Discord Debate but Ace Attorney Format: EP2 - PHONES vs TVS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Another ace attorney debate? why not!
this one is a bit longer and more brainrot so prepare yourselves
The final question is: which has been produced more in the world, including the past, TVs or phones? There's still a 67 year gap so TVs still has a chance of winning here.
Not everything we mentioned is 100% accurate obviously, so don't take it too seriously. We're just here to have fun!
Video was made with objection.lol (very useful tool)
objection.lol/
![🎤 ไปกันต่อออ! จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.2] (1/2) เพลงของใครจึ้งสุดน้าา 💓🎤 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mLI_K0sAS4o/mqdefault.jpg)
"There are more houses than wheels" bro got lost
watch part 1 then you'll understand
@@dudemanguybro-nd5gf no i know 😂
The Phoenix Wright format fits so perfectly for dumb arguments like this.
You know what WASN'T brought up? UPGRADES. What are the odds the phone you have now is your first phone? Phones break. And when they break, people need REPLACEMENTS.
Also, Pokemon GO players with like 8 phones each. People own multiple phones. There're business phones, too. The demo phones they have on display. There's a high likelihood someone throughout their life, who can afford one phone, would have to purchase more than one, for themselves, in their lifetime.
insert that one image of someone shiny hunting in pokemon sleep with like 9 phones by him
pokemon mobile game players are insane
I've had like 8 phones through my life so far. But 0 TVs. My family owned total of 6 TVs, when I was a child, but each of the family members (of which there were 7 including me) had at least one phone. But most of them had multiple.
I would like to point out display TVs are also a thing, and there’s often more of them in a tech shop to demonstrate differences of color, brightness, aspect, etc. However, as tech demonstrations, they are in practice advertisements for themselves, and therefore may be considered billboards themselves (which I do not agree that electronic billboards aren’t TVs, as many ads are designed to be entertaining and can deliver new pop-culture news or comment on others but that’s not the point here)
Oh fuck you're right. Phones break WAY MORE OFTEN than tvs! Tvs sit in one place generally, whereas our phones are taken everywhere! There's not remotely as much chance for TV to break!
gumshoe randomly inserting themselves into the conversation with the randomest statements loll
Non-binary Gumshoe real
He is like the one-dimensional guy in a film whose only goal is to give out funny one liners.
Also, one major information I would like send out. What about smart cars/more modern cars?
They have an interactive interface, they can’t really stream anything other than google maps, songs( purely audio for obvious reasons), radio and even sensors on the back of the car that are displayed to make backing up and parking easier and safer.
And that’s just counting the ones on the car’s dashboard( i.e, right next to the diver and the front passenger)
And I haven’t counted the ones that are attached at the back of the seats for the backseat passengers to use.
So now, the important question - does it count as a TV or a phone or is it a thing of it’s own?
It provides entertainment and information, not exactly portable, etc( also should we differentiate between the one attached to the dashboards near the front of the car vs the ones at the back of the seat for backseat users?)
@@mahapatrasohammour car has a screen, it can play youtube, spotify, and games(tho it stops the game if the car is moving)
in 8:51, with that logic, tablets would be included too.
Oh no what have you done.
(start argument) Well tablets aren't phones, they are just large devices that are similar to phones. they are completely different!
@@wildraheim4302if we go by what apple is trying to market them as, tablets are computers
they aren’t by many definitions, but modern tablets are more similar to computers than phones, [exception: microsoft surface, a computer-tablet hybrid, insert any other laptop that’s like that]
the definition of a tablet also depends on if you count screen drawing tablets or not
tablets aren’t phones is my point here, thus i also believe they should not count towards the overall (smart)phone counter
i’m also typing this from a tablet, how the turn tables
@@asa_andromeda ah, so you agree with me?
@@wildraheim4302 yeah
MISSED SUCH A GOOD ARGUMENT, tv you can keep it probably for a decade, while most people need to buy new phones every year or every other year because they either break it because they carry it with them unlike tv that stays in one place, or want the newest model of phone
They said they weren't counting broken ones since broken tvs would count even higher.
@@drakath5727people get a new phone even when it isn’t broken though.
