Cars should be banned from use.
Debate Rounds (5)
Welcome to this debate.
I define cars as "a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal-combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people". (1) I also define banned as "prohibited from use".
Since I am arguing in favor of banning vehicles I will further define the term and establish the specific instance to which such vehicles should be banned.
Further defined parameters of a ban:
(1) Ban on the use of None-renewable fossil fuels from use in a compustion operated vehicles intended for private sale and use to transport indivual(s) or Goods across public roads and highways. Exempting commercial vehicles which underlaw require Classifcation B or A licences.
(2) Ban manually operated vehicles intended for private use or sale to operate on public roads or highways by 2022, tobe replaced by Artificial intelligence operated vehicles.
(1) In the context of this debate, specifically proposed laws are intended and assumed to be inacted over a period of time leading to a full ban on manually operated, fossil fuel powered cars in the United States.
(2) My arguments will focus on the replacements for such vehicles and their supperiority for various purposes over the existing Manually operated, fossil fuel powered vehicles.
Look froward to having this debate with you.
Thank you for accepting my debate
Cars are very important in modern life. Imagine what you could do without it. You would have to inconveniently walk to the train/bus station, and have to wait a long time for a train. Clearly, this is a strong inconvenience. Besides, it is even worse in the countryside. Only in rare occasions do buses operate there, and trains often take a long time to arrive. Even if you manage to get on a train, when you leave train, it is most likely you have to walk a long way to your target destination. This annoyance without cars all cause a car ban to be detrimental.
There are two criteria that a new transportation system needs to meet. It must serve two areas of our needs as a civilization. Local travel and Long distance travel. For local travel I will say is travel with in around 80Km which is aprox.50mi. And long distance travel which is anything further than 50km. Lets first adress local concerns.
For travel of 0~3km you can travel on foot easily enough, for travel of 0~ to 8km ( 5 mi) A bicycle will do. For a healthy adult to make a round trip of 8km is no problem. This is more than enough to get you back and forth to stores, entertainment and etc if you live in an average urban enviroment, which the bulk of our population does. This is typical european system, most people travel by bike or by motorized scooters which are also a good option for getting around town and have a better reasonable range of travel. Than we have the need for cross town travel or cross county travel. For this, a Bus system will survice. With very few other vehicles on the road ways, our bus systems can travel faster and much more effciently and this will make them a much more deisrable option for traveling in this capacity with a range of anywhere from say 8 to 80km.
Further reading ion the benefits of travel by bicycle
For further reading about what kind of bus system we can have with modern technology:
Now for long distance travel. You maybe expecting a bullet train but I have something even better.
Introudcing, ET3 https://www.youtube.com...;
Main website: http://et3.net...
Our technology has advancaed much further than many beleive, you may-or-may not have a mistake beleive that the free market system would build these thigns if they could be built, but that is a falalcy I will have to adress ina future debate. The technology noen the less is here and now. ET3 has already conducted sucessful trials.
You have suggested letting people walk, ride a bicycle or go on a bus to anywhere within 50 kilometres. That may be okay, but it definitely will take way too long for urgent situations. A 8km ride will take up to 30 minutes, which is sometimes just too much. And, travelling on foot for one hour to get somewhere? No thanks. You have claimed that "With very few other vehicles on the road ways, our bus systems can travel faster and much more efficiently and this will make them a much more desirable option for traveling in this capacity with a range of anywhere from say 8 to 80km". However, people will be hovering around all the time, with bicycles cramming for space as well. Buses then come by and give them all a big carbon monoxide punch. That is not good for the environment.
Another argument of why cars shouldn't be banned is because they have built in relaxing functions that we use all the time such as radio, air conditioners etc. You might not realise how important these features are, air conditioners prevent you from getting heat exhaustion on a hot summer's day. Radio delivers you your news and music all the time. The world would suddenly seem hot, boring and weird if cars were banned.
(1)You either completely mis read my argument or are deliberately attempting to mislead readers.
(2) You are basing your argument on nothing. No resources- No data... Carbon monoxide punch? What are you talking about? -- Did you read any of the links I posted? Even one of them in its entirety?
