Instigator / Pro
7
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#542

On Balance, the Potential Benefits of Autonomous Vehicles outweigh the Potential Harms

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

For my first instigation on this site, I thought I would create a debate in the CARS category seeing how there are 0 debates in that category now, like that class nobody signs up for.

I propose that the potential benefits of autonomous vehicles are manifest, including improvements in human safety, improvements in transportation costs following improvements in transportation efficiency, and an opportunity for meaningful mitigation of environmental costs in mass transportation.

1st round is reserved for flattery (not required) and acceptance only.
2nd round Pro argues benefits Con argues costs (Con is free to address Pro's argument).
3rd round is for counterarguments, questions, and requests for clarification.
4th round is for replies and answers. No new questions. No new arguments.
5th round is for conclusions and voter appeals.

Acceptance = agreement that any forfeit = automatic loss/end debate

I'm requesting friendly and sincere participation: acceptance of this debate acknowledges that failing on either count is subject to consideration under conduct in voting.

-->
@oromagi

Correct, because breathing oxygen could lead to years of torture, while the worst the benefits of breathing oxygen at best lead to living a great life.

Non stop torture outweighs living like a rock star

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

Wow, so the potential benefits of breathing oxygen could never outweigh the potential harms? I did not know that. You're so intelligent and insightful

Potential benefits can never outweigh potential harms of any action. The potential benefit of jogging is getting healthier and more fit. Potential harm could be a tree you jog by falls on you and you have a very painful death. I think this should be narrowed to likely potential benefits vs likely harms.

1) How do you do 99 debates and win 98 of them?

No idea, man. I was totally convinced I lost twenty of them. Just something that happened.

2) Are you trans? Your bio says your gender is "Other"?

Nope. I am a gay man but I say other for the same reason I say I live in Antarctica- pay no mind to the labels, especially unverifiable labels.

-->
@oromagi

Maybe. I was #1 on my old account for about 30 days. I just don't have the energy for these formal debates anymore. I prefer forum where there are no goalposts to stick to for multiple rounds and forum is much less structured, so if I feel the need to move the goalposts, I'm free to do so.

I got 2 questions for you:

1) How do you do 99 debates and win 98 of them?
2) Are you trans? Your bio says your gender is "Other"?

rationalmadman was the top rated debater on site at the time. I think TheUnderdog was #2 in another incarnation at the time.

-->
@TheUnderdog

I would say that nobody at the rate of 1516 would accept the same topic now, except for new users who didn't know what he is walking himself into.

-->
@oromagi

"Even at present failure rates, the advantages of autonomous vehicles far outweigh the disadvantages. I've set the minimum required rating for acceptance to one above my rating: 1516"

Man how wrong this statement would be now.

I like self driving cars.

-->
@oromagi

Congrats on topping the leaderboard, this debate shows that you deserve to be up there.

-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi

I was planning to vote on this, but was unexpectedly very busy. Still, I'll offer a few thoughts...

Regarding the resolution: Were this one done again, I'd change the resolution to remove the word "potential," but add a disclaimer in the description that the debate is discussing the fairly likely goods and ills of the system. Potentially is just too open ended.

Regarding mandatory conversion: The biggest benefits would only be realized if this happens. While there's some ugliness to this, for anything worthwhile there's always opportunity costs.

S&G: This is my sole disagreement with the existing vote. I view the issues cited on awarding it, to be covered by the argument point. Granted, I've had many complain when I vote against them that I clearly do not understand what points they were really trying to make... But knowing how the rules are interpreted by admin, is useful.

-->
@RationalMadman

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

-->
@Ramshutu

It was not the worst debate I've done so far. Your opinion of what is my worst and best debate is as valid as your quality of thought, which is too shallow and fuzzy to remotely impact me in its output other than getting my wins down as your inability to understand my case results in your inability to vote accurately.

