The Instigator
AvidDebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
John_Galt1337
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Banning cars in central London

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 56868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AvidDebater

Pro

One reason I am for is because the way I see it, apart from taxi drivers, bus drivers, emergancy services and delivery vans, the only reason why people drive in London is just because they can rather than they need too. Another reason is because the public transport system is so good that most don't need to drive to London anyway as every part of London is interconnected anyway. Also the health benefits due a reduction in air pollution that can be gained by banning cars is fairly large as well, for example while there is no exact estimate the most common static for the number of deaths caused by air pollution is over 1 million. Finally by banning cars it will open be the already congest roads improving traffic in other areas because there will be a reduction in road accidents
John_Galt1337

Con

My opponent's arguments purely focus on the usefulness of banning cars in central London, while my opponent does not tell us why this would be morally justified. Imposing a blanket ban on cars smacks of totalitarianism. If we let the government ban cars for purely utilitarian reasons, we set a precedent for our government to justify further impositions upon our free will. This creates a slippery slope and once you flirt with totalitarian bans on rights to temporarily decrease congestion and pollution, you open the door for full blown totalitarianism. Therefore, no matter how beneficial the effects of this policy, we must reject it on the grounds of upholding free will and closing the door to totalitarianism.
As an aside, my opponent may argue that pollution also imposes upon human rights. This may be true, but pollution from factories and other sources would occur anyway, so it seems patently unfair to single out automobiles as the source for pollution, unless my opponent is advocating a return to pre-industrial times, banning all things that cause pollution, solely for the sake of minimizing pollution. Such a position would be off topic from the debate, so it cannot be advocated by my opponent.
In summary, my opponent has ignored the values of human rights, free will, and preventing totalitarianism, in favor of talking about bureaucratic benefits. I have discounted these claims by showing that relieving congestion in London is not as important as preventing impositions on free will. My opponent's arguments have no basis, therefore, I strongly urge everyone to vote on the con side.
Debate Round No. 1
AvidDebater

Pro

On the basis of human rights I believe that is moot to the point considering that London already enforces a congestion charge, which could be argued to be against human rights, also my opponents argument that banning cars restricts human rights would only be truly valid if cars were banned throughout the UK in its entirety and not just London, not mention if the government decides to consider a decision of this scale the people of the UK would be involved as if there is enough opposition the government won't enact on it. Also banning cars from Urban areas is becoming a trend in European countries, for example Hamburg, Germany's second largest city, is already taking cars off its roads through Urban development schemes such as the 'Green Network' where a strong network of green pathways will connect parks, recreational areas, playgrounds, cemeteries and gardens all across the city, and will give the added benefits of prevent flooding due to storms, absorbing Carbon Dioxide emissions and may even be able to help with illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia in cities, whose rates when it come to the number of people who experience these illnesses is much higher than when compared with the country side due to exposure to green spaces reducing stress.
John_Galt1337

Con

John_Galt1337 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AvidDebater

Pro

Following on from my previous point the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under Article 13 state that 'everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.' , so as long as the government provides an adequate transport system then banning cars in London will not infringe on Human Rights.

Another reason why cars in London should be banned is because among other factors parking is a nightmare and taking public transport in cheaper and quicker than taking the car and would help to cut down carbon emissions by 60% as well as reducing the dependance and usage of oil, which is already running out and is running out very fast
John_Galt1337

Con

John_Galt1337 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AvidDebater

Pro

AvidDebater forfeited this round.
John_Galt1337

Con

John_Galt1337 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AvidDebater

Pro

AvidDebater forfeited this round.
John_Galt1337

Con

John_Galt1337 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.