Discord Debate but Ace Attorney Format: EP2 - PHONES vs TVS 

"There are more houses than wheels" bro got lost

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.

gumshoe randomly inserting themselves into the conversation with the randomest statements loll

in 8:51, with that logic, tablets would be included too.

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

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 😂

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.

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

Phoenix was only counting one tv per household? Quite a few households have more than one tv

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

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!

I love how the comments are continuing the discussion partially

Shit has been shitted alright

I need to join whatever discord server this is, I would fit in perfectly

My house having 7 TVs and my brother having a stack of old phones : 🧍🏽‍♀️

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

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.

This argument is between two people are sharing the last Braincell

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.

These are like, the most polite Internet arguments I’ve ever seen. I’m proud of the opposing parties

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...

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 _____"

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.

3:54 Amazing slip up. That made me laugh so much

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

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

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.

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.

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

This is gold, keep making these

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

every phone is a TV but not every TV is a phone BOOM, discussion solved

I seriously encourage you to keep making these. They are so entertaining and who knows? Maybe you'll become a [BIG SHOT] someday!!

Every single time I start out on Phoenix's side and end up on Edgeworth's side

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

I love the objection mid-sentence. Person was probably typing then was interrupted before they could post it fully lol

3:53 Bro, he's still traumatized by the doors and wheels debate xddd

0:50 love how we just skip past that 😭

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

"phones have only been available for a few years" excuse me what? phones came before tv

I love how neither of them googled it. THERE ARE MORE SMARTPHONES THAN PEOPLE ON EARTH.

I cant believe i watched both of these back to back

This is the type of argument that makes you turn off notifications so it doesn’t keep buzzing all the time.

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

Mmm thinking of regions that have accses to cable, or service for phones would influence their choices too

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😂

getting this video recommended to me single handedly got me DEEP into the ace attorney fandom

Most people now have a phone, meanwhile a household would usually have, at most, 2 tvs.

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.

IM SORRY I HAVENT EVEN WATCHED THIS YET BUT 14 MINUTES????

Phoenix was limiting himself to smartphones, phones in general are even older and you would literally be stranded without them in some situations.

I was waiting for them to mention that phones break more often. But like... They never did...

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.

How does one find an argument this weird and yet so damn interesting and factual

I am completely mesmerized by these videos I just can't look away for some reason

2:17 time squares implying multiple times squares?

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.

Yes yes more debates please! You two could make rocks sound compelling with how you debate ✨

13:06 no, my home has 3 or 4 if you count TVs that are being used as a computer monitor

Monitors for your PC technically count as TVs

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)

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.

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!

The amount of skull emojis I saw scrolling through all those texts 😂

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.

Arguably, a TV lasts longer and are just as abundant as a phone. Before, a new TV would go for a few hundred bucks, but nowadays a small flatscreen can easily go for $50-$70. Phones are more expensive and are more likely to get damaged over time, which would lead to more broken phones than television. It's also much easier and less expensive to get your old TV fixed than a new smartphone. Just the cost alone makes it more likely for there to be just as much, if not, more televisions than phones. And if we're talking in terms of how many people that want it versus how many people can afford it, Television outweighs smartphones. Not to mention social classes; there may be plenty of middle/upper class able to afford smartphones all the time, but there are a lot more people in the lower income classes who are scraping by and cant afford a new phone without months of investment.

a nice change from the usual videos i be watching, good effort

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!

As funny as this is phones are obviously much much more common TVs are usually limited to 1-2 per household and per household there's usually like 5 people which all usually have a phone And even if there's only 1 person in the house then there's either 1 tv or none or in the very rare case 2 tvs but they are almost guaranteed to have a phone if they have their own private house So per person there's usually about 0.6 tvs while there's about 0.95 phones per person, not including decommissioned ones

these style videos are funny as hell to me and idk why 😭

Also compare how many tvs break vs phones phones small could be by water and break tvs stationary in a decently safe spot

In my household, we own 7 or 8 TV's but there's only 3 phones in our house.

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.

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.

Not me watching this on my tv while i prep for gaming tv

Topic idea, are there more hand tools (wrenches, drills, ect) or computers in the world

*Okay I'm on phone side.* Define TV: A large COLOR non touch screen used mainly for entertainment/news Define phone: A device with a COLOR screen that is controlled mainly via touchscreen OR a group of buttons attached (and not unattachable) to the device and *ONLY* buttons. (It's worded like this to exclude Nintendo handhelds and Steam Decks while still including old fliphones.) I say color screens only to ensure similar release dates. There are phones costing 80 bucks. The least expensive TV I've seen is 250$. Yea no. Tablets will be included aswell because to be honest they're just big phones. Although monitors are included, phones are small and cheap. Phones also have to be replaced often. Tvs often have longer lifespans. *Team phones!*

I hope the next one is tables vs chairs

0:25 Ironic. I was watching this on my TV when he said this.

What is a phone? Do the old house phones count? What of Morse code transmitters? Even if every mobile phone was a tv, would that matter? If you define phone loosely enough, smoke signals, radio, even speaking could be a “phone”

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.

I have like 4 TV's on my house LOL

ive got 4 phones in this house and not a single tv

Hold on the one TV maximum is flawed at least three maximum

These are really high quality and fun to watch, keep going. You’ll definitely catch the algorithm again, take my sub lol

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.

The algorithm gave me a good morning today

A future debate topic could be trying to define “natural” as in verses “unnatural” is rope natural? It is man made, so many would say no, but a beaver dam is natural, or is that unnatural? If both are natural does it go all the way to a television being natural?

There are MUCH more smartphones in the world IN CIRCULATION today than people. That's not counting the ones yet unsold and old ones that still work but aren't being used anymore. Plus, the phone market is doing miles better than the TV market, and it's been like that for years by now. Phones have been in circulation for almost twenty years, and TVs took much longer to catch on worldwide than phones did. In most countries TVs were rich people stuff till the 70s to the 80s, but nowadays even poorer countries or communities have cellphones be a common personal item! And since we're counting TVs that don't work anymore, we can also count phones that don't work anymore. Then the answer is obvious!

I love how phones were somehow narrowed down to just smartphones somewhere along the way, giving tvs a massive advantage😂

0:51 Edgeworth I believe that is extremely unprofessional and unrelated

I googled it and it says that there is like 7 times more phones than TVs, cant argue with google ig

This is fucking hilarious 💀

there are way more phones than tvs my family owns like 10 phones (including work phones, normal phones, old and unused phones (not unusable/broken just old and outdated that are still in our house)) and 3 tvs (including one being used as a really cool monitor)