There will be more cars after 20 years than now
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim
- PRO interprets CON's thesis to mean that CON must prove that there will be fewer cars in the world by the year 2040. PRO's job is to argue this prediction is probably false (after all, we can't really know the future)
- For all we know, a 93-yr old Trump might still be our President and coal burning combustion engines mandated by constitutional amendment. We cannot prove any future outcome must be true [there will be less cars], the best we can do is to suppose what might be likely
- CON defines
- CAR as "a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal
combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people"
- The definition is manifestly insufficient
- For example, flying cars are clearly cars
- A FLYING CAR is "a type of personal air vehicle or roadable aircraft that provides door-to-door transportation by both ground and air. The term "flying car" is also sometimes used to include hovercars"
- In films featuring flying cars, the flying cars are still called cars
- The word "car" is in the name FLYING CAR
- For example, cars without internal combustion engines are clearly still cars
- Electric cars are still cars
- The Tesla Model X, for example, does not have an internal combustion engine but we still call it a car
- "In 2016, the Model X ranked seventh among the world's best-selling plug-in cars"
- The word is derived from the Latin for chariot and use precedes the internal combustion engine by centuries
- Train cars, subway cars, elevator cars may lack internal combustion engines but are still called cars
- The advantage of Mirriam-Webster's definition is that most of the things that are obviously cars are defined as cars:
- CAR [noun] is "a vehicle moving on wheels"
- PRO recommends this definition as an improvement in accuracy
- PRO argues flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years
- because
- demand for intercontinental travel
- PRO assumes intercontinental travel will resume its former popularity after our present emergency wanes
- Denver Int'l Airport Easter week travel down 94% from last year
- Orlando Int'l Airport Easter week travel down 97% form last year
- Coronaviruses alone that might profoundly limit the popularity of international travel over the next two decades. If COVID-19 keeps coming back or there's a SARS-3 or a COVID-26 in our future, international travel might well become a heavily regulated public health concern with little demand or opportunity for unrestricted personal flights. We might want to limit traffic to well tracked planes
- won't crash into space trash
- traditional ground cars are at least as unlikely to be impacted by space trash as flying cars
- fewer deaths
- Says who? Either everybody who flies has to meet present training level (Flight school costs $5-16,000 so not likely) or we fill the air with insufficiently trained drivers.
- Think of all the cars we've seen on the side of the road with flat tires or out of gas or broken down. Now place all those maintenance and planning failures 3 or 4 thousand feet in the air. Fewer deaths?
- CON argues that there are too many unknown variables to predict but popular adoption of flying cars in just 20 years seems very unlikely.
- All the current trends are toward denser, more vertical residential living to leverage greater efficiency in utilities. Flying cars trend the wrong way. Where do we store all these winged cars? Where will all those runways fit?
- Wikipedia offers:
- "The need for the propulsion system to be both small and powerful can at present only be met using advanced and expensive technologies. The cost of manufacture could therefore be as much as 10 million dollars"
- Even if we get the cost down to one-hundredth that in 20 years- that's still 3 times the present cost of a car
- Almost every model of flying car under consideration still uses an internal combustion engine, which PRO argues won't be around in 20 years.
- PRO argues that electric cars will replace internal combustion engines in 20 years because pollution harms the environment and people
- PRO and CON agree that the present level of pollution put out be cars is unsustainable however demand for cleaner tech is no guarantee that cleaner tech will be invented.
- Present electric car technology requires mineral resources which the Earth simply lacks in sufficient known quantities
- The UK, with 3.25% of the world's cars, plans to mandate electric only by 2035. Leading researchers evaluating the environmental impact of such a move advise:
- "To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles, assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate, at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper.
- This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry"
- In other words, the planet lacks sufficient rare metals to replace the whole internal combustion fleet with electric cars
- The most optimistic reports expect electric vehicles to represent 57% of the [new] passenger car market by 2040
- So, by 2040, Electric cars may be more than half of the new car market, providing we resolve the the scarcity of essential metals, but the majority of cars will still be old internal combustion cars.
- Credit Suisse estimates that about a quarter of the total cars on the road in 2040 will be electric
- The real number of cars in the world is expected to double 2016 estimates to over 2 billion cars world wide.
- "Cars are projected to reach the two billion mark by 2040, while air travel kilometers are set to hit 20 trillion in the same period. Bernstein said it expects most of this transport growth to happen in emerging markets like China and India, as global populations are set to rise by another two billion over the next 25 years to 9.2 billion"
- So, even if we accepted CONs unacceptable assertion that electric cars and flying cars do not count as real cars,
- 2 billion cars minus an anticipated one-fourth (500 million) electric car is 1.5 billion cars
- let's also subtract a very generous 15 million flying cars selling at around $100,000 a pop (based on white paper estimates of $1.5 trillion market)
- to get an estimated total 1,485 million internal combustion engine cars on the road in 2040
- 1,485 million is still a greater number than the estimated 1,200 million on the road today
- Even including CON's overly narrow definition of cars, CON's main assertion is shown to be false.