I was going to argue with this until it occurred to me this was like my fourth phone in six years
@@RBlue118Meanwhile my poor S21 is on its third year and ticking along.
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 in all fairness I had one for like three years until it broke down and ran through two replacements in two weeks after it, and then I just got one last winter because my brother’s phone broke and mine came free with it
Late night scrolling brought me to this and I haven’t stopped laughing. The fact he brought up the wheels and almost started the wheels vs doors argument all over again 😂
Me too! I was watching the first one at like, 2 am.
And it was so funny, I love these.
9:30 I'm only a year into my degree but I already know Phoenix is talking out of his ass on this one.
Microelectronics are stupidly easy to get wrong. Something as big as a TV grants a WAY bigger leeway for error and correcting said errors when working on them (for repairs and such). Not to mention the complexity, makieg manufacturing a TV way less risky and more cost-effective to would-be manufacturers.
And to throw my own two-cents on the argument. I'm surprised low-range and mid-range phones and TVs weren't considered at all. Both debaters seemed to just assume all phones and TVs were peak phones and TVs, which obviously won't sell as well as the lower bracket, more accessible ones.
Also, they had a good strand running when they considered if broken ones count. (Which unfortunately was cut short) We SHOULD consider repairability and how often these get replaced too.
From my experience, people are much more willing to let go of a TV for a replacement than with a phone where they will hold onto that for as long as they can. And TVs tend to get more scrutiny too with how little fault it has to show before it's on the chopping block for replacement. That would certainly factor into the amount of both that are in the world too. So that's also something to think about.
I love how the comments are continuing the discussion partially
13:05 Objection
You might need more for a specific type of gaming, home consoles, they need a TV to be able to play on it
To be the nerd here, u just need any monitor, not specifically a tv. Right I'll go now sorry
The what has more, A or B, is a discussion format I never really thought of. Like I can think of a few possible pairs
1. Books or Newspaper
2. Forks or Spoons
3. Processed wood or processed metal or processed plastics
4. Supermarkets or Gas stations
5. Plastic Dolls or Plushes
6. Total number of Grown Potatoes vs Total number of Grown Corn
Forks or spoons would be interesting
processed metal vs wood is an interesting discussion
plastics is right out though because even now we produce way more metal and have been producing it for way longer
There are definitely way more books
Not only have books been around longer, there's so many different titles that are mass produced
These kinds of debates always forget that not everyone lives like we do in America.
5 is easy, it's plushes. Anyone can make one, you just need some fabric and a thread. meanwhile you can't really make your own plastic in your garage, and it actually needed to be invented before we could make stuff with it.
Phoenix was only counting one tv per household? Quite a few households have more than one tv
There are more houses with multiple phones, and houses with multiple TVs are more likely to have more phones.
@@thetriathigamer1544 I know, I was just pointing out that limiting it to just one tv per household wasn't correct
I have 2 for some reason
@@scpfun1438 exactly
I have a household that has 8 TV's and 3 phones.
Absolutely comedic that Edgeworth accidentally brought up the wheels vs doors argument again. Also rewatching the video, I noticed that the judge asked simply "are there more phones or TVs in the world". So TECHNICALLY there's more phones because Wright and Edgeworth sort of changed subjects by only allowing phones post 1990s-2000s when the first actual phone was invented in 1849. Wright also brought that up towards the second third of the video. So teeeeeechnically, Wright wins lol. I wonder what the next argument will be, haha! I absolutely love these goofy debates!
HOLD UP 1849!?
@@Marilynn_1275 yes Alexander Graham Bell invented the really old timey telephone where you hold one end to your ear and the mic to the mouth. You can look it up on Google or whichever browser you prefer :D
Shit has been shitted alright
I think there are more smart phones, but the maximum 1 tv per jouse hold is wrong. I got like.... 4 tv's in my house.