(3) Relaxation? Are you tripping on something?
https://www.youtube.com...;... Yes nothing is more relaxing than dirving. https://www.youtube.com...; Because we are always in control of our vehicles.
https://www.youtube.com... the weather doesn't effect our vehicles at all.
And Humans are always responcible when operating Heavy vehicles traveling at great speeds.
Biclyces take up less room, they more energy effcient-in-fact, the most energy effcient method of transport known to man. No carbon footprint... all of this is laid out in the link I posted in the last round which I am at this moment certain you did not read. The bus system we are talking about wont run on Gasoline.
You are basing your argument on nothing. No resources - No data... Carbon monoxide punch? What are you talking about? -- Did you read any of the links I posted? Even one of them in its entirety?
Relaxation? Are you tripping on something?
The examples you have giving are very rare cases, where the drives are negligent. In such as cold climate where the videos have been featured, a heater would definitely be helpful. If driving really wasn't a relaxing experience, no-one would be using it.
Bicycles take up less room, they more energy efficient-in-fact, the most energy efficient method of transport known to man. No carbon footprint... all of this is laid out in the link I posted in the last round which I am at this moment certain you did not read. The bus system we are talking about wont run on Gasoline.
The page you have provided for the bus system is not valid or I cannot access it. Also, the convenience of cars far exceeds bicycles which are much slower. People can be encouraged to use bicycles, but banning cars just takes away a convenient choice.
If cars were to be banned, what would all the billions of cars on Earth be done to? Well, it's illegal to use the cars so it's basically a useless piece of junk which are either going to be thrown away or recycled. Both of these options are detrimental to our society; dumping cars causes dangerous pollution from the metals and waste of precious materials, while recycling the materials still wastes the years of engineering used to produce all the cars and some material is also non-recyclable. Recycling the materials also needs money.
So convience is more important than say... having a habitable planet to live on.
I will keep in mind what a convience it is to be driving a mini van away from rising ocean waters.
Close to 30,000 people die every year in car crashes.
That is hardly just a few isolated cases.
Once again I am glad all the hard work of those engingeers wont be wasted as 30,000 people die eeach year in car crashes and 1.5 Billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses are released into the atmosphere at the same time. But atleast we have air coniditioning and really cool radios.
I cannot access any of the links you have given. For example when I try to open http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... an error occurs. As the character limit is 2000, I cannot post the error in my argument, but I will post it in the comments.
So convenience is more important than say... having a habitable planet to live on.
Again, law could be used to limit but not ban cars which will drop down pollution levels WHILE still keeping the convenience of cars. For example, one family could be limited to one car and the world could be persuaded to use other modes of transport instead.
Close to 30,000 people die every year in car crashes.
30,000 is nothing compared to the nearly 254,000,000 people that drive cars in the US.
Once again I am glad all the hard work of those engineers won't be wasted as 30,000 people die each year in car crashes and 1.5 Billion metric tons of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere at the same time. But at least we have air conditioning and really cool radios.
Why won't the hard work of engineers be wasted? You have not supported that argument with reasons. If you are saying that so many cars have already gone to waste, 30,000 is not much compared to even just the US! Also, your greenhouse gases argument can be met with limiting cars.
There are many reasons why cars should be limited but not banned. One reason is it's freedom and convenience, banning it would mean people would have to catch a bus, train etc which are much less convenient. Limiting it would limit global warming, while still providing convenient travel. Also, with air conditioning and radios there is relaxation.
I would like to thank my opponent for her time and arguments.
In my arguments here I have established a great deal of harm caused by our car-culture in the United states. Here I have given a good deal of reasons why cars should be done away with in our culture. Thank you Con for the debate and good luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a question of which argument outweighed which. Pro argued for saving lives and habitable planet, Con did nothing to disprove any of these, he only downplayed them, which doesn't reduce their importance. Con argued for comfort and regulation but with illogical connections like: exposing bicyclists to carbon monoxide isn't good for the environment. I can't follow. So, arguments go to Pro. Pro loses points for sources because he didn't provide working links even though he was pointed to the mistake by Con. All other points were tied, with reasonable spelling/grammar and both being civil enough.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.