So, I don't really care, I am over this site and online debating in general. I literally can't get better at it, I've tested it and did spot a couple of flaws in my technique early on here but now even at my flawless logic state there's still reason to be found to abuse the voting system to get me voted down so that's when I realise the system is flawed and I have got all I can out of it. Cheers for improving my brain's ability to reason, I'm out and probably gonna end up 13th on the leaderboard as the weeks go by. That's fine by me, engaging in debates is pointless and too risky as I have come to realise and I'd probably get my rating taken down more no matter what I do as people can wilfully ignore my case and say 'incoherent babbling hurr duurrrr' and get their vote passed.

You're so terrible at what you do and the system is so flawed that I could revenge-vote Ramshutu as long as I didn't say I would revenge-vote him and even if I said it, I can say 'only joking' later on. The thing is I'm too worried about actual debating and not going down with cunts like that when you finally fix the system and deal with idiots or malignant trolls who intentionally ignore all the rebuttals one side brings and say 'incoherent babbling because i'm too brain damaged to understand it' in order to make the other sides' points hold up.

-->
@RationalMadman

Sources

The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.

Again the voter does just that.

-->
@RationalMadman

S/G is more than sufficient. Here's what they need to do to award S/G

To sufficiently ground awarding S&G points, a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly, though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points. While this can be somewhat subjective, it should be clear from the vote why a given argument is difficult to read, and not just how many errors a given side has made. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ S&G.

The voter does just that by comparing the two sides and showing why he felt that your arguments were incoherent or incomprehensible. That's the key. You could spell all the words correctly but still be dinged for s/g if your arguments are incoherent (A good example of this would be WisdomofAGES)

-->
@RationalMadman

Quite frankly, this was the worst debate you’ve done so far. It was almost impossible to understand what you were trying to actually argue for, your justification got lost in rambling 100 word sentences, and you didn’t appear to provide any warrant for the claims that you did appear to be making. Worse, you lost site of the resolution - you focused on more practicalities if implementation (which are overridden by fiat), and you spent none of your time really addressing how your position should be weighted against your opponents.

If you feel that debate was good, then this video is the best illustration of our differences:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpJW6lFUA_g

This is where I'm literally out. Like I'm getting ma get average elo thanks to three bs losses and frankly I have perfected my brains ability to reason so I don't want to stay if this is what passes for valid. Just type a wall of text and your vote is valid.

-->
@David

Why is ignoring my rebuttals sufficient in every fucking argument he gave Pro?

-->
@David

How is sng and sources sufficient?

-->
@Ramshutu

Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Decision: Not Removed

Reason for mod decision: The vote is sufficient per the site's voting policies.

Actually after I finish my Type1 debate aim gonna take a break from this site at least in formal debating. I want to spot what triggers retardation in voters like this and what doesn't. It's extremely random but seems to hit many voters at once like I. My debate vs MAR and vs Moeology. It is something that I havent solved yet but once I do, it will help me severely to avoid debating in the style that makes voters incapable of comprehending my flawless logic.

I countered planes but ok ignore it. In fact it's insane how many of my rebuttals were ignored in your childlike analysis.

-->
@Barney

Still wanna vote?

Do you think saying incoherent and blabbering makes you less of f a moron for not understanding my points? xD you win some you lose some, can't fathom x the voters' brains.

“Well, the catch is linked to the following CFB but it's important to note that thoughtlessness and care-free enjoyment of life at the expense of highly intelligent AI surpassing us, even if desirable is going to be impossible and increasingly chaotic the longer that the system doesn't mandate surrender to it, which Pro has ruled out as being the policy-path taken.”

What?

“If all people who walk, ride bicycles and take public transport have less economic or difficulty-to-get-a-driver's-licence barrier then that increases the amount of people on the road, which means the AI has to calculate more variables to predict the future and optimally position itself on the road at all times, which makes the coding and game theory of the AI get perpetually more complex and more expensive to maintain up to a maximal point where it is unclear how Pro has concluded it will be cheaper and better than what happens and is priced today”

One long sentence 3 topics with 5 ands. What are you blathering on about.

Con was literally incoherent throughout this debate, and this excessive incoherence brought about by the repeated and incessant use of super long sentences, and little paragraphing structure fully warrants penalization on spelling and grammar.

On the other hand - pro was succinct, shorter, and far more readable, there were no issues with his understandability at any point.

