Instigator / Pro
8
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#2208

THBT: Present-day style motorsports will not go extinct even if more advanced forms of transportation replace the car/motorcycle industry

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
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Motorsports: Sports that involve driver-operated land vehicles

Extinct: Disappear, to be replaced

Car/motorcycle industry: Industries that could, while not necessarily includes the production of cars and motorcycles, and generally refers to industries that fuels the medium of the present-day vehicles and motorsports(Including tuners, internal-combustion engine suppliers, etc) and generally does not partake in the planned wave of new forms of transportation(Such as flying cars, hyperloop, etc) that will replace the present forms of transportations, especially ones eligible to be used in general motorsports.

Advanced forms of transportation: Transportation that are more advanced than the forms used in the present, and is hypothetically/planned to be used in the future and has a very high tendency of replacing the present-day forms of transportation.

Present-day style: Forms of a spanned subject that is currently being utilized by the world

B_O_P(PRO): Present-day style motorsports will not go extinct even if more advanced forms of transportation replace the car/motorcycle industry

CON: PRO did not sufficiently prove his case

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

Concession.

Still going to give a little review (yes, this is always allowed).

Con made three key arguments.
1. The first is where I feel the true spirit of the debate lay, and his penny farthings (and similar examples) was strong. Pro may have been able to defend from this, but a little more focus on the lack of extreme penny farthing racing, would have likely sealed it as most Motorsports would almost definitely go extinct (even if not all, leaving it an on balance the resolution is false thing).
2. Can't know the future. This had some strong merit.
3. Heat death of the universe... I hate to say it, but next time a scope statement in the description would avoid certain semantic arguments. That said, I do believe a reasonable scope was implied by nature of the resolution's the comparative statement (said extinction being related to the replacement).

While I would have been curious for pro's defenses, and I think he still stood a chance (even if not a great one), con indeed seemed right to simplify pro's case to an appeal to tradition (there are possible defenses, but such a fundamental problem is really hard to overcome, shaking general confidence in the case).

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

concession