Airlines are equipped with life vests. Likewise equip with parachute mechanisms.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 22,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
You can say it's dogmatic but it logically follows according to an objective.
You argue why it's invalid or not congruent in opposition to the topic statement.
Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.
I don't think pro made his case that parachutes represent a small chance of survival rather than none, con's argument certainly makes sense regarding how parachutes may increase the chance of death rather than reduce it. I'm a little dissapointed that con did not address the fact that it is extremely unlikely that a situation can occur on a commercial plane where it is known far enough ahead of time that the plane is going to crash, they almost always are attempting emergency procedures to avoid the crash all the way down. While he didn't address it explicitly, it still follows his argument that one might decrease survival rates, I can imagine multiple deaths on a plane that regained control and landed safely more easily than I can imagine a plane that knows far enough ahead of time it will crash to get passengers off safely with peronal parachutes.
Pro raised an enteresting option with his distinction between a parachute and a parachute "mechanism" but he remained at a personal device, which isn't very practical. I recall once reading about an option where the entire passenger cabin could be ejected and parachuted safely to the ground, that would certainly overcome many of con's objections and address the timing issue better, but as con argued, may still not be economically practical. I suspect if both options were avialble, nobody would pay a hundred dollars more to be on the equipped plane. Remember, flying is still the safest way to travel, I just don't think this is a practical consideration, don't know of anyone that keeps a life jacket in the car in case they drive into a lake because it is som unlikely, I think the same goes for parachutes, just to unlikely they can make a difference.
Pro continually insists that a small chance of survival would be preferable to zero chance. This 1. ignores Con's points of how dangerous jumping out of a commercial airline, especially at cruising altitude and given that the vast majority of passengers are not trained to use a parachute. 2. falsely assumes that an engine failure on a plane results in 100% fatalities unless over water. 3. ignores the fact given by Con that the vast majority of airplane crashes take place while taking off or landing.
Furthermore, Pro seems to think there is some meaningful distinction between a parachute and a "parachute mechanism," further stating that the latter would be deployed merely by a button or similar function. Changing the deployment method doesn't make it not a parachute, and Con's points on training and safety still apply.
If Pro has a desire to jump out of a plane, they can bring their own parachute as Con said, but I suspect most people would rather keep their carry-on.
Pro insists some chance of survival would be better than none, but con is able to counter the increased cost to airlines and how damned long it would take even an expert to get the thing on during the emergency when the plane is in a nose dive and there isn't that much time (in addition to other problems like the other related gear needed for skydiving; or how it would be distributed, and the risk of having to wear those the whole time).
Pro attempts to leverage that it could be some new type of parachute which hasn't been invented yet, but this doesn't make the thing seem feasible or cost effective.
It's a neat thought, but too impractical and not thought through.
Just let me hit the ground.
You have to post your closing first… but yes, as a former parachutist, it is a very easy vote.
Fairly simple vote if either of you wish to.