The Instigator
doesdoesnot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,146 times Debate No: 63484
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

doesdoesnot

Con

Many cities suffer from serious air and noise pollution"as well as endless traffic jams"because of too many cars. Some people feel that cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars and force people to walk, bike, or use public transportation. I believe that this is not a good idea.

The first round is acceptance.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

I will be arguing for pro! thanks for starting this debate!
Debate Round No. 1
doesdoesnot

Con

Air and noise pollution has become common in many cities. Thus, pollution has become a number one priority needing a solution. It is said that the pollution is due to the endless amounts of cars, and some people have suggested the banning individual cars. Although the idea is tempting, it is not a conclusion that all people are looking forward to. There are people who have jobs much farther away than where they live. Some cannot afford to ride a taxi or train every single day. No individual should or have the right to force anyone to make their daily travels in a certain type of transportation. There are other ways that resolve the pollution without the inconvenience of banning passenger cars.

Air and noise pollution can be settled by the advancing technology of automobiles. There is technology to help create greener transportation without completely destroying the invention of individual cars. There are hybrid cars which do not fuel off of so much gas. Also, there is a high chance that inventors will later create a much greener public transportation just like hybrids that will not pollute the air we breathe. Already, cars running on energy have been invented and are slowly becoming popular. Energy charge stations are also becoming a common site. Rather than replacing individual cars with public transportation, providing cars that do not as much pollute the air can be a solution that does not cause difficulties and is authorized to improve the pollution stasis.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I'd like to begin by sharing my ideas.

Now, I'm going to shape a mental image in your head, that will ultimately give you an understanding of my argument. Lets being.

Under my argument, a city that has extensive public transportation does not yet exist. Extensive public transportation would have to provide an easy way to where ever you want to go, when ever you want to go. it has to be cheaper than the regular price of fuel, or free, and it must be appealing. (Ex. clean, Air conditioning, etc).
Next, I had google define car for me, and this is what I will present as the definition of car: "a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people."

Under this definition, vehicles with out a combustion engine would be okay. therefore, electric cars would work. Next, as the demand for cars with combustion engines decrease, so would the amount that car companies produce. If they want to make sales, they would have to build cars that are up to code, that are also affordable.

Thereby not destroying innovation, but perhaps expanding it's reach to new market. Innovation at it's finest- Capitalism.

Now back to transportation. Perhaps not that the government has stopped spending tax dollars on car related crimes, and other car related expenses, they could send in a fraction of the millions saved to fund a hybrid-taxi system. You can call a car whenever you want, and since the price you are paying for the service is not modified by the price of fuel, it will be much lower.

Thanks, I am finished.
Debate Round No. 2
doesdoesnot

Con

Thank you for your ideas.

As to my opponents argument, the suggestion of public transportation came up, but my opponent thinks that the transportation should be free. But if so, who would want to drive the public transportation vehicles? In addition, my opponent brought up the idea of hybrid cars, and I agree. I think that cities with extensive public transportation systems should not ban passenger cars, and replace them with hybrid cars instead of banishing the whole idea of individual cars; therefore, I think that this idea is a supporting detail in my side of the argument.

This is one of my other ideas.

It is against justice to force people to move by certain ways. People have the right to decide their ways of transportation. Some simply cannot afford to ride a taxi or bus every single day, depending on how much money they earn from the jobs in which they work in. There are people who have jobs much farther away than where they live. Furthermore, there are disabled people who have trouble walking long distances. More importantly, if a majority of people use public transportation, it would mean extra production of buses and trains in order to prevent from carrying overcrowded people in one station. Forcing people to participate in an act against their will does not bring flawless success. There is bound to be people who suffer from the changes. Banning passenger cars may bring up severe issues of human rights and still leaves the problem of air and noise pollution from abundant transportation vehicles.

Thank you so much for this debate!
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Now, there is no such thing as 'free', we will pay for it eventually, via tax dollars. I think that the prices of transportation, say a taxi service, that runs on electricity, would be substantially cheaper than one based on gasoline.]

Next, "I think that cities with extensive public transportation systems should not ban passenger cars, and replace them with hybrid cars instead of banishing the whole idea of individual cars; therefore, I think that this idea is a supporting detail in my side of the argument."

you may think that, however, this does not support your side and heres why:

Given my definition of a "car", I believe that electric/hybrid cars ought to remain. Because, they are technically not cars. They their own breed of vehicle. This only supports my argument because these provide easy and cheer means of travel, and this also falls under the category of "public transportation".

Next, "It is against justice to force people to move by certain ways. People have the right to decide their ways of transportation. Some simply cannot afford to ride a taxi or bus every single day, depending on how much money they earn from the jobs in which they work in"

It's against my right to be not allowed to take a certain mode of transportation? Well, then how come the government is allowed to have regulations on cars? How come cars under a certain fuel efficiency are not allowed on roads? How come certain types of vehicles are not street legal? Because your not entitled to transportation! Which is also pecan pie the government can take away your license if you become a danger to a society. It's a privilege, not a right.