These are like, the most polite Internet arguments I’ve ever seen. I’m proud of the opposing parties
Bro treats 3th world countrys as some desert without anything, XD
on The phone side, as a 3th wc, i would buy a Chepper phone so i could contact my friends/family members, then a tv that i could use only when im in home
This argument is between two people are sharing the last Braincell
I need to join whatever discord server this is, I would fit in perfectly
Sign me up as well
Same
same pleasee
Sign me up. I LOVE having these debates
Me too
My house having 7 TVs and my brother having a stack of old phones : 🧍🏽♀️
why am i imagining a pillar of like 20 phones lol
Brother is your house a small RadioShack
with that much technology stuff in your home you can probably turn them to scrap and become a machine yourself
64 phones
@@aykarainnow I’m imagining a phone chair lol
Here’s a MAJOR point for phones, it was never clarified that it was TVs vs SMARTphones, just phones. Taking that into consideration, there would still be more phones since they’ve existed in some form long before tvs did
we need more of these, i love seeing two guys argue over "what's more of there in the world, ____ or _____"
the average hosehold is made up of 4.5 people (according to google), let's say about 10% can afford a luxury item a year, we dont need to count people who can afford both as they account for a lesser part of units and also dont net as much yearly difference. thats around 200 million households. a TV will work for at least 5 years given expected conditions of use. so you can buy 4 phones in the meantime. time phones existed 30 years. TVs for 97. 97*200M=19.4B. 30*4*200M=24B so according to this back of napkin estimation theres more phones.
What happened to the 5th
@@toasterhavingabath6980 the 5th what?
How does a household have half a person?
You did 30*4*200m fir phones so it should be like 97*5*200m.
@@TheGoofySquad-nq1lf not really since why would you buy a new tv if yours still working? yod just save up for a car or something
Shocked at how landline telephones weren't brought up the minute the inertia part was mentioned, they were more prevalent than 50s TVs and existed wayyy beforehand...
3:54 Amazing slip up. That made me laugh so much
Some points for the phone
- While both TVs and phones were mass produced, the methods of mass production have greatly expanded, so popular products today will often be made in more abundance than products that were more popular back then. Of course that means that TVs are easier to mass produce now, but since they're declining in popularity, I can only assume phones are being mass produced far more than TVs ever were
- Phones need upgrades far more often than TVs do. People will often keep TVs for a very long time. We had a super old small TV which when then upgraded to a bigger more modern one, but that was about it. TVs can be kept for decades without the need to upgrade them. Phones, on the other hand, can become oudated within the span of 5 years or less. Phones are also broken more often, as something you carry with you every day is more likely to get broken than something that sits in the house all day, usually only touched by remote.
- Phones are on average cheaper than TVs. (Also, this was mentioned in the video, but a household will typically only have 1 TV, but multiple people with phones. Not only would there be multiple people with phones in many households, but those people will also need to get new ones far more often.) I think people would be more likely to buy a phone than a TV nowadays for several reasons.
- The other main reason that people I think would be more likely to buy a phone is just that it's a lot more necessary. Nowadays, in many places, it's impossible to do work or school or a lot of other things you need in life without a device, and you can't use a TV for those things. Also, you can't really communciate with people via the TV, and communicating with people in real life is becoming a lot harder, so phones are commonly used as a way to connect when doing so irl isn't viable. To be fair, computers are also popularly used for these things, I think you're more likely to use a laptop for work than a phone, but it seems like the popularity of computers among young people is declining. Also, there are some things computers just can't do, like if you're in danger, you can't use a computer to call someone. Many people feel phones are a necessity for safety and feel uncomfortable going out without them.
- ...The definiton of phone provided seems to include things like iPads, tablets, etc, since the definiton mentions nothing about size, just about an interactable screen with internet access. It also seems broad enough that it would probably include touchscreen computers, but I'm assuming that if this point were actually brought up, the debaters would probably agree "ok, nothing with a physical keyboard." I'm not sure if they'd help the numbers at all, but yeah.
I thought these would be fun semantic points, I don't know whether or not it's actually true that there are more phones. But I kept thinking of possibly convincing arguments for it.
