.
2)Smart cities are most of the times a product of private companies which cost very take all the townships for example.
3)An "environment tax of 30 percent is levied on industries drastically reducing investments leading to unemployment in masses.
4)There is no plan as to what happens to existing cities which already face tons of problems which I dont think need to be mentioned.
Lastly, I would like to say that smart cities are not same as smart phones which can immediately changed as new models come in market sooner than later technology would go old thus it is smart citizens that make a city smart and not only the technology.


Well, apparently my opponent doesn't deny his plagiarism, and wishes to continue the debate. I am happy to oblige him. First things first...

Burden of Proof

As the instigator and the one making the positive claim, my opponent has the full burden of proof. He has to make a case supporting his claim, but I do not. As Con, all I am required to do is negate his arguments. I reserve the right to make my own negative case, but for now, will only be negating his arguments.


Logical Fallacy

After stealing his first round argument from a source, my opponent has now gone in the complete different direction, and not referenced a single source. This is a problem for him, because it renders his entire second round argument as a logical fallacy known as a bare assertion. [1] This happens when someone makes an argument, but offers zero evidence to support their claims. Basically we're supposed to just believe their argument because they say so.

I ask the voters to reject his entire second round arguments as the baseless claims that they are.


Debate Round No. 2


My friend seems to lack any solid material to defend his topic and thus seems to keep reminding the honorable voters of the mistake I made in the first round. No Sources have been mentioned in the second round because it is a result of my original thinking. I would like to sign off by requesting my esteemed opponent to prove his debating skills in a genuine way rather than creating fuss about the first round which has already been taken into consideration by the honorable voters.


Well, apparently my opponent agrees with me that he has the full burden of proof (since he didn't argue with me). This being the case, I have already won the debate. After all, he plagiarized the first round, fell into a logical fallacy in the second round, and didn't make an argument this round. Having said that, I am happy to act on his advice, and offer my negative case.

Negative Case

Smart cities actually lower inflation due to their aggressive use of cutting edge technology. This allows costs to be deferred by more productive use of time.[2]


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 5 months ago
I would like to thank my opponent for giving a good effort. Hopefully he will refrain from plagiarism in the future.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: Adley104// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro start to end.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's agreement with a given side. It does not explain S&G or sources.
Posted by Ragnar 5 months ago
Conduct: Pro may have rearranged sentences from the website con cited, but it's still plagiarism.
Argument: In essence BoP alone would carry this again pro, once Con used it as an argument which could be countered (more below).
Sources: Each round (even the disqualified round) con used strong on topic sources, he even flipped pro's R1 to work wholly against pro (by catching the plagiarism).

R1: Disqualified.
Pro offered a series of pathos appeals, without evidence. He's good at finding sources, he could have turned these into more than assertions of personal outrage; worse his third point includes a quotation mark likely like over from another source from which he copy/pasted (also another reason not to plagiarize, it makes people assume the worst). Also apparently it's "smart citizens that make a city smart," whatever that means.
Con opened with a classic BoP declaration, then demanded pro back up his claims with evidence.
Pro attempted to move the goalpost to con having the BoP, in a basic confusion between plagiarism and bare assertion fallacy. Original thinking is good (somewhat comical with the 30% environment tax claim), it's what leads us to debate in the first place, but it needs to be supported, specifically when asked to do so.
Con met the cross examination requested (unlike pro), setting him unquestionably in the lead on arguments and sources (the Bloomberg political rhetoric from India, well normally not allowed in the final round, it was effectively required by pro, who was already in the negative on sources... Very well played).
Posted by lyokowarri0r 5 months ago
Nice catch dsjpk5
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 months ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Plag. gives and instant win to Con. Conduct goes to Con for the Plag. Please don't Plag. Pro. It sucks.