- If CON argued that electric cars would outnumber internal combustion engines by 2050, the odds on being right increase significantly but depend heavily on available resources, developments in internal combustion efficiency, developments in battery size, weight, and capacity and the prevalence and efficiency of autonomous driving tech
- Flying cars still count as cars. The word car is even in the word (see CON1)
- Electric cars still count as cars. The word car is even in word (see CON1)
- By either definition, CON failed to prove that there will be fewer cars in the world by the year 2040. Most experts estimate about 2 billion cars in 2040- nearly double 2016 numbers. We can't know the future, but expert consensus refutes CON's thesis
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29#Holder_of_the_burden
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadable_aircraft
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovercar
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Element#Effects
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Golden_Gun_%28film%29#Car_stunts
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II#Depiction_of_the_future
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_X
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/car
- https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-update-dia-travel-down-94-percent-since-this-time-in-2019
- https://insidethemagic.net/2020/04/orlando-airport-traffic-down-sp1/
- https://lessons.com/costs/flying-lessons-cost
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car#Cost
- https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/06/20190624-uk.html
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2019/06/10/electric-models-to-dominate-car-sales-by-2040-wiping-out-13m-barrels-a-day-of-oil-demand/#65d70123342e
- https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/air-miles-travelled-number-cars-111850215.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACvLGmzhouL0ZmF4wNkNOgIiT2TqRcK5cvzgKmuYRr3V0MxAUDOdySKQY_c809TvxXtGExqEPamE7MRi1m5jkEsPZjA1EcDKVrBke6Oz8XJmH5gCPn7Ib_zI0hG1Rmr1bltpe1oTC0B0eqQr1SSleVYAWYRO0ObH31-Yc_kIJJLg
- https://www.ehang.com/app/en/EHang%20White%20Paper%20on%20Urban%20Air%20Mobility%20Systems.pdf
- Sea horses live in the sea while horses live on land.
- Sea horses are not in the same family of Horses.
- Flying cars implement the main feature that has never been on cars before, and the more new and distinct things there are added, the less "original and pure" it is. If you add too much water to an oil tube, at one point it can barely be even called an oil tube. Flying cars too. It added something that has only been on aircraft before.
- On the contrary, Flying cars implement nothing new(just enhancements. Flying cars to a plane is like a video game console to a video game console with motion control, and flying cars to a car is like a video game console to a TV that just so happens to play games). Other than more movable wheels(which has been on planes since commercial flights were a thing), flying cars has ALL qualities of a private aircraft, apart from that it can maneuver lands easier. Aircraft, like usual, can maneuver lands already(from the middle of the airport to the borders of it), and flying cars are just a few more than that. No new techniques implemented, and flying cars are closer to aircraft than to cars. Thus it is better to categorize flying cars to aircraft than to cars.
- That still doesn't take account of hovercars, in which they are ALWAYS flying and are also more aircraft than a car.
Train cars, subway cars, elevator cars may lack internal combustion engines but are still called cars.'
Car: a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.
- CON has made no objection to BoP. CON must prove to VOTERS' satisfaction that there will be
fewer cars in the world by the year 2040.
- PRO has made no reply
- Going by PRO's definition of CAR, experts predict there will be 2 billion CARS on the road by 2040
- Going by CON's definition of CAR, experts predict there will be 1.485 billion CARS on the road by 2040
- We can argue about definitions of CAR all day but using either definition CON loses this debate. Either number represents MORE CARS on the road than the present 1.2 billion
- CON argues that because sea horses aren't horses, flying cars must not be cars
- PRO still wonders why the sci-fi movies all call flying cars CARS then
- More important to our thesis, will flying cars replace ground cars and in what numbers?
- In R1, PRO offered 15 million flying cars and called that a generous estimate. CON did not counter the number so let's let that number stand- just 15 million flying cars to offset an increased demand of 800 million. CON fails to show that flying cars will replace CARS by 2040.
- CON argues that because electric cars don't have internal combustion engines, electric cars must not be cars.
- Here is Car and Driver magazine call a Tesla Model 3 a CAR
- "We're not exaggerating when we say that the Tesla Model 3 has an interior unlike any other car on the market today"
- Tesla Model 3's don't have an internal combustion engine
- Car and Driver still counts electric cars as cars.
