The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
badger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Existing highways should not be privatized

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 3 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,591 times Debate No: 26947
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

You know what it"s like: you are cruising along in your trusty Rolls-Royce when your chauffeur announces that there is a traffic jam ahead and, as a consequence, your arrival at the Cafe de Posh for your luncheon appointment with your tax accountant is likely to be somewhat tardy. "May the angels and ministers of grace fvcking preserve us," you may well exclaim, possibly adding "Damn those proles to hell and back! Why, oh why, are snivelling little plebs in their commonplace conveyances permitted to impede their social superiors' progress by clogging up the highways? It really is high time these paupers were priced off the roads."

Well, if the Institute of Economic Affairs latest scheme gets the green light, you may well get your wish. That's because they propose the privatization of all major roads and highways in order to create a two-tier user network whereby moneyed motorists who can afford to pay the tolls will waft along uncongested 'VIP superhighways' that are maintained by private companies, while everybody else bumps along 'filthy peasant scum dirt tracks' that the government will allow to crumble and decay in order to save money.

Of course, the money raised in the sell-off and the cash saved on road maintenance could be used to cut taxes for the rich, or to finance the construction of a huge, solid gold, diamond-encrusted statue of Senator Joseph McCarthy urinating on Robin Hood, or some other morally-bankrupt scheme, but it seems to me that an elected government has the duty to govern in the interests of the majority of citizens, not just the financially-privileged few, and that's why existing highways should not be privatized.

Thank you.

Sources:

http://www.cityam.com...
http://www.iea.org.uk...
badger

Con

Well, first of all, I'd like to thank my opponent, the much esteemed and most handsome Brian Eggleston, for instigating this debate. I would have you all now, for your own enjoyment of course, take a moment to appreciate the so well rounded, bespectacled cranium, adorned with a mandible that would've done Samson tenfold as many murders as that donkey's did, to be seen in his avatar. And if you lose yourself for more than a moment, don't worry, this debate isn't going anywhere, and I will fully understand if no votes are cast on it ever - I'm feeling the burden now myself that such imagery places upon functionality. He is truly a beautiful man.

And now with due courtesy out of the way, I shall brave my opponent's argument, in utmost seriousness of course, that the often underappreciated Bourgeoisie - my opponent is not capable of such sympathising in his being so handsome, that's what's wrong with him - but, yes, that the often underappreciated Bourgeoisie may know some comfort in my understanding, that they make take some peace in this war I wage for them, that they may, perhaps, feel morally good about themselves in their raping and pillaging of the world.

I shall first set the foundations of my arguments in quoting the highly intelligent John Steinbeck, who I declare as such in his having thought much the same as I do myself with this quote, and without further ado: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Now, this is evidently the case, I mean why else are they so capitalist? And, hence, the fact of the matter quite obviously boils down to whether or not these "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are in fact what they believe they are. And I shall be arguing that they are! that capitalism is quite obviously the way forward! that we shall all some day share in the spoils of what it is to be a world of moralless, money-grabbing bastards!

My arguments are as follows:

1) Though the gap between rich and poor perpetually grows, ammm, errr... I'll come back to this one.

2) The brain drain and its counterpart, whatever it's called... the idiot evacuation perhaps? - I better get a mention in whatever wiki if I'm the first to have coined a decent term for it - but, yes, these two phenomenon are clearly for the betterment of whatever country it is with capitalism as its modus operandi more so than others, and though quite obviously morally-bankrupt as such schemes as my opponent shuns in his opening, who cares once you get rich, right? I mean these schemes bring people into your country much smarter than you and willing to work for a lot less, and, ammmm, errrrrr... fvck! Okay, I'll be back to this one, too.

3) Rich people!, you know who you'll be voting for I'm sure...

4) Temporarily embarrassed millionaires!, ammm, you guys are right, capitalism is the way forward. I mean look at the regal insignia on the box of cigarettes that cost you nearly everything you had to buy, that's a crown right there... and... ammm... CROWN!11!!!!1!! And you guys also have televisions! They don't have those in Africa, stupid Africans.

I rest my case. Damn.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

It's good to see Badger back and I would like to thank him for his generous compliments! I wonder where he's been for so long, by the way. Many of you will remember Badger's early days on this site when his avatar was a charming photo of him on the lash down the pub, grinning menacingly and swinging a pool cue about in an aggressive manner. Oh, yes, the good old days when Badger used to come on this site when everybody else was asleep and have arguments with himself on the forums; the good old days when Badger was a socialist who shunned the use of the "shift" key, dismissing it as an obscene capitalist decadence, but since he has been away it seems he has been reformed: not only does he now employ the use of capital letters but it seems he has also become an apologist for the Bourgeoisie.

With this being the case, I would like to address his rebuttals as follows:

1) Though the gap between rich and poor perpetually grows, ammm, errr... I'll come back to this one.

Fair enough.

2) The brain drain and its counterpart, whatever it's called... the idiot evacuation perhaps? errrrrr... fvck! Okay, I'll be back to this one, too.

Jolly good.

3) Rich people!, you know who you'll be voting for I'm sure...

That"s right: the Tories (or the Republicans in America, not sure about Ireland, are there any rich people there apart from Ryanair's Michael O'Leary and Bono out of U2?)

4) Temporarily embarrassed millionaires!

It seems there has been some changes in America since John Steinbeck's day, at least if like 58,163,977 voters you believe presidential election loser, Mitt Romney, who said 47% of Americans "believe that they are victims, (they) believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, (they) believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them - my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Actually, the people he was referring to are students, old-age pensioners, war veterans, manual workers and the disabled: none of whom are poor out of choice and shouldn"t be forced to travel on the back roads so that toffs and snobs in posh cars are not inconvenienced.

In conclusion, the existing roads that have been bought and paid for by the taxpayer should not be flogged off to a bunch of spivs so that they can introduce tolls that only the rich can afford to pay.

Thank you.

Sources:
----------
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
badger

Con

Lol, that was hilarious. I love remembering stuff that other people remember, too.

Anyway, I concede.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Glad to have you back, Badger!
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
no worries dude, i was just saying hello anyway!
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
I am working on this one Badger but I must catch a Eurostar to Paris now, I'll post my response tomorrow...
Posted by badger 4 years ago
badger
i must go collect my welfare payment now, but dibs!
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
There's an 21+ age limit, I'll change it to 18+.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I'll take this. It says I can't accept though.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
With the way you write, this sounds like it could be a very entertaining debate. We've already got privatized toll roads in the US. Do you share the same opinion of toll bridges?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
brian_egglestonbadgerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Funny arguments from Pro, none from Con. This was entertaining to read. I've been missing the funny brian_eggleston debates for a while.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
brian_egglestonbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
brian_egglestonbadgerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL I almost gave Badger the conduct vote just for the compliments:p Anyway, arguments to Brian because... well... Badger didn't really make any. Valiant effort though!