S&G to pro too

Spelling and grammar.

So I almost never hit people with spelling and grammar - but here Con was simply unreadable. I couldn’t decipher what he was saying in almost the entire debate.

Some examples:

“It's not as if global warming would be saved by this since the distance travelled is hardly lessened and the fuel would be the same as it would be if it was non-automated (and if Pro combats this saying that the system would be able to become entirely cable-based, I will combat it with the utter nonsensical lack of feasibility of cabling every road in the nation, not to mention the abuse of civil liberties that would occur if you made the system automation-mandatory as opposed to an on/off thing they could choose to activate or not)”

This is a single sentence, covering about 5 different things.

“The issue is that if cars become readily available, cheaper in both fuel consumption and durability as they have to be built far less intense for accidents that are not just less common but less severe, then the entire global warming angle is re-negated by the fact that at all times, the human variables on the road are going to make absolutely everything about the system need to result in the cable-for-all tyranny where public transport is the only transport and we all go by train and/or bus.”

This is also one sentence talking about 6 different things and doesn’t even make any sense.

In essence: pro clearly outlined the benefits, and con was barely coherent, with the few harms that were understandable either refuted by pro - or irrelevant to the resolution.

Arguments resoundingly to pro.

Sources:

Pro used thorough and excessive sources throughout to prove his claims. When pro lists beneficial elements of AI, he adds to his warrant by citing the basis for the claims.

His opening round contained sources, from the DoT, Ohio university, IBM, science daily and many others. Pro builds up the benefits mainly by citing these sources to make claims about what AI will and won’t do.

Con, cites 4 sources total. 2 are completely irrelevant about game theory, and 2 are for a seemingly irrelevant argument about cost and difficulty of AI which was unrelated to the resolution.

Pro has quantity and quality - con needed to back up his claims with evidence rather than relying on his stream of consciousnesses.

Sources to pro.

5.) Cons round 3

I generally give up. This was unreadable and made almost no sense. It was literally incomprehensible to me.

To his credit, pro attempts in his R4 to try and stage a few counter points: but at this point almost nothing pro quotes from con, and nothing appears to be a credible warranted harm from automation.

Con is a collection of what ifs, assertions about affordability, and assertions about blame.

There was some mention about black mail that made no sense at all.

6.) Cons round 4 and 5 are little better than round 3. I understood barely anything he was trying to put forward and barely seems to offer any coherent detriment that is fully explained or warranted.

Even assuming that all the semi harms pro points out: potential issues with legal problem, lack of potential popularity, etc: the ones that are harms don’t appear to particularly problematic compared to pros benefits - and the ones that remain seem less to do with negative aspects of the technology - and more concerning why he feels it won’t actually be adopted - which isn’t related to the resolution.

Pro points out that if this is the case in the future, it will be the case now as people are currently being alert driving. Pro also points out that systems may become advanced enough to not require being alert in to first place.

2.) Slippery slope.

Con appears to claim that accepting autonomous vehicles will be a slippery slope to destroying humanity. Con barely even hazards an explanation of why. It appears he’s arguing that as we see how easy automation makes our lives, that well completely take over.

Pro easily dismantles this, he points out we’ve automated much of our lives already, why is this one that would
Spell doom?

3.) Blame

Con argues that this will fail as there will be issues with blame. Pro clearly explains there are already instances where this is handled in the case of planes.

4.) civil rights.

Con claims that people will be forced to give up their cars. Pro points out no one is saying this is mandatory.

Before I start, I would encourage Con to work on his debate style. The waffling, grandiose language and wall of text approach is detrimental to people being able to understand your arguments. This, combined with a contrived and often tangential set of arguments completely undermines the ability of others to understand your position as a whole also.

Almost every round was barely readable, I had to read each round multiple times to try - and fail - to understand what the incoherent mess was trying to convey.

Arguments:

Pro lists, in detail a number of the major benefits of autonomous vehicles. While short, pro does a very good job of succinctly explaining all the core benefits. Self driving cars are safer, can save time, energy and free up peoples time and productivity.

