Instigator / Con

User_2006

1470

rating

debates

40.0%

won

Topic

#1879

There will be more cars after 20 years than now

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi

Tags

Society

Parameters

Publication date: 04.08.2020 05:29PM
Last updated date: 04.26.2020 05:48AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

oromagi

1922

rating

117

debates

97.44%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

User_2006

04.08.2020 07:44PM

Con

Let's define "Car", and the definition of the term will determine my perspective within the issue.

Car: a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

The dictionary says this, as the definition was copy-pasted above this sentence.

"Road vehicle": While we can move from sea to land to air to even space, cars will be outdated because its most prominent form of travel is on land. All cars travel on land and most cars travel on land only. Since Land is separated by oceans, mountains, deserts, swamps, forests, and et cetera, traveling only on land(Which amphibian cars are not popular at all, and flying cars are so scarce it is made into a joke) would mean that the cars will meet obstacles that prevent them from traveling from South Africa to Canada, because there is a big ocean apart of these two. Traveling by air is easier because there are no such restrictions and planes are less likely to crash into space trash and they, on average, kill fewer people per a number of people, at least less than cars. So, in 20 years, there will be "flying cars", which are just private planes.

"Internal combustion engine": Internal combustion engines are harmful to the environment because it emits CO and CO2, which are harmful chemicals and can get people lung cancers. In some countries, gasoline cars were discouraged, and electric cars are sold. due to that electrical motors aren't internal combustion engines, thus electric cars aren't cars anymore according to the definition. Because flying and electric cars(or even a "car" that satisfy both criteria) aren't cars by definition but still upgrades or even replace cars in general, thus cars are discouraged to have because it can't fly and it is harmful to nature.

Flying cars are already made into prototypes all around the world(although they are not sold), and electric cars are already sustainable in economic standards(Tesla, General Motors, Faraday Future, NIO), thus they will replace standard cars by 20 years, and there will be less so-called cars in about 20 years.

oromagi

04.10.2020 06:19AM

Pro

Thanks, User_2006 for a great topic!

THBT: THERE WILL be MORE CARS AFTER 20 YRS than NOW

OBJECTION: CON failed to define CAR in the description portion of this debate, where any controversial debate terms ought to be presented. If PRO had understood that flying cars and electric cars would not count as cars, excluded by overly narrow definition as non-cars, PRO would not have accepted this debate. CON is new to DART and so merits forgiveness on this point but PRO reserves the right to fault CON's definition as insufficient, which PRO does intend to argue.

BoP: WiKiPEDiA offers:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim

PRO interprets CON's thesis to mean that CON must prove that there will be fewer cars in the world by the year 2040. PRO's job is to argue this prediction is probably false (after all, we can't really know the future)

ARG1: WE CAN'T KNOW the FUTURE

For all we know, a 93-yr old Trump might still be our President and coal burning combustion engines mandated by constitutional amendment. We cannot prove any future outcome must be true [there will be less cars], the best we can do is to suppose what might be likely

CON1:

CON defines

CAR as "a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people"
The definition is manifestly insufficient

For example, flying cars are clearly cars

A FLYING CAR is "a type of personal air vehicle or roadable aircraft that provides door-to-door transportation by both ground and air. The term "flying car" is also sometimes used to include hovercars"
In films featuring flying cars, the flying cars are still called cars

The word "car" is in the name FLYING CAR

For example, cars without internal combustion engines are clearly still cars

Electric cars are still cars
The Tesla Model X, for example, does not have an internal combustion engine but we still call it a car

"In 2016, the Model X ranked seventh among the world's best-selling plug-in cars"
The word is derived from the Latin for chariot and use precedes the internal combustion engine by centuries

Train cars, subway cars, elevator cars may lack internal combustion engines but are still called cars

The advantage of Mirriam-Webster's definition is that most of the things that are obviously cars are defined as cars:

CAR [noun] is "a vehicle moving on wheels"