- CON offered an overly narrow definition late
- PRO objected
- VOTERS need not resolve the question of the definition of CAR, since PRO has shown that CON's thesis fails using either definition. There will be more CARS by 2040.
- CON argued flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years because of increased demand for intercontinental travel
- PRO countered that coronavirus will increase intercontinental regulation and more limits will likely restrict demand
- CON made no response
- CON argued flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years because flying cars won't crash into space trash
- PRO countered that present ground cars seem just as safe or safer from space debris
- CON made no response
- CON argued flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years because flying cars will give us few deaths.
- PRO asked for evidence. What are the training challenges of flying cars? If more complicated than a ground car (as a flying car would certainly need to be) we have to assume less demand or higher death rates from untrained drivers. PRO assumes more death, not less as people run out of gas five thousand feet above a playground.
- CON made no response
- PRO argued flying cars would be hard to store, against the current trend towards smaller footprints.
- CON made no response
- PRO argued flying cars will cost three times a regular car, driving down demand
- CON made no responase
- PRO argued flying cars depend on internal combustion engines, which CON predicts will be phased out. What other engine technology supports flight? We're nowhere near getting electric cars that much power. Consider how lightweight that flying car would have to be and consider how lightweight frames offer less protection against impacts- see more deaths above
- CON made no response
- CON argues that electric cars will replace internal combustion engines in
20 years because pollution harms the environment and people
- PRO showed that the planet lacks sufficient rare metal to support a mass transition to electric
- CON made no response
- PRO showed that that the electric cars will at best represent one quarter of all cars by 2040
- CON made no response
- VOTERS should award ARGUMENTS to PRO: By
either definition, CON failed to prove that there will be fewer cars in
the world by the year 2040.
- Thanks to User_2006 for a good debate
- Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration
- https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-number-of-cars-worldwide-is-set-to-double-by-2040
- https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093560_1-2-billion-vehicles-on-worlds-roads-now-2-billion-by-2035-report
- https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews259billioncars.pdf
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/car
- https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3
'flying cars are so scarce it is made into a joke ... So, in 20 years, there will be "flying cars", which are just private planes.'
This summarizes the key problem of the instigators case, it is even at a glance self-contradictory. Further trying to play with definitions, the base definitions should be in the description, otherwise it becomes a bad case of trying to move the goalposts. However, if playing with them for fun, clips from Back To The Future in which everyone is using flying cars by 2015, would have been a good path to take (it should not have been pro who first mentioned this movie).
I am not overly concerned with the BoP, nor on the preciseness of "will be." If there was greater contest between the two debaters I would probably fall back to those issues for tie breaking. Still they are good notes from the contender to the instigator to improve his future setups.
The highlight of pro's case is that more cars are being built and not that many are being destroyed, more drivers due to increasing population, giving the 1.2 billion increasing to at least 1.45 billion.
Sources are overwhelming. Highlight being evidence to those numbers. Comparatively, con offered a single one trying to argue that some cars should not count as cars, but even then it would not bridge the gap.
Argument: Con's arguments were pre-occupied by one: the definition of "car," which, given its restrictive interpretation, discounted many vehicles that are road vehicles with the express intent to travel over roads used by public and private utility. Pro, by contrast, gave many more cogent arguments routing the debate subject as given. Points to Pro
Sources: Although I do not give much credence to numbers of sources given, Pro was clearly deficient, not only I number, but more importantly, quality. Con missed offering the one source that wold have supported his primary argument: the definition of "car." He quoted a definition, but never offered the source other than by generic reference: "the" dictionary. Which dictionary? I happen to use the OED, but Con's offered definition is nothing like mine, are I would have expected some correlation. Points to Pro.
S%G: Use of S & G much moe consistent on Pro's side, along with better syntax.
Conduct: About the same. Tie.
Here is a similar debate seven years ago with familiar participants
http://www.debate.org/debates/RESOLVED-driverless-cars-will-be-the-norm-within-the-next-20-years/1/
"Again debating the top debater my hopes of winning is slim, but the chance I will learn something is huge"
So what is more important to User_2006...
Winning a debate or surviving the Coronavirus Pandemic ?
Yes, hopefully I will find a solution. Again debating the top debater my hopes of winning is slim, but the chance I will learn something is huge.
I'll add as an aside that Con's argument smacked of a complaint against use of fossil fuels, arguing for electric cars. Perhaps Con ignores that there is one significant correlation between internal combustion and electric cars: they both use petroleum to lubricate moving parts and fabricate plastic parts. There is no green-energy AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. Better get cracking to solve that.
I know I will probably lose but just debating people I know I will win isn't going to let me learn as much as debating the master like my opponent here.
Just have fun with it, and try to learn something.
Wow, debating the top debater in the whole website. Have lots of pressure.