Instigator / Pro

User_2006

1470

rating

debates

40.0%

won

Topic

#1953

Cars are robots(I am pro, You are con)

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 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Nevets

Tags

Cars

Parameters

Publication date: 04.20.2020 02:25PM
Last updated date: 05.03.2020 01:03PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Nevets

1557

rating

debates

52.86%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

User_2006

04.22.2020 01:57PM

Pro

I will start my start argument now.

Define ROBOT:

A machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
A person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.

While the 1st and the 3rd definition does not apply to cars, as that they are either humanoid or human, the second does apply. Most robots only satisfy the 2nd definition and any object that satisfies at least one criterion will be considered a robot.

Examples: LEGO EV3 Mindstorm Robot: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/R4_s56ZRKUQ/hqdefault.jpg

This image showcases a robot built with and only with LEGOs. It does not resemble a human nor is it a human, so it satisfies only the 2nd criterion, but nevertheless it is still a robot. The fact it has wheels may even make it a car, and that would mean cars could be robots.

Define CAR:

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

Then, there are cars that are, undoubtedly robots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car

They can drive automatically. and that makes them robots.

CLAIM1: Cars can be robots, and certain cars are robots.

Nevets

04.24.2020 01:27AM

Con

user2006 wrote...
CLAIM1: Cars can be robots, and certain cars are robots.

Now, had you said in your title, or discription, cars "can" be robots, i would not have taken on the debate, as indeed, you do get autonomous cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot

with home robotics and the autonomous car as some of the main drivers.

However, you did not say "Cars "can" be Robots".

Your title says cars "are" Robots, which is two different things entirely.

User2006 wrote...
Define ROBOT:
A machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
A person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.

Also your definition of what constitutes a Robot, is slightly limited.

There is nothing concrete regards to what constitutes a robot, however general consensus has it that it is a little more than just an unintelligent machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Summary

robots tend to possess some or all of the following abilities and functions: accept electronic programming, process data or physical perceptions electronically, operate autonomously to some degree, move around, operate physical parts of itself or physical processes, sense and manipulate their environment, and exhibit intelligent behavior, especially behavior which mimics humans or other animals.

Now i would say what is written above, pretty much rules out "most" cars, apart from autonomous self driving cars.

user2006 wrote...
While the 1st and the 3rd definition does not apply to cars, as that they are either humanoid or human, the second does apply. Most robots only satisfy the 2nd definition and any object that satisfies at least one criterion will be considered a robot.

This is simply not true.

There is no rule which says that to be considered a Robot the Robot only has to fit one criterion.

I very much doubt in round 2 you will be able to find anything to support that statement with.

Like i think we have already clarified, the only car before autonomous cars began getting tested on our roads, that would have fitted the description of being a Robot, would have been KITT from knight rider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KITT#Features

KITT is essentially an advanced supercomputer on wheels. The "brain" of KITT is the Knight 2000 microprocessor which is the centre of a "self-aware" cybernetic logic module that allowed KITT to think, learn, communicate and interact with humans. He is also capable of independent thought and action.

So no, very few cars, could be considered Robots.

I think before a car can be considered a Robot, it at least has to have the ability to be autonomous, and most cars currently are not autonomous.

Round 2

User_2006

04.26.2020 01:15AM

Pro

Let me give an example.

Windshield wipers are automatic, they can just do their job while you press a single button.

Since cars contain windshield wipers, cars are robots since it carries a windshield wiper.

I understand that the first cars probably don't have them, but windshield wipers are extant on virtually all cars roaming on the streets, that is the "car" part. The cars that don't move or are broken are not considered cars consider it fails to do its job carrying passengers around the world. The first cars are either scrapped into the barn or being exhibits in the museum. Since about all cars have windshield wipers and windshield wipers are robots, cars are robots.

Nevets

04.26.2020 01:03PM

Con

User2006 wrote....
Let me give an example.

Windshield wipers are automatic, they can just do their job while you press a single button.

