RESOLVED: driverless cars will be the norm within the next 20 years

There was no ill intend to refuting pro's points, merely forgetfulness. However such is to pro's benefit, as it gave him a chance to actually defend his points (which does not negate my conduct error)."Con's principal argument seems to be that driverless cars will not be universal within 20 years, a much higher benchmark than the argument of this debate. Con's benchmark sets up a "straw man,""Funny to see straw man referenced, inside such a weak straw man argument.My argument was most clearly not about if they would be universal, but if they would be "the norm ." Norm, commonly defined along the lines of "a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group" [5].That means for pro to be correct, half or more of the cars on the road would have to be driverless within a mere 20 years. This feeds back to to my Round2 point that pro called a Straw Man rather than properly addressing "the median age of a car on the road is 11.4 years [4], if this trend continues unchanged (it's currently on the rise) it means that unless the new technology becomes all car dealers sell within 8.6 years, there will not be enough time for it to catch up to the numbers pro predicted." That would still not make them universal on the road, but such would make them the norm. Every vehicle sold being a driverless one, in a brief 8.6 years.Alternatively if they were over 90% of sales at a much earlier point (say 2014?) they could also catch up to become the standard vehicle type on the road. High mindedness does not always best simple logistics."first commercially available power steering system in 1951. 5 years later, 1 out every 4 American cars were sold with power steering."Given that "car manufacturers seems to be looking at around 2020" for driverless cars, if they prove as phenomenally popular as power steering with a rate of 25% of cars sold being autonomous in 2025; that is not nearly early enough to outsell regular cars fast enough to be the norm of cars in 2033 (see my quoted R2 argument above)."I am not arguing that adoption will be universal, only that it will be rapid."I need make no points against it being rapid, due to the resolution still being "driverless cars will be the norm within the next 20 years." This line seems either an attempt to change the resolution, or a borderline concession."smartphones has become commonplace in American society"Faulty Analogy, as commonplace is far from the average. The median phone with over 250-million units sold, is a Nokia 1100 [6]; also known as something you can buy in a gas station, as most consumers don't have much money. "Con was simply making a fatuous remark in his comments about male drivers"Calling a line of argument and sources (CBS news) insanely foolish [7], is a low blow.Each man has to pay a norm of $15,000 more for auto insurance than women [3], not due to sexism, but due to their greater number of accidents. If men simply handed the car key's to the women in their lives to drive for them, the road would be far safer. Even if it were just when they're going to the same location anyway, there would be a marked improvement. Such rarely happens."maintaining a driverless commercial vehicle is already less expensive than a manned vehicle."1. Current autonomous cars are manned any time they are on the road. Yes one sitting there unmanned thus not driving, has almost no maintenance costs.2. I already addressed that commercial trucks need a mechanic with them. Unless pro has a source that says 'driverless cars will have a new self repair system,' I fail to see the validity of this point. The claim of "Driverless systems are a much better solution to engine failures than human systems," is unwarranted.3. I was unaware of there currently being any actual driverless commercial vehicles."individual car ownership will drop dramatically"Less new cars on the road would be a good thing, but is counter to pro's argument. As less cars needing the be sold, only ups the number of years of driverless cars being the only ones sold, for them to catch up in the market."The current average daily cost of car ownership+maintenance is just short of $25. The daily cost of a driverless car sharing program is estimated at $5-10 for city dwellers... [4]"Unwarranted claims, as the source did not actually state such things (If anyone wishes to verify, click the link and search for those numbers he proposed, or even the dollar symbol). It did however have a great quote that is on topic "No matter how powerful a technology is, there are numerous factors that stand between technical viability and widespread adoption—cost, usability, customer acceptance, business models, entrenched interests, regulations and so on.""Con's arguments about the current rate of car renewal become irrelevant when the question is less when to buy a new autonomous car than it is when to stop paying extra for the stress and increased danger"Personally I'd keep my car since all the drone-cars would be busy on rush hour when I get out of work, I suspect many other people would agree. Heck even people who wreck cars buy new ones instead of opting for safer public transportation; plus their insurance rates go up, while public transportation remains fixed.Plus plenty of people do not live in cities, and require dedicated transportation; instead of one they can hail.Plus for some strange reason people occasionally like to have sex in their cars (not to say that no one would want to pursue such things on public transit, merely strengthening the point that people have illogical attachments to ownership)."How much less forgiving will the public be of the death and destruction by human caused accidents, when a nearly accident-free solution is commonly available?"There already being accident-free solutions have not ended drunk drivers; no matter how cheap a cab ride home is (in this instance a highly comparable form of transportation). "I agree that insurance companies are greedy..."They will continue to be greedy. Consider medical insurance not wanting to give life saving treatments, no matter the moral outcry about it; which gives the mentally of greed a hopeful new technology will have to overcome; as opposed to pro's claim of "insurers will actively promote driverless cars in favor of people driven cars. Insurers will probably begin with significant bonuses and as popularity increases, will decrease and then eliminate coverage for people driven cars." I refuse to believe that they'd ever simply cease accepting money (not even getting into their political power)."other cars cutting in front"We seem to have agreement that on average, driverless cars will reach their destinations much slower than competing regular cars (even without the regular car speeding)."really seem that cool when it is the only car with dents and dings or when it becomes of symbol of inefficiency and human error?"Hummers still sell. "driverless car will be a commonplace artifact of American society by 2033. Vote Pro if agree."Which would be a vote directly against the resolution pro chose. Not even his own conclusion, still supports his original claim.My original conclusion stands "While it is a hopeful future, it is not the near future."Sources:[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6] http://conversations.nokia.com...[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com...