Cities are for people not cars.
Debate Rounds (3)
First, cities are called cities, because they are big and there are a lot of people. Cities take a big territory, which caused people to have vehicles to drive between long distances: such as home, school, job and etc. Try to imagine cities like New York, Washington, Tokyo and even Almaty. How human beings will reach their distinctions, if there are not any vehicle in such places. It will take a lot of time and force. Besides, cars are necessary to cities, to be called city. A city should have advertisements, supermarkets, theaters, clubs, cinemas, also hospitals, prisons, which caused having a big territory. If cities will not have cars, they have to decrease their territory. However, with small territory cities must be called villages. So, why do not say that cities are for cars, too.
Second, Pro claims that cities for people not for cars, while he suggests to build other transportation. He contradicts to himself. If people build new transportation, it means vehicle will be in cities again. That means cars are necessary for people to live in big cities, especially in the 21st century.
But, about the current topic, I would like to say that cities are for cars, too, as people need cars in cities to get long distances. If we claim that cities not for cars and destroy all vehicles, people will not be able to go from one side of the city to another. So, I am against the statement that cities are not for cars.
Second, I agree with Pro that humans should invent new transportation that are not harmful for our environment. But it definitely does not mean that all cars should be destroyed. Just a second, imagine, there will not be any kinds of cars in big cities. What will happen for people? Honestly, before this time I have been confident to destroy cars and ride only bicycle. But I have understood that cars are important in our daily life, now. Think a bit, a person is bleeding and a doctor is riding bicycle to come and help to the patient from another side of city. How much time will pass till the doctor achieve the patient? What will happen to the patient during this time? It means cars are necessary in such situations.
To conclude, I would like to say that cities are really big, so they are for cars. Moreover, cities were for cars, cities are for cars and cities will be for cars, but, I hope, for less harmful cars.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 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:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Both have good conduct - tie Both have sub-par grammar - tie Both have terrible arguments - tie I suppose Con did use sources for the size of the cities... so one point there I guess.
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.