PRO recommends this definition as an improvement in accuracy

CON2:

PRO argues flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years

because

demand for intercontinental travel

PRO assumes intercontinental travel will resume its former popularity after our present emergency wanes

Denver Int'l Airport Easter week travel down 94% from last year
Orlando Int'l Airport Easter week travel down 97% form last year

Coronaviruses alone that might profoundly limit the popularity of international travel over the next two decades. If COVID-19 keeps coming back or there's a SARS-3 or a COVID-26 in our future, international travel might well become a heavily regulated public health concern with little demand or opportunity for unrestricted personal flights. We might want to limit traffic to well tracked planes

won't crash into space trash

traditional ground cars are at least as unlikely to be impacted by space trash as flying cars

fewer deaths

Says who? Either everybody who flies has to meet present training level (Flight school costs $5-16,000 so not likely) or we fill the air with insufficiently trained drivers.

Think of all the cars we've seen on the side of the road with flat tires or out of gas or broken down. Now place all those maintenance and planning failures 3 or 4 thousand feet in the air. Fewer deaths?

CON argues that there are too many unknown variables to predict but popular adoption of flying cars in just 20 years seems very unlikely.

All the current trends are toward denser, more vertical residential living to leverage greater efficiency in utilities. Flying cars trend the wrong way. Where do we store all these winged cars? Where will all those runways fit?
Wikipedia offers:

"The need for the propulsion system to be both small and powerful can at present only be met using advanced and expensive technologies. The cost of manufacture could therefore be as much as 10 million dollars"

Even if we get the cost down to one-hundredth that in 20 years- that's still 3 times the present cost of a car

Almost every model of flying car under consideration still uses an internal combustion engine, which PRO argues won't be around in 20 years.

CON3:

PRO argues that electric cars will replace internal combustion engines in 20 years because pollution harms the environment and people

PRO and CON agree that the present level of pollution put out be cars is unsustainable however demand for cleaner tech is no guarantee that cleaner tech will be invented.

Present electric car technology requires mineral resources which the Earth simply lacks in sufficient known quantities

The UK, with 3.25% of the world's cars, plans to mandate electric only by 2035. Leading researchers evaluating the environmental impact of such a move advise:

"To replace all UK-based vehicles today with electric vehicles, assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation NMC 811 batteries, would take 207,900 tonnes cobalt, 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate, at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium, in addition to 2,362,500 tonnes copper.
This represents, just under two times the total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and at least half of the world’s copper production during 2018. Even ensuring the annual supply of electric vehicles only, from 2035 as pledged, will require the UK to annually import the equivalent of the entire annual cobalt needs of European industry"

In other words, the planet lacks sufficient rare metals to replace the whole internal combustion fleet with electric cars

The most optimistic reports expect electric vehicles to represent 57% of the [new] passenger car market by 2040
So, by 2040, Electric cars may be more than half of the new car market, providing we resolve the the scarcity of essential metals, but the majority of cars will still be old internal combustion cars.

Credit Suisse estimates that about a quarter of the total cars on the road in 2040 will be electric

ARG2:

The real number of cars in the world is expected to double 2016 estimates to over 2 billion cars world wide.

"Cars are projected to reach the two billion mark by 2040, while air travel kilometers are set to hit 20 trillion in the same period. Bernstein said it expects most of this transport growth to happen in emerging markets like China and India, as global populations are set to rise by another two billion over the next 25 years to 9.2 billion"

So, even if we accepted CONs unacceptable assertion that electric cars and flying cars do not count as real cars,

2 billion cars minus an anticipated one-fourth (500 million) electric car is 1.5 billion cars

let's also subtract a very generous 15 million flying cars selling at around $100,000 a pop (based on white paper estimates of $1.5 trillion market)

to get an estimated total 1,485 million internal combustion engine cars on the road in 2040
1,485 million is still a greater number than the estimated 1,200 million on the road today

Even including CON's overly narrow definition of cars, CON's main assertion is shown to be false.

