Instigator / Con
3
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1879

There will be more cars after 20 years than now

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

'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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.