The Automobile

I did not ignore your points regarding the benefits of cars. I rebutted them." 5 people are eating cake and 10 people are eating pie, the pie-eaters and the cake-eaters should be glad that the others are eating something else."I like how you used the word "should". Yea, they "should" be glad. The same way this topic "should" be Personal Automobiles "should" benefit humanity. Just because the pie-eaters are enjoying their pie, doesn't mean they benefit anything from the cake-eaters. Similarly, people who use public transport benefits from the public transport; they do not benefit from people with personal automobiles. "Further more, since the negative impacts of the automobile on humanity are superceded by the positive impacts, the total impact is positive."HOWWW HOWWW. I literally spent a whole round telling you about pollutions. One single automobile benefits its driver. The carbon emission, however, is a drawback for everyone. Similar to smoking. Smoking only gives one person euphoria, but it damages the second-hand smokers. "Con's argument is akin to saying that the two story home is not beneficial to humanity because not everyone has one, or that cake isn't beneficial to humanity because not everyone has it, or that electricity isn't beneficial to humanity because not everyone has access to it."Yea, that's true. Electricity benefits only its users. Someone who doesn't use electricity do not share its benefits. Similarly, someone with the cake enjoys it; people not eating the cake do not benefit from it. And finally, only those staying on the double story home benefits from it. Not the whole of humanity. You don't get what I'm doing here, do you? Your statement was "Personal Automobile benefits humanity." It's false. Clearly. Only those who own an automobile benefits from it. And that's a fact."Not to sway from the topic but, under communist regimes that use Con's logic that if everyone can't afford something it is not beneficial to humanity and what winds up happening is that the general standard of living falls."Yea, it's not beneficial at all. Let's say I create a time machine, but to travel every second back, you'll need to pay me 1 million dollars. Yea, sure, amazing invention. But if no one can afford to use it, clearly it doesn't benefit anyone, let alone humanity. "If I drive a car, and I am being positively impacted by this fact, and I am apart of humanity, isn't that enough to say that it is helping humanity?"Nope. It's like saying if one person loves murder, all of humanity loves murder. So yea, just because you're A PART (not apart) of humanity and you enjoy something, doesn't mean everyone is enjoying it. "There are nearly a billion active cars, so I would say that is impacting a good enough portion of humanity that it is generally creating a positive impact."Yea, and smoking benefits more than a billion people. It's also safe to say that it is impacting a good enoufh portion of humanity, so I can use this to say that Smoking benefits Humanity as a whole. And finally, I'd like to conclude once again with this. Automobiles do benefit many people, but it doesn't benefit humanity as a whole. I'm okay with saying Automobiles are beneficial, but to make a vast claim that it is beneficial to the whole human race? That's totally out of the questionLikewise, amazing debate with you! I enjoyed every second of it. The thrill of just rebutting non stop was great. I'd love to have another debate with you some other time :)Cheers,FieryNyan