If CON argued that electric cars would outnumber internal combustion engines by 2050, the odds on being right increase significantly but depend heavily on available resources, developments in internal combustion efficiency, developments in battery size, weight, and capacity and the prevalence and efficiency of autonomous driving tech

ARG3:

Flying cars still count as cars. The word car is even in the word (see CON1)

ARG4:

Electric cars still count as cars. The word car is even in word (see CON1)

CONCLUSION

By either definition, CON failed to prove that there will be fewer cars in the world by the year 2040. Most experts estimate about 2 billion cars in 2040- nearly double 2016 numbers. We can't know the future, but expert consensus refutes CON's thesis

I look forward to CON's R2 response

SOURCES

Round 2

User_2006

04.11.2020 06:42PM

Con

Refutation 1:

Pro defines Flying cars as cars, which are not exactly correct. Pro explicitly gave the example of the phrase "car" inside the term "flying car", which is not completely correct.

Flying cars are as much a car as it is an airplane if it is not more the latter. Flying cars are planes that just have better wheels(preferably 4 instead of 3 sets).

I would give an example of "what is in the name DOESN'T make the object that bears the whole name automatically classified to what that name is classified to".

Check the name "sea horse". Are sea horses HORSES? nope.

Sea horses live in the sea while horses live on land.
Sea horses are not in the same family of Horses.

Thus, it is a fact that Sea horses aren't horses, despite bearing the name containing the term "horse".

Now let me prove why Flying cars are more of an aircraft than they are cars.

Flying cars implement the main feature that has never been on cars before, and the more new and distinct things there are added, the less "original and pure" it is. If you add too much water to an oil tube, at one point it can barely be even called an oil tube. Flying cars too. It added something that has only been on aircraft before.
On the contrary, Flying cars implement nothing new(just enhancements. Flying cars to a plane is like a video game console to a video game console with motion control, and flying cars to a car is like a video game console to a TV that just so happens to play games). Other than more movable wheels(which has been on planes since commercial flights were a thing), flying cars has ALL qualities of a private aircraft, apart from that it can maneuver lands easier. Aircraft, like usual, can maneuver lands already(from the middle of the airport to the borders of it), and flying cars are just a few more than that. No new techniques implemented, and flying cars are closer to aircraft than to cars. Thus it is better to categorize flying cars to aircraft than to cars.
That still doesn't take account of hovercars, in which they are ALWAYS flying and are also more aircraft than a car.

Train cars, subway cars, elevator cars may lack internal combustion engines but are still called cars.'

Yeah, you know what? Suppose, unrealistically, I kill off all horses(like the ones you'd ride at a derby, or the ones the Mongols rode to conquer Estonia) and reproduce all the sea horses to a population of a trillion, then I will tell you that the horses' population is a trillion, except the entire population, is made up of organisms that aren't horses! So if I banish all "cars", diesel, gasoline, electric, solar, steam... except for elevator cars, they aren't cars by YOUR definition, as it still has to have wheels. An elevator car requires no wheels, and unless you count the entire system in which there are wheels on the top, then they aren't elevator "cars" anymore.

As well, seeing your other definition, planes are "cars" consider they have wheels and they are meant for moving the kilometer from the end of the airport to the terminal, so they are partially cars, but no one calls them cars. Of course, that will make flying cars, but how would you call a lawnmower, a shopping cart, a wheel(evidence:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8igTDj4RQM&t=65s Still is a simulation and a game, but do you call this a car? Moreover, a wheel that moves on gravity, and/or a bicycle are cars?) Calling planes cars just so contradicts your argument as no one calls them Plane Cars. As to this, because no one calls planes cars, and flying cars are just enhanced planes, flying cars aren't cars!

So to your definition, Bicycle, shopping carts, planes, and even unicycles are cars? No one calls them cars!

