Rancho's definition for a machine is incorrect
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 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
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.
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.
Iconic movie
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.