It Is Not Always Necessary To Stop at "Stop" Signs

What Con has just presented is not an argument or arguments, but an agglomerate of unconnectedpoints. It’s hard to get at the essence at what he is saying here. I figured the best way to respond to this was to just individualize the points and criticism them in turn. 1- I thank my opponent for his thorough response. I think he has made some very valid points but his logic is still sophism. I wish you would say which points of mine you think are valid, and which ones you think display sophism. 2- He is confusing " it is not necessary to stop at all hypothetical stop signs" with "therefore wedon't need to stop at all stop signs." I do not see how they are not simply different ways of saying the same thing. 3- Just because in a hypothetical scenario one has good judgment doesn't mean that applies to all drivers in your scenarios. My resolution is not concerned with whether or not all drivers will have good judgment in my scenarios, my concern is with certain stop sign situations in which a driver might find himself, and how these situations allow for not stopping at stop signs. 4- In a perfect world, we wouldn't need stop signs at all because people would have perfect judgment and stop every time necessary. In a perfect world we would not even need cars. But that is a minor point. The bigger point is this: What does this have to do with my resolution? 5- Stop signs are meant to cover all drivers. True, they are meant to, but that does not negate my resolution that not it is not always necessary to stop at stop signs. 6- In a scenario in which there is a stop sign and the driver might go and might not go, this would create much confusion and might be more dangerous that simply not having one. This needs to be argued, not asserted. Con says it would create much confusion, but for whom? Two of my of my scenarios involve only one driver. There is no one whom he can confuse by his actions for there are no other drivers. The one which involves multiple drivers has to do with a driver slowing to a crawl if he must let other drivers go first, not confusingly running through stop signs. 7- It must be either one stops at a stop sign or one doesn't. Sure, and I have argued that not stopping at a stop sign is not always necessary. What doesthis comment have to do with my resolution? 8- If there is a stop sign in an arbitrary position, remove it. So Con implicitly concedes that some stop signs are arbitrarily placed, against his post in round one. And I agree that they should be removed, but that is irrelevant to my point that this is an example of a stop sign that it is not necessary to stop at. 9- Don't get drivers into the habit of deciding for themselves. Why drivers should not get into the habit of deciding for themselves needs to be argued, not asserted. And I never argued that drivers should get into the habit of deciding for themselves. 10- We shouldn't let stop signs that don't keep us safe taint those that do. Agree, but how does this negate my resolution? CONCLUSION Con made interesting points in the first round about the intention behind stop signs, the effect of automation driving, and the obscurity of situations in which one needn’t stop at stop signs. These points were either irrelevant, poorly though out, or just plain wrong. In round two, he did not present any arguments but simply asserted interesting but irrelevant points. He has responded to the fact that I have argued my resolution, but he has not actually responded to any of my arguments, so they still stand. Thanks for a great debate!