Rolls-Royce Is Better Than Ferrari
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Hello again, RM.
Now, why Rolls-Royce is better than Ferrari:
1) Rolls-Royce has more experience in making engines because it was previously making excellent aircraft engines that were used in many of the Allies' best warbirds during the Second World War.
2) Rolls-Royce, although slower than a Ferrari, makes cars that are a little better than Ferrari in quality.
As a fact, Rolls-Royce is also chosen to be the producer for the car of the British royal family.
That doesn't make it better at all. Royal Family live off of other people's tax money whether they like it or not[https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/09/pf/where-queens-money-comes-from-uk-royal-wedding/index.html]. It's sexist too.[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/royal-family-abolish-wedding-queen-monarchy-sexist-institution-why-meghan-markle-a8357266.html]. To be chosen by such an institution tells more negative than positive about Rolls Royce.
Being older doesn't mean you are better. If Rolls Royce came out today, it would be just as inferior or equal a car to Ferrari as it is today. Cars don't have legacies, people do.
Ferrari is the most well known supercar brand of all time. One of the reasons is Enzo Ferrari, Enzo created the brand that is now established firmly in every country in the world. Although originally based in Italy this brand took the world by storm with its sleek look and semi-reliability (compared to other supercars on the market at that time.)Instead of talking about the history of Ferrari I wanted to instead outline 3 things that I believe made them so successful in the early daysThe Colour – Ferrari managed to do an amazing thing. They essentially copyrighted the colour red on supercars…. Of course in reality they didn’t actually file a trademark and do this, but to most people whenever they saw a Ferrari, it was Red, when people purchased one all they wanted was red. It was as if the brand was designed to be in Red. And it worked. People only saw Ferrari’s that were red, and hence whenever you saw a flash of red, even if it wasn’t a Ferrari, the individuals thought it was. This is exactly what the brand wanted to do and they did it brilliantly. Although we now offer other colours!The Sound – Sounds that come from a supercar engine are pretty common nowadays. If you have been driving for more than a few years in a relatively built up city, then chances are you have heard a supercar zooming past you. There is something special about hearing this sound!The Shape – The shape of a Ferrari, especially the early models in the 70/80s were extremely memorable. If you saw one in real life you considered yourself very lucky, and if you got to be inside one, well I mean that was a dream come true. The shape was so well designed it was almost sexy to younger men, they would put posters of these cars up in their room and worship them. The shape created a sense of uniqueness too, nothing on the market even came close.These are the 3 reasons I personally believe Ferrari had so much success, I think its obvious that as more competition came in and technology started advancing the desire for this specific brand decreased slightly. But never the less it is still an amazing brand that lives on even today.
Just look at it:
Amazing, I win.
Oh, 'quality'? Well I say Ferrari has better quality. That's as justified as Pro's claim it's not. So...
In the words of my boy Hitchens:
That which can be asserted without evidence can be can be dismissed without evidence.
Sorry, something wrong with my computer. Can't debate because I have to type this on my phone and the display is a little too small for my liking. I'll concede the whole debate.
I'm pretty sure he is a casual not as experienced debater and your deriving theories from that...
That's the point. He/she only has to state one way it's better and say 'yeah it's worse in other ways but that doesn't mean the Debate Resolution is wrong in the way I said it's true' and Con will have no angles left. This is a toxic Burden of Proof style baiting.
In what way? If I understood the context a bit more I would happily accept your debate.