Instigator / Pro
21
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3089

Classic Debate Topic: Self-Driving cars are Unethical

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
0
Better legibility
3
1
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

DeadFire27
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Self-Driving cars are unethical, on the basis that they have a utilitarian nature, which is not always ethical.

Ethical: relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.

Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

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:

I speculate whether the two debaters actually know each other....

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:

Absolute facepalm material. Free win.

If you report my vote, it will backfire. You are getting free wins from your IRL buddies, this is just pathetic.

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:

Argument - Pro opens up with an argument regarding Utilitarianism which at first glance may appear to have nothing to do with the debate. He/she claims that: "The overall conclusion is that Utilitarianism can be morally conflicting. How is this related to self-driving cars? They use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles. Therefore, morally unethical.", but provides absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Con - Con does not rebut anything Pro wrote, and therefore I must assume that Con does in fact believe that Pros argument about Utilitarianism being a guide for the moral principles of self driving cars, is true.
Worse, Con comes out with a damn good argument which supports Pros case, and probably a better argument than Pro produced.

R2 - Pro decided to skip round 2, which may have been an error considering he/she had not cemented his/her round 1 argument with any scholastic support, and Con actually came out with the best argument so far, pointing out that self driving cars are good because they can be used to take an injured person to hospital.

R3 - Pro does point out in round 3 that an ambulance would be better. And also points out that an injured person may not be able to get to the car, which is a good hypothetic. Con responds with his/her own hypotheticals, which did not refute Pros claim that an ambulance would be preferable and that an injured person may not be able to get to the car.

Given that Con failed to rebut Pros round 1 argument, and provided the best argument for Pro, and failed to support his/her round 2 statement in round 3, the argument goes to Pro - Pro

Sources - Pro does provide a couple of sources to support his/her opinions regarding Utilitarianism, and Con provides not one single source. However I am reluctant to award Pro any points for his/her use of sourcing, as what really required a source was the claim that self driving cars use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles. However as Con refused to rebut Pros claim, then I guess Con believes that it is a fact that self driving cars use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles, making Pros sources in to why Utilitarianism is bad, after all. P.S I do not personally agree with Pro. I would have been Con for this debate. But I am not voting on my own opinion on the subject - Pro

S&G - Both as eloquent as each other - Tie

Conduct - Both conducted themselves impeccably - Tie