Another definition I would state contains: That a car has to be used to carry people and a small number of people. This eliminates buses, self-driving trucks, and self-driving "cars" from becoming cars. You need to justify why your Marriam-Webster definition stands because otherwise a unicycle from the circus, as well as a lawnmower and a self-driving truck will be considered cars.

I did state:

Car: a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

While you say otherwise, your Marriam-webster definition is considered by me, too broad as circus unicycles are considered cars, as well as wheelchairs. Our definitions are equally correct, but your judgments of "no one calls bikes cars but someone calls elevators cars" would mean your definition for that is too broad.

You did not disprove my definition, and that definition is the first result that comes up when I search up "car definition". Give me a reason why the top definition of the entire internet is wrong.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/business/electric-car-outlook-bloomberg/index.html Since you didn't completely prove that electric cars are cars, and 57% of the "cars" in 2040 will bear no combustion engine, and there are more cars in 2020 than in 2016, thus if the cars will have less double, that means more than today's car population will be "electric" and aren't cars. Thus there will be fewer cars in 2040 than now.

Conclusion: Since con did not completely disprove my definition, I can keep using it, and that would mean flying cars and electric cars aren't cars.

oromagi

04.12.2020 05:48AM

Pro

Thanks, User_2006

THBT: THERE WILL be MORE CARS AFTER 20 YRS than NOW

CON has made no objection to BoP. CON must prove to VOTERS' satisfaction that there will be fewer cars in the world by the year 2040.

ARG1: WE CAN'T KNOW the FUTURE

PRO has made no reply

ARG2: THERE WILL be MORE CARS

Going by PRO's definition of CAR, experts predict there will be 2 billion CARS on the road by 2040

Going by CON's definition of CAR, experts predict there will be 1.485 billion CARS on the road by 2040
We can argue about definitions of CAR all day but using either definition CON loses this debate. Either number represents MORE CARS on the road than the present 1.2 billion

ARG3: FLYING CARS STILL COUNT as CARS

CON argues that because sea horses aren't horses, flying cars must not be cars

PRO still wonders why the sci-fi movies all call flying cars CARS then

More important to our thesis, will flying cars replace ground cars and in what numbers?

In R1, PRO offered 15 million flying cars and called that a generous estimate. CON did not counter the number so let's let that number stand- just 15 million flying cars to offset an increased demand of 800 million. CON fails to show that flying cars will replace CARS by 2040.

ARG4: ELECTRIC CARS STILL COUNT as CARS

CON argues that because electric cars don't have internal combustion engines, electric cars must not be cars.

Here is Car and Driver magazine call a Tesla Model 3 a CAR

"We're not exaggerating when we say that the Tesla Model 3 has an interior unlike any other car on the market today"

Tesla Model 3's don't have an internal combustion engine
Car and Driver still counts electric cars as cars.

CON1:

CON offered an overly narrow definition late

PRO objected

VOTERS need not resolve the question of the definition of CAR, since PRO has shown that CON's thesis fails using either definition. There will be more CARS by 2040.

CON2:

CON argued flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years because of increased demand for intercontinental travel

PRO countered that coronavirus will increase intercontinental regulation and more limits will likely restrict demand

CON made no response

CON argued flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years because flying cars won't crash into space trash

PRO countered that present ground cars seem just as safe or safer from space debris

CON made no response

CON argued flying cars will replace standard cars in 20 years because flying cars will give us few deaths.

PRO asked for evidence. What are the training challenges of flying cars? If more complicated than a ground car (as a flying car would certainly need to be) we have to assume less demand or higher death rates from untrained drivers. PRO assumes more death, not less as people run out of gas five thousand feet above a playground.

CON made no response

PRO argued flying cars would be hard to store, against the current trend towards smaller footprints.