Since cars contain windshield wipers, cars are robots since it carries a windshield wiper.

I understand that the first cars probably don't have them, but windshield wipers are extant on virtually all cars roaming on the streets, that is the "car" part. The cars that don't move or are broken are not considered cars consider it fails to do its job carrying passengers around the world. The first cars are either scrapped into the barn or being exhibits in the museum. Since about all cars have windshield wipers and windshield wipers are robots, cars are robots.

Let me begin by saying, i am British, and so i barely knew what a windshield wiper was, as i am British. But i am quite sure you are referring to "windscreen wiper", which is what us Brits refer to the device as.

Now you may be surpised to know that the first windscreen wiper was first patented in 1896 by "George J Capewell". So perhaps a little earlier in time than you may have realised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscreen_wiper#Early_versions

One of the earliest recorded patents for the windscreen wiper is by George J. Capewell of Hartford Connecticut, which was filed on August 6, 1896

autonomous v automated

Now it is important for this argument to understand the description of George J Capewell's patent. His patent was for an automoated motorised device for a locomotive.

Not a Robotic device for an autonomous vehicle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscreen_wiper#Early_versions

His invention was for an automated, motorised, wiper for "cars, locomotives, and such land-vehicles".

So let us look at the definition of automated

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00_8APqyvPCf9ADL2wow5TIin74KA%3A1587905242249&ei=2oKlXoLiDtPB8gLZ35LADg&q=automated&oq=automated&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIJCCMQJxBGEPkBMgIIADICCAAyBAgAEEMyBQgAEIMBMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAA6BAgAEEc6BAgjECdQiOURWMXwEWCd8xFoAHAEeACAAXuIAdMGkgEDNS40mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiCt5r_j4bpAhXToFwKHdmvBOgQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

operated by largely automatic equipment.

And now the definition of autonomous

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00ZAd9q2c1g-VQudy1rmzqu3bUNRg%3A1587905540587&ei=BISlXrPMI5SBhbIPqdGLuA4&q=autonomous&oq=autonomous&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECCMQJzIFCAAQkQIyBAgAEEMyAggAMgIIADIECAAQQzIECAAQQzICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoJCCMQJxBGEPkBUPmMBFjwmgRg6ZwEaABwBHgAgAHLAYgBwQeSAQU4LjEuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiz3ruNkYbpAhWUQEEAHanoAucQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

having the freedom to govern itself or control its own affairs.

summary and conclusion

We can clearly see that an automatic device lacks the ability to govern itself and control it's own affairs.

In fact, that is the "opposite" of an autonomous device.

An autonomous device is able to decide for itself what actions need to be taken and what automatic devices require switching on and off.

Windscreen wipers lack this ability. And they require a human to decide when they should be switched on or off. A windscreen wiper is the "anti-thesis" of a Robotic device. By the fact it is "automated" means it lacks thinking ability, and a Robot is not considered "automatic". A robot has the ability to think and calculate.

Some people even speculate that a Robot may actually be consciously aware. Though there is no evidence for this. Nobody speculates that windscreen wipers are consciously aware, and there is nothing to suggest they are, unlike a Robotic device, that does appear to think for itself.

Thanks to User2006

User_2006

04.20.2020 08:12PM

-->

@Nevets

Thank you Nevets. You are helping me grow as a debater.

User_2006

04.20.2020 02:44PM

-->

@Nevets

Thank you, that should be better

Nevets

04.20.2020 02:27PM

-->

@User_2006

Are you going to give a clue as to what you are arguing for? Are you arguing that cars "are" or "are not" Robots?

Barney

04.26.2020 03:59PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

A lot of problems on this debate could have been avoided with definitions in the description.

So yes, an increasing number of cars are becoming robots. However cars in general are not. The example of the wipers fails largely because that is by no means a complex function, and as con countered, it was not carried out autonomously. Right now it feels like the pro case was almost trying to argue that robot = machine, when there's a reason for the separate word.