Idk what they mean by "maximum of 1 TV per home" because most people I know including myself have 2 or more TV's
Hotel and motel rooms are equal because 1 room has 1 tv 1 phone but reception will have 2-6 phones depending on the size of the business and usually 1-2 public phones. But think of hospitals, each room will typically have 1 jank tv but not a public phone. Hospitals can have 100s of patient rooms. But then think about how each patient and staff member have 1 phone each (cell phone) and there’s probably 10ish phones to deal with people calling the hospital and then 2 phones for each department for communication across hospital. I was originally team tv but I think my own hospital argument made me realize it’s team phone
But theres still more doors
These are incredible. Thank you and your discord friends so much for making this a thing
this series is so cool keep it up pls
every phone is a TV but not every TV is a phone
BOOM, discussion solved
I would say that Smart phones hold a majority. It should be taken into account that smart phones are generally more useful them TVs as TVs can almost only be used for entertainment purposes, while smart phones have more practical use, the two most important of which for widespread growth is the ability to communicate easily over long distance and for them to be used to process credit card transactions, with some credit card readers (such as the square reader) requiring a smart phone to be connected to process payments, this naturally would drive people to choose it over a TV. I have also checked the market values of TVs vs Smart Phones, with TVs being worth 220-259.16 Billion dollars (USD), compared to smart phones' being 457-520.13 Billion dollars (USD), almost double the Industry, in addition TVs have likely passed their peak with projections expecting the industry to increase in value by only 10% by 2028, meanwhile Smart phones are projected to rise to 947.11 Billion Dollars (USD), an increase of 82.1%. This shows smart phones have yet to have passed their peak, while TVs are beginning to decline in growth.
Thus it is likely that smart phones outnumber TVs, or at very least will in the near future.
If I overlooked something please feels free to politely point it out, I wrote this just before going to sleep so I may have missed some important point. Just wanted to put in my option again after another great video.
"phones have only been available for a few years" excuse me what? phones came before tv
i think in this case its smartphones
Every single time I start out on Phoenix's side and end up on Edgeworth's side
The pure chaotic energy is wonderful. Tbh Phoenix really should've just said that one household just has like one TV but can have up to 4 or more phones but nevertheless this video is still wonderful man
Please keep arguing Space and Red Jar. Your brainrot is amazing.
This is gold, keep making these
I love how neither of them googled it. THERE ARE MORE SMARTPHONES THAN PEOPLE ON EARTH.
3:53 Bro, he's still traumatized by the doors and wheels debate xddd
Most people now have a phone, meanwhile a household would usually have, at most, 2 tvs.
According to the definition of a smartphone, several handheld devices could be considered a smart phone, such as a nintendo DS and it's variations, a Nintendo switch and it's variations, the 3DS and it's variations, the 2DS and it's variations, and the WiiU gamepad.
Therefore, smartphones win
Wait, what about TVs on airplanes? Those should technically count with the definition of a TV: has a screen and is used for entertainment and news, etc.. If we count airplane TVs, that adds a ton of TVs. Same with TVs in cars, buses, trains, and other methods of transportation. Also TVs in bars and restaurants and offices. I think I’m on team TV.
Also these videos are hilarious and so well done, thank you!! :D
OBJECTION!
Airplane screens have a touchscreen, therefore disqualifying them from being a TV. They also do not qualify for being a phone, due to their non-portability.
@@drakerose3789actually they should qualify because they're literally just shitty tablets
@@jade_capricorn ...it's between smartphones and tvs. So no.
I also have my own thing to add, although it's for the winning side:
Number of TVs per household: 1-3(depending on number of people) or rarely more
Number of phones per household: Around 1 per person, but it is also likely for someone to have multiple phones.
Therefore, in a household with 2 adults and 3 kids, there would be 5 phones and
0:50 love how we just skip past that 😭
I love the objection mid-sentence. Person was probably typing then was interrupted before they could post it fully lol
This is the type of argument that makes you turn off notifications so it doesn’t keep buzzing all the time.
They failed to consider large offices or churches that use tvs as display monitors. The church I go to has a tv in every room, and there are SO MANY ROOMS
Monitors for your PC technically count as TVs
Not my grandparents and uncle having 4 TVs between the three of them (one in living room, one in den, one in each bedroom) and my mom and me each having one in our rooms
I remember reading some data, and In 2006 it was claimed that the average household had 3 tvs
Surprising that Edgeworth didn't try to claim that homes can have more than 1 tv
Phoenix was limiting himself to smartphones, phones in general are even older and you would literally be stranded without them in some situations.