CON made no response

PRO argued flying cars will cost three times a regular car, driving down demand

CON made no responase

PRO argued flying cars depend on internal combustion engines, which CON predicts will be phased out. What other engine technology supports flight? We're nowhere near getting electric cars that much power. Consider how lightweight that flying car would have to be and consider how lightweight frames offer less protection against impacts- see more deaths above

CON made no response

CON3:

CON argues that electric cars will replace internal combustion engines in 20 years because pollution harms the environment and people

PRO showed that the planet lacks sufficient rare metal to support a mass transition to electric

CON made no response

PRO showed that that the electric cars will at best represent one quarter of all cars by 2040

CON made no response

CONCLUSION

VOTERS should award ARGUMENTS to PRO: By either definition, CON failed to prove that there will be fewer cars in the world by the year 2040.
Thanks to User_2006 for a good debate
Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration

SOURCES

oromagi

04.12.2020 07:20PM

-->

@User_2006

Here is a similar debate seven years ago with familiar participants

http://www.debate.org/debates/RESOLVED-driverless-cars-will-be-the-norm-within-the-next-20-years/1/

ramdatt

04.12.2020 07:10PM

"Again debating the top debater my hopes of winning is slim, but the chance I will learn something is huge"

So what is more important to User_2006...

Winning a debate or surviving the Coronavirus Pandemic ?

User_2006

04.12.2020 01:19PM

-->

@fauxlaw

Yes, hopefully I will find a solution. Again debating the top debater my hopes of winning is slim, but the chance I will learn something is huge.

fauxlaw

04.12.2020 06:51AM

-->

@User_2006

I'll add as an aside that Con's argument smacked of a complaint against use of fossil fuels, arguing for electric cars. Perhaps Con ignores that there is one significant correlation between internal combustion and electric cars: they both use petroleum to lubricate moving parts and fabricate plastic parts. There is no green-energy AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum. Better get cracking to solve that.

User_2006

04.08.2020 07:49PM

I know I will probably lose but just debating people I know I will win isn't going to let me learn as much as debating the master like my opponent here.

Barney

04.08.2020 07:48PM

-->

@User_2006

Just have fun with it, and try to learn something.

User_2006

04.08.2020 07:44PM

Wow, debating the top debater in the whole website. Have lots of pressure.

Barney

04.12.2020 07:04PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

'flying cars are so scarce it is made into a joke ... So, in 20 years, there will be "flying cars", which are just private planes.'
This summarizes the key problem of the instigators case, it is even at a glance self-contradictory. Further trying to play with definitions, the base definitions should be in the description, otherwise it becomes a bad case of trying to move the goalposts. However, if playing with them for fun, clips from Back To The Future in which everyone is using flying cars by 2015, would have been a good path to take (it should not have been pro who first mentioned this movie).

I am not overly concerned with the BoP, nor on the preciseness of "will be." If there was greater contest between the two debaters I would probably fall back to those issues for tie breaking. Still they are good notes from the contender to the instigator to improve his future setups.

The highlight of pro's case is that more cars are being built and not that many are being destroyed, more drivers due to increasing population, giving the 1.2 billion increasing to at least 1.45 billion.

Sources are overwhelming. Highlight being evidence to those numbers. Comparatively, con offered a single one trying to argue that some cars should not count as cars, but even then it would not bridge the gap.

fauxlaw

04.12.2020 06:45AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument: Con's arguments were pre-occupied by one: the definition of "car," which, given its restrictive interpretation, discounted many vehicles that are road vehicles with the express intent to travel over roads used by public and private utility. Pro, by contrast, gave many more cogent arguments routing the debate subject as given. Points to Pro

Sources: Although I do not give much credence to numbers of sources given, Pro was clearly deficient, not only I number, but more importantly, quality. Con missed offering the one source that wold have supported his primary argument: the definition of "car." He quoted a definition, but never offered the source other than by generic reference: "the" dictionary. Which dictionary? I happen to use the OED, but Con's offered definition is nothing like mine, are I would have expected some correlation. Points to Pro.

S%G: Use of S & G much moe consistent on Pro's side, along with better syntax.

Conduct: About the same. Tie.