Next, "Furthermore, there are disabled people who have trouble walking long distances. More importantly, if a majority of people use public transportation, it would mean extra production of buses and trains in order to prevent from carrying overcrowded people in one station. Forcing people to participate in an act against their will does not bring flawless success."

I would like to note that the disabled argument is entirely invalid considering that when you say, "extensive public transport", that problem ought to be solved. Also, public transport does have options for handicapped people. Also, "flawless success"? What is that? surely you should know by now that nothing is truly flawless, and to expect a public transportation system that is would be ridiculous.

Also, " There is bound to be people who suffer from the changes. Banning passenger cars may bring up severe issues of human rights and still leaves the problem of air and noise pollution from abundant transportation vehicles."

Since you did not give a definition of "human rights", I will

Human rights: "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

http://www.ohchr.org...

Now, human rights is a horrible argument, that strengthens my argument because, like you just read, human rights should be available to everyone. In which, cars are not.

Next, I don't know if you have researched electric cars, but there silent. Due to the lack of a combustion engine, no noise is made. So noise and pollution is also out of the picture.

Thank you, I am now ready for the conclusion round.
Debate Round No. 3
doesdoesnot

Con

Arranging an establishment which reduces the amount of automobiles driving per day can also be a resolution to air pollution. Since 2006, the Republic of South Korea has been using a program in which provides benefits to those who decide to participate. The License Plate Rating System restricts individual vehicle drivers for a day of their chose, from driving. Researchers estimate that if 100 cars apply to this system, 10% of traffic is reduced and 43,336,439.89 dollars of fuel, which lowers the air pollution levels. In addition, dust due to the friction of tires can decrease up to 10% a year and the measure of exhaust gas can be deducted more than 93% which can save up to 30,754,892.82 dollars. If such programs similar to this are used throughout the world, air pollution can be decreased, as well as numerous extents of saved money which can be used to develop technology to make greener vehicles.

One of the main global challenged the world faces today is the question of how to solve air and noise pollution without damaging the economy.

Extensive public transportation can bring side effects such as traffic jams and accidents. Rather than completely ban and destroy the invention of individual cars, a better solution for this problem would be to remodel the trains, buses, and cars to become environmentally friendly. Several systems have recently been formed to reduce the amount of cars driving per day. Thus, it is evidentially proved that there are superior solutions to air and noise pollution without the consequences that the banning of individual vehicles would excite.

A resolution of city pollution is a problem that needs a great deal of considering before the determining the best answer, which is not the banning of passenger cars, but should be a new idea that can both benefit the environment and the majority of people.
AbandonedSpring

Pro

Alright, I will being with rebuttals in this round.

"Arranging an establishment which reduces the amount of automobiles driving per day can also be a resolution to air pollution. Since 2006, the Republic of South Korea has been using a program in which provides benefits to those who decide to participate. The License Plate Rating System restricts individual vehicle drivers for a day of their chose, from driving. Researchers estimate that if 100 cars apply to this system, 10% of traffic is reduced and 43,336,439.89 dollars of fuel, which lowers the air pollution levels. In addition, dust due to the friction of tires can decrease up to 10% a year and the measure of exhaust gas can be deducted more than 93% which can save up to 30,754,892.82 dollars. If such programs similar to this are used throughout the world, air pollution can be decreased, as well as numerous extents of saved money which can be used to develop technology to make greener vehicles."

Since no sources were provided, I'm assuming you made all this information up. Either that, or you plagiarized. Either way, this entire argument is invalid.

"One of the main global challenged the world faces today is the question of how to solve air and noise pollution without damaging the economy."

I suppose it's possible you are not in America, however I can assure that this is not todays biggest problem. There are a ray of other problems, and this unfortunately does not chart.

"Extensive public transportation can bring side effects such as traffic jams and accidents. Rather than completely ban and destroy the invention of individual cars, a better solution for this problem would be to remodel the trains, buses, and cars to become environmentally friendly"

I'll start of by saying that if there are no combustion engine vehicles are on the roads, then there will be slim to no traffic. Actually dramatically lowering the amount of traffic, as well as the relevancy of your argument. Like I also stated earlier, I am looking for those remodels, this would be the part about "excessive public transportation".

"A resolution of city pollution is a problem that needs a great deal of considering before the determining the best answer, which is not the banning of passenger cars, but should be a new idea that can both benefit the environment and the majority of people."

Here, you basically agree with my argument, and then turn against it. I said, to protect the environment, only hybrid/electric cars should be driven. Which you have agreed with. Now that we are using green technology, there is nothing left to debate. Every vehicle that hopes to be street legal better be eco friendly. Otherwise, it ought not to be allowed on city roads.

This of course, should only apply to a time which would be far, far in the future, when every problem is worked out, and public transportation would be a preferred method of travel by people anyways.

Thank you, I am finished.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by doesdoesnot 2 years ago
doesdoesnot
Thank you for this debate!
Posted by AbandonedSpring 2 years ago
AbandonedSpring
I believe rules are fairly universal, so long as in the conclusion, we do not bring new arguments
Posted by doesdoesnot 2 years ago
doesdoesnot
My opponent can set the rules, if he/she prefers to.
No votes have been placed for this debate.