I seriously encourage you to keep making these. They are so entertaining and who knows? Maybe you'll become a [BIG SHOT] someday!!
I was waiting for them to mention that phones break more often. But like... They never did...
Mmm thinking of regions that have accses to cable, or service for phones would influence their choices too
I cant believe i watched both of these back to back
getting this video recommended to me single handedly got me DEEP into the ace attorney fandom
they should also keep in mind that most people change phones every 2/3 years if not annually and it beats the tvs since tvs are usually replaced every 10 years
Consider that indoor restaurants can have 1 TV each on average, this includes bars. And hospitals tend to have a tv in each patients room, even in poor countries, in which case it would be the older model TVs.
How does one find an argument this weird and yet so damn interesting and factual
IM SORRY
I HAVENT EVEN WATCHED THIS YET BUT 14 MINUTES????
In my household, we own 7 or 8 TV's but there's only 3 phones in our house.
We get them for free B) and usualy get one per year. I don't know man.
2:17 time squares implying multiple times squares?
You my friends have earned a sub because I'm curious of if you'll have more fun discussions/debates, plus it was just great editing and perfect format for the debate😂
I love how phones were somehow narrowed down to just smartphones somewhere along the way, giving tvs a massive advantage😂
I am completely mesmerized by these videos I just can't look away for some reason
I googled it and it says that there is like 7 times more phones than TVs, cant argue with google ig
Yes yes more debates please! You two could make rocks sound compelling with how you debate ✨
You need to consider the planned obsolescence of phones. You’re basically FORCED to upgrade your phone every few years, how often do you upgrade your TV? Chances are the one in your house is the same from when you were a kid!
Considering the definition of a TV used here, wouldn't smartphones also count as a TV? Every smartphone would then give a tally to both smartphone and TV, meaning that there are more TVs in the world since there are many TVs that aren't smartphones.
its explained in the video already
Phones because they were invented before TVs and because they die faster than TVs so they need to be replaced more often
The amount of skull emojis I saw scrolling through all those texts 😂
1: you don't always have 1 TV per house??? Some people probably have 0, my house has 4/5
2: yeah you gotta replace tvs every like 20 years or so
But have you ever seen a phone after like FIVE?
3: I don't see a reason tvs would be lower in demand compared to phones?
Bigger screen, eternity capabilities, can work as a computer monitor... but if we're counting computer monitors as tvs my house alone has at least 10... and if we aren't then there would be like maybe 1000 tvs worldwide...
4: if phones are "has touchscreen and can download apps" then a Nintendo switch would count, an iPad would count, and guess what. HOW DO YOU MAKE ART ON THE COMPUTER. *WITHOUT A TOUCHSCREEN?*
ACTUALLY, SOME MODERN CARS HAVE TOUCHSCREENS TOO. AND APPS. CARS ARE PHONES.
Not me watching this on my tv while i prep for gaming tv
It's simple, in your house, you would have 2 or 3 TVs max, but every single person would have a phone, since they are more affordable and easier to come by than TV's as well as provide more functionalities.
ive got 4 phones in this house and not a single tv
a nice change from the usual videos i be watching, good effort
13:06 no, my home has 3 or 4 if you count TVs that are being used as a computer monitor
I have like 4 TV's on my house LOL
Phones win this easily, everyone needs internet access to apply for jobs, pay their bills, use emergency services, etc.. The phone is a vital tool in every household, what does a TV do? Show you the news? You can watch a split second of the weather channel before you have to rush out of the house to your 9-5. You can do all of that on your phone and call your loved ones on your way to work or pull up a WikiHow article to figure out how to fix your sink.
I don't even remember the last time I've bought a TV because I just get them used out of pawn shops, off the side of the street, or handed down from a friend. A ton of people trade in their phones every 2-3 years, iPhone people very rarely skip a generation. A single TV can last an extraordinarily long time and aren't at the same risk of breaking that phones are, which creates more demand.
I found this video and the other one by pure luck (bless the algorithmn). The first one made me spill my drink, I had to clean the table. Thanks.
I'd love to see more but I fear for the mental health of these.
