Robots are going to increase the quality of life for humans
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 600
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Simple as said:
Pro - agree w/ (Robots are going to increase the quality of life in humans)
Con - disagree w/ (Robots are going to increase the quality of life in humans)
Players play fair (no aggression)
And judges (open voters') vote fair accordingly to the players arguments (no favouritism based on past debates)
Not the strongest debate I have read. Pro brought up the construction safety argument. It was a tangible one, and directly improves human life by reducing occupational death. The burden was met. No sources, conduct fine. Con had so many places to go and did not.
Both were not significantly better in any regard, but in my personal opinion Pro provided much more connvincing arguments.
The debate is undoubtedly intriguing, with both sides presenting compelling points. However, neither argument is sufficiently developed to be more convincing than the other, and neither Con nor Pro utilizes any sources. The framework could be improved for both parties, but neither side displayed rudeness or greater professionalism than the other. If the debate had extended beyond two rounds or if Pro and Con had used sources to substantiate their statements, a decision could be made. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Con's arguments:
1) different feeling of speaking to a robot,
2) the personal touch,
3) we may lose out on valuable personal interactions,
4) a robot leads a mass in pollution,
5) increasing temperatures causing global warming,
6) disregarding the fact of exercise,
7) unsustainable exploitation of natural resources
8) dependency on rare metals for production of electronic equipment further deepens
9) new challenges for recycling and waste management.
Pro's arguments:
1) deaths could've been avoided if we simply had robots carry out difficult jobs,
2) we humans will find a way to minimise pollution, just like how we've seen in the past with electric cars emitting less greenhouse gases then engine cars.
3) "exploitation of natural resources" and usage of "rare metals", just like with pollution we will surely find a way to optimise recycling and invent new "waste management" technologies which can be further utilized to save so much more resources other than just metal used for robots/electronics.
I am leaving arguments as a tie. This is because there is no way for me to compare the results of robots and pollution, when no numbers were given by either side.
Sources werent used. Tie.
Legibility was good on both sides. Easy to read. Tie.
Conduct was fine on both sides. Tie.
ty Best.Korea for voting
Bro it doesn't matter how disturbing the robots are, they literally will improve QOL no matter how you look at it.
yes indeed its lovely for all the work to be done for us, but not all of us can manage exercise as a separate task so its quite nice to take in chores as a way of exercise deceiving ur brain
The technology tends to do both harm and good. But sure, it would be nice to have my own robot to do the work for me.