Rancho's definition for a machine is incorrect
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
This video is here.
You are to prove Rancho's simplified definition. You may use Chatur's definition, but that is not needed.
Any questions may be asked in the comments section and comments section only. I will try my best to answer them at the time that I am awake. Cheating, swearing and forfeiting is discouraged. Evidence is encouraged.
I would ask my opponent, Zvictor4, why is Rancho's definition correct.
I am here to remind you that Rancho made that definition because he is trying to be smart. His definition is not the dictionary definition.
Rancho's definition: A MACHINE is an OBJECT that REDUCES HUMAN EFFORT.
Now, because dictionaries are the things every single person trusts, I will be using them as well.
First of all, I need to define "machine" from the defined definition of the dictionary. Then I contrast.
Machine(noun): An apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
Now, let's define other things.
Object(noun): a material thing that can be seen and touched.
Reduce(s)(verb): make smaller or less in amount, degree, or size.
Human(noun): a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
Effort(noun): a vigorous or determined attempt.
Conclusion: Rancho's definition can be defined as A machine is something that makes people do less work.
These claims shall be justified by my opponent:
1. Machines always make people do less work
2. Anything that makes people do less work is a machine
If my opponent fails to prove any one of them, it will be my victory.
Now, I will start my authentic argument:
1. Not everything that reduces human effort is a machine.
Let me start a scenario. I had shared this with Ragnar for the last 2 days.
- A man climbs rock as a hobby. The cliff is outside in the canyon back in South Dakota. Every time he climbs it to the top, he felt extremely exhausted and had to rest for a quarter of an hour to come down. He practices this, every single day.
- After a week, the man had found one way. He tried to climb in another direction. The other direction has a little rock platform formed from nature, midway from the top to the bottom. He could rest on it!
- From now, the man would climb every day to this rocky platform, rest for a few minutes, and climb the rest, it takes less effort cumulatively.
Now tell me, did the rock reduce human effort? My answer is YES. Is the rock the machine? My answer is no. Using the definition, A rock would not be a machine consider it consist of one part, and that one part is connected with the cliff itself.
Conclusion: In the scenario, the rock reduced human effort but is not a machine.
Conclusion: Because the rock is not a machine, thus Rancho's definition of a machine is incorrect.
The rest is on you!
Definition is a human centred activity as is rock climbing.
The machine is defined by human purpose and the purpose of the machine is to reduce the effort of and/or increase the ability of, the human purpose.
Rock climbing is also defined by human purpose, the purpose of which is no doubt variable I suppose. Though I think that it is fair to suggest that a rock climbing machine that reduced human effort and increased human ability would somewhat defeat the object of a leisure exercise.
Simply, in the context of rock climbing as a sport or leisure activity, the rock ledge is an inanimate opportunity for the climber to rest or not as they should so wish. This fits with neither my opponents nor Rancho's definition of a machine.
Definition is variable and changes:
For example, let's just consider how the definition of gender has now been changed with the addition of:
"The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
So we cannot be wholly reliant upon one source to give us a definitive definition, especially if we already possess established information, that is to say a subjectively objective preconditioned understanding of something, such as a machine.
We may already be programmed to "trust" in already well established information.
Dictionary definition by definition, defines words rather than what the word might represent. Therefore the purpose of definition is not to facilitate the understanding of a machines function but rather the understanding of the function of the word.
So a machine is a machine and it's function and therefore it's purpose is inevitably always correct.
Up the rock face A to B takes the same amount of effort irrespective of an intermediate rest opportunity.
Therefore the rock does not reduce effort but simply presents an opportunity.
Humans climbing rocks is all about human mechanics.
If Rancho's definition suits a human purpose then it will and if it won't it won't. And in this instance Rancho's definition suits my purpose but not my opponents.
To prove you wrong, I only need to prove one of these 2 claims to win:
1) Non-machines can reduce human effort
2) Some machines cannot reduce human effort
You have to prove both of these claims:
1) All machines must be able to reduce human effort
2) Non-machines cannot reduce human effort
I can still prove that Rancho's definition is wrong.
You try to go down a snowy mountain. The only path down the mountain will make you very tired at the end. Then you discovered a huge plank of wood. With minimal edits, you are able to use the plank of wood as a primitive and improvised sleigh
Now, the piece of wood is not a machine, it comprises of a single piece of material, whereas a machine must comprise of different parts, a.k.a multiple pieces of stuff. If you can prove that a piece of wood is a machine... Sorry, you can't. Are you saying that a single piece of paper or a hunk of immobile green plastic, are machines?!
Rancho did not say that every "machine" thing DIRECTLY contributes to the reduction of the human effort on such a topic, so he might as well mean indirectly.
Don't say that this is presumed because it clearly isn't.
You are looking for gold. You are in Australia and you are clearly lost. Here is a map just tucked into some traveler's hut, saying that there is a gold mine near here. You were planning to go east for as long as you possibly can until you find gold. You listened to the directions and found gold. You could have walked to your death and not finding a single nugget of gold, but this map, this single piece of parchment, this one non-machine, has [indirectly] reduced your effort. Since Rancho didn't specify that those machines must reduce the effort directly, any piece of paper that could help people to do things easier would disprove Rancho's definition by being a non-machine but still contributes to reducing effort.
Now that I have proven that non-machines can reduce human effort in the way Rancho described, I am safe to say that Rancho's definition is wrong.
1. Achieving the reduction of human effort in all circumstances other than circumstances where effort is the purpose of the exercise is the purpose of a machine.
2. Chancing upon objects or situations whereby unwanted exertion can be minimalised or difficult situations can be avoided simply defines a chance find in difficult circumstances whereby unwanted exertion or difficult situations can be avoided.
Option 1. Defines one purpose of a machine within the context of the situation it was given. A college lecture within a college machine shop, whereby the original purpose of a question was to define a machine within such a context.
Option 2. Defines the utilisation of objects or situations within the context of difficult circumstances whereby the original purpose of the effort or exercise was completely extraneous to Rancho's situation.
A machine is devised for the purposes of achieving something otherwise the machine is pointless. Reducing effort is one obvious purpose of a machine as Rancho clearly pointed out.
Rancho's definition may have been simplistic but was nonetheless contextually correct. Whereas strenuous leisure pursuits and speculative but risky business opportunities are completely out of context.
Just want to see where you go with this.
I am not accepting. I rarely debate anymore.
I don't want to reveal the points I will make on the debate. Are you not going to accept the debate? if you are accepting it, come at me. If you are not accepting this, I will DM my resolution.
"A machine is anything that reduces human effort" is a simple definition for the purpose of discourse. It is correct in that it gets the point across with minimal effort. There are of course things which would fit inside it, which we would argue are not machines, even while they are being used as such.
"Machines are any combination of bodies so connected that their relative motions are constrained..." is a much more exact definition, which was apparently the correct one within the fictional classroom.
Why is this correct?
Very funny clip. I would say that it's a correct definition, even if not all inclusive.