While Con argues there would be no fuel saving, though pro clearly explained the reasons why there would be. Other than this con appears to accept the entirety of pros list. This simplifies my task down to weighing the individual harms.

Cons Harms:

1.) Con argues that people being alert causes harm to humans intelligence by dulling the mind.

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah, that does not sound at all interesting. I think I'd prefer the kind of debate where there's little need to establish that the moon is real, more like a discussion of the advantages/disadvantages of our two likeliest colonial destinations rooted in an ordinary human understanding of objects we observe every day.

Or is this your way of saying you'd rather debate flat-earth?

-->
@oromagi

If we made me assert Mars over the moon, you can write k outer space and even then say the moon is real but Mars is not etc. Enabling such flat-earth angles that I already know are plausible as I believe in it.

-->
@RationalMadman

“ I want to be Con so you can't take the side of flat-earth and stick to the topic.”

I don’t know what this means. Are you thinking about the flat earth debate in progress or....?

-->
@oromagi

I disagree to the third topic but objectively I can't prove that so I won't accept it.

I'll take the Mars one defending Mars. I want to be Con so you can't take the side of flat-earth and stick to the topic.

I don't care enough about braveheart and (linked to third topic and my stance) I hate Mel Gibson with a passion.

Round 1 is for ad hominems.

Round 2 is for special pleading and poisoning the well.

Round 3 is for red-herrings.

Round 4 is for declaring victory.

Round 5 is for straw-men and slippery slope arguments.

-->
@RationalMadman

Thx, RationalMadman. What do you think my next debate should be? I've been thinking about something like:

Humanity should prioritize moon colonization over Martian colonization.

Braveheart is not based on a true story.

The sins of the artist need not reflect on our appreciation of the art.

-->
@Alec

On here, since then, you have trash-talked me with Supadudz on a thread just barely 2 weeks ago. You like to interject into any thread about me and say 'I really don't like RM, he is so arrogant and really isn't that great he just debates alot.'

If you don't like me and want to spread that message, you can deal with the block. If you can't handle being blocked then learn to keep your mouth shut before you think and speak respectfully about me in public.

-->
@Alec

No, I cannot.

Can you send me a link to what I said?

-->
@Alec

I have not.

I forgot what I said in the Hangout chats. It was a long time ago.

-->
@Alec

I will unblock you when you apologise for how you spoke to me in the Hangouts chat and take back what you said.

-->
@Alec

I don't think you understand. Blamonkey, if he had the same amount of debates as us, would be a flailing fish with an elo of possibly 1400. He struggles immensely with handling one debate, this is why he can maximum have that at one time. He waits so long and thinks so hard about every tiny point and will only engage in a topic that has been literally debated in the exact formal structure that our debates are in so that he needn't think himself of any creative angle or worry about any new angle holding weight if the opponent brings it. He copycats professional debaters and alters the wording here and there, that's it. He physically couldn't keep up with our rate of debating because of how careful and terrified he is of picking topics that more casual debaters engage in as he lacks the creativity and perhaps even motivation to do so.

For people with a winning record, the number of debates you have affects your rating positively a lot. Someone with a 9-6 record will probably have a better rating then someone with a 3-2 record, despite the win percentage being the same. If either of us had the same number of debates as blamonkey, we wouldn't be in the top 3. Can you unblock me?

blamonkey picks topics that have already been debated in-depth formally before and copy-pastes angles withhold copying the wording as such. I am superior to him in my capacity to debate the undebated and win anyway.

Participation-frequency is hardly proportional to rank. Type1 is testament to that.

-->
@Alec

No. In fact you are only there as you got a ridiculous boost (and me a severe hit) as you were low-elo when magicaintreal abused alts to give you that win vs me.

-->
@oromagi

He and I are only in the top 5 because we have a lot of debates. I think the maker of this website made it so participation contributed to rank. Someone with 20 wins and 9 losses will probably be ahead of someone with 8 wins and 0 losses because person 1 has 11 more losses then wins, even though they lose pretty frequently compared to guy 2. If blamonkey had as many debates to his name as me, then I think blamonkey will be in first by a lot because he is very good, I would say even better then RM. He doesn't debate much though compared to me or RM.