The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Cities are for people not cars.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2012 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,061 times Debate No: 26475
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The world is becoming more smaller than it is, The one reason that cars or planes or any others are making the world small. It is good that if we look its posative side but there are a lot of negative side than the posative side. one striking example is pollution. It is the main reason that we should lessen the transportation system in the limited extend or we even can say that it would be great if we destroy all the transportation that is working with harmful oils and build new kind of transpotations insted of that transportations. it might be energy cars that will fit our benefits in the system of health care or also save money.


My refutation of Pro's case will be in two points. First, I will show that cars are necessary for cities, also that cities are for cars, too. Second, I will show that Pro's argument contradict his topic.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


No, first ,you got me on the wrong side, i am not saying you that cars are not necessary, but i am saying that there should be disigned another sort of transportation. For instance, it might be the cars working with energy , so that; we will be in the real nature ,in this case we will be able to protect our environment from the most cousing problem of humen life.


I guess I see what you mean, but it seems to me that your topic is not appropriate to your arguments. It will be better to call your topic like "People should destroy harmful vehicles and invent new transportation". While, the topic "Cities are for people not cars", from my point of view, claims that transportation must be destroyed in cities and only people should be there. The result is that your topic and your arguments are not related or I do not understand your point of view, as you do not explain your arguments and opinion clearly.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


No, i didnt present my topic wrong, dont get me wrong, it is definitly true, it is true metaphorically speking as you paraphrased it . Today we know that cars are polluting our environment that we live in. And it brings to the bad illnesses that is couseing peole to die before the age of they should die. The most serious illnessess are that we should deal with. it is fact, and we must decrease the number of cars . But dont get me wrong i am not going to persuade you that all cars, of course it is ineviteble that we cant do that. So my point is not to increase that sort of cars but instead to destray if we can , and live in the clean air that we are inhailing. And in this case it would be great to our health system. Also , we can survive without cars, what need of going to somewhere far if OUR health will not be good. in short, what is need of such pollution? with cars comes pollution and it is beter if the cars are destroyed and were build other kind of cars as i mentioned befire like it might be energy cars and it will be increased in the future and also, as the research claims it is already in charge of people in some countries. SO, cars must be changed to the sort of cars that is beneficial to our environment and health.


First, Cities are for people, it is definitely. But, cities are for cars, too. For example, it can be said that villages are not for car. I can agree with this, as a village is small and people can go from one place to another by foot there, it is not so hard. While, cities include a territory in average 1,000 km2. For example, Almaty's area is 324.8 km2 (1), Tokyo's area is 2,187.66 km2 (2) and Moscow's area is 2,510 km2 (3). How much time and force it will take to go from one side of the city to another on foot. Pro said "what need of going to somewhere far if OUR health will not be good". I think, he is wrong. People frequently need to go somewhere far in their daily life, one general example is if you live in one place, while your work is far away, you must go everyday. If your health bad, doctors will come to you and if you live far away, they will go long distance. Ambulances go far to get patient, from one side of city to another almost every hour. Firefighters have the same situations. Cities have daily routine, people go from one side of city to another because of different cases. So, they need cars. From these arguments, it can be said that cities 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.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
too easy, ill let someone else get this
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
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.