Instigator / Pro
4
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic

Rancho's definition for a machine is incorrect

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

zedvictor4
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1448
rating
17
debates
32.35%
won
Description
~ 386 / 5,000

This video is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MlkASchodc

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.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: The flaw in Pro’s argument that "all machines must be able to reduce human effort" as needed to be proved by Con is the imperative "must" that was not part of Rancho’s definition. For example, a Rube Goldberg machine [a machine designed to perform a simple task by extravagant mechanical operation], certainly does not reduce human effort in the making of it, let alone reducing the time involved in accomplishing the simple task, yet it meets Pro’s definition of "machine."

Further, that non-machines can also reduce human effort is a red herring because Pro never implied the difference, let alone the mention of "tool" as opposed to "machine." Therefore, the mention of "non-machines" is irrelevant.

Finally, that Rancho did not mention direct, or indirect contribution to effort cannot be implied either way. We don’t know Rancho’s mind on the intention.

Whereas, Con’s argument of definition of machine, i.e., "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" is wholly accurate, and, it supports Rancho’s definition. Points to Con for the better, cohesive argument.

Sources: Tie. Although Con offered no sources, Pro's sole source, the video, did not support Pro's argument.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Both were courteous to one another. Tie.