Also if it helps: Most people I know own like 2-3 TVs (not PC monitors, I actually wondered why they didn't mention them lol), a small one on the kitchen and another one usually bigger on the living room. Some families have 3 TVs when they have a kid. At least where I live is normal to have multiple TVs (Europe). Though only one of them is what you'd call a good/decent TV. Average per family is 2 here :v).
Though I do think there are more smartphones than TVs at this point, specially if you include tablets.
If you aren’t considering rotary phones, and only smart phones, then why are we not only considering smart tvs?
This is fucking hilarious 💀
This is so cool! I would really like to see more!
I wouldn't call it brainrot, just epic debating and arguing with some more edgy remarks thrown in for fun. My kinda debate!
with the definition of the phone tablets technically count so there are 100% more phones than tvs in the world
Hold on the one TV maximum is flawed at least three maximum
0:25 Ironic. I was watching this on my TV when he said this.
I hope the next one is tables vs chairs
these style videos are funny as hell to me and idk why 😭
there’s something similar to this in Roblox called Courtroom Shenanigans, where cases can get silly.
That was so bullshit that Edgeworth only counted smartphones instead of all phones, the question was PHONES or tvs, not smartphones or tvs
Also compare how many tvs break vs phones phones small could be by water and break tvs stationary in a decently safe spot
Ok, but everyone missed a very important detail: the original question was "Which has more in the world, TVs or phones?" The question did not specify smartphones, Edgeworth did at 8:22, which is a conflict of interest considering this specification puts him at an advantage. To truly answer the original question, older phones such as landlines, nokias, etc should also be included. This inclusion puts Phoenix 's stance on there being more phones in the worod far ahead of Edgeworth's argument, as the first phone (1876) largely predates the first TV (1927).
A single house can have multiple landlines or home phones, not even counting personal phones. Using my own household as an example, there are 6 TVs (3 communal, 3 personal) in the house, and 9 phones (5 personal, 3 house phones, 1 for work). And I'm pretty sure the number of TVs in my house is a statistical outlier. If your house has a home phone, and unless there's only 1 of them in the entire house, chances are that the number of home phones alone will either equal or at least be close to the number of TVs.
Then there's also places of business to consider. Workplaces rarely have TVs that don't just show advertisement, unless it's in a break room or waiting area, and even then there's only like 1 of them. However there will be a much larger number of phones, especially if it's like an office space where each cubicle/office has a phone. That's already dozens of phones existing compared to like 3 TVs in a single building.
TLDR: Edgeworth is the one who made the specification of smartphones when the original question implies any phone, so the older phones should be included in the argument.
This has convinced me to play Phoenix Wright
on the point of manufacturing, display panels are made as a giant unit (tens of meters in size) and cut into smaller pieces so that's a non-factor. the manufacturing for a phone is more complex as it has small parts and microelectronics whereas TVs usually have a single video processing chip and some supporting circuitry that doesn't have to fit in a small package. TVs are also cheaper than phones.
also, arguably things like desktop computers count as TVs. But laptops also qualify as phones.
smartwatches are also phones that're on the wrist.
i'd say more phones than TVs, mostly because in places like india phones get heavily subsidized by the government in order to get the population more online. also banking in some places like africa is primarily done via smartphones as the sparse population and low-income makes it expensive to build buildings for regional banks.
The algorithm gave me a good morning today
"1 TV per home" Is false : as in the US, at a time, a statistic stand that a regular household does have more than 2 tv in general. I don't remember since when tho
this type of content reminds me of a channel I used to watch that used to make stuff like this but has since stopped, brings me back really, it's funny to see friends talk about stuff in this kind of format, great stuff (but of course no pressure on the creator to make stuff merely because it gets views, they should make whatever they want to make)
*old phones left the chat
Phones are older than tvs
0:51 Edgeworth I believe that is extremely unprofessional and unrelated
I am on team phone. Almost everybody has a phone. And almost every household has a TV. That means that households with multiple people and homeless people really elevate phones over TVs.
Additionally, businesses often have landline phones but rarely have TVs.
5:31 Yes. They are not a person anymore. They are now a corpse.
8:30 OBJECTION! The judge asked about _phones,_ not smartphones.
the real arugument is if there is more animals or plants (NOT MICROSCOPIC ORGANISMS)