The Instigator
Indophile
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

For air travel, passengers must be put to sleep for the entire journey

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 5 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,632 times Debate No: 16044
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Indophile

Pro

Everybody knows it. It's a hassle to travel by plane nowadays. But one has to do it. We either don't have the choice, or the time for other options. So how can this be reduced?

I propose that every passenger should be put to sleep before boarding the plane.

This way, no one has to undergo any security check. No need for carry on baggage check (everything could be checked in). One merely has to present one's ticket, receive a sleep-inducing device (whereupon they will be ferried into the plane, maybe using conveyor belts, and deposited directly into their seats) and then wake up at the destination airport baggage retrieval carousel, where they can pick up their bags and leave.

This has advantages for both the traveller as well as the airline. For one, no need to undergo the painful security, opening of our carryon bags, fussing over which book to read, what to eat, how to while away the time; no need to endure annoying babies crying for the whole duration, no need to sit uncomfortably, cramped into economy class seats, etc.

During my innumerable plane trips, I've observed that a majority of the people in planes do nothing but sleep. Some of them read books, listen to music, watch movies, work on some important looking spreadsheet/notepad type program on their laptop, knit, or stare ahead like zombies (all this while sitting in the most uncomfortable of positions). Moreover, no electronic devices can be used during takeoff or landing, and most of the planes don't have internet (and even those that have, is a paid service)

According to me, none of these activities add much to one's life experience and can be done away with. Nothing will be lost by travelling the whole distance asleep (which is what most do anyway).

Coming to the airlines, they can save money in myriad ways. No need for stewards/stewardesss, no need to provide for food/entertainment, no need for all the security check equipment, etc. Also, since the passengers will be asleep the entire journey, they can use the entire space inside the plane to fit in passengers. Thus, more passengers can be ferried per plane.

There might be issues with long term effects of such drug induced sleep (especially for frequent travellers), but this can be worked out. No need to drug most people. Making them listen to a tape of my high school history teacher for 5 minutes would put most people to sleep instantaneously.

Some people may not want to be put to sleep, but in light of security, their protestations can be done away with.

In case of emergencies, the passengers could be woken up.

In light of all these points, I resolve that it'd be the best for all concerned that it is best if passengers are put to sleep before being allowed to board a plane.

PS - This is my first debate here, so forgive me for any format issues.
phantom

Con


I welcome my opponent to his first debate.
Just so everyone knows I have flown 8 times in my life (not counting the connection flights). So I have ample experience with flying for this debate.

Before rebutting my opponents arguments I will state some reasons as to why this idea should not be used. Although some of my arguments will be in the rebuttal section.


Arguments:
(1) Getting put to sleep can have bad effects if too often. Some people will fly around all the time for various reasons such as their job.
People should not take sleeping pills too often. My guess is any other method they might use to put the passengers to sleep would also have bad effects if done too often.[1]

And then theirs addiction. The passengers might get a drug addiction to whatever it is that is used.

(2) In case of an emergency passengers would not be able to tense themselves in case of a crash or rough flying.
And when the oxygen masks drop down out of the ceiling they would not be able to put them on.

(3) Whatever method is used it is likely it will have bad effects on certain people. Just say a certain compound in the drug or whatever they use, gives a certain man a very bad reaction. If he is not aware of this serious damage might be done to his health or worse, as it is likely it would only be realized after he was awakened.

(4) If a person wants to sleep during a plane trip he can bring his own sleeping pills.

(5) Lots of people like to stay awake on the plane. In a say 14 hour plane trip a man can get allot of work done while flying.
Plus some people might feel unsafe being put to sleep for often over 10 hours at a time in a plane.

(6) Terrorists might find a way to counteract the drug.

(7) Passengers WILL piss in their pants! Or worse if they have diarrhea...

(8) How would they eat?

(9) If anything happens to a passenger while asleep something might happen to him. Such as a heart attack or countless other things. As the drug would have to be quite strong to put him asleep for that long it is probable he would not wake up.

Rebuttal:
///This way, no one has to undergo any security check. No need for carry on baggage check (everything could be checked in). One merely has to present one's ticket, receive a sleep-inducing device (whereupon they will be ferried into the plane, maybe using conveyor belts, and deposited directly into their seats) and then wake up at the destination airport baggage retrieval carousel, where they can pick up their bags and leave.///

Of course they would still have to go through security check. Bombs don’t have to be set off manually every time.

Plus theirs always the chance that terrorists would find a way to counter the drug.

And many people would not want to be handled by other people while they are asleep.

And would this be a safe and healthy thing for babies to be put to sleep?

///This has advantages for both the traveller as well as the airline. For one, no need to undergo the painful security, opening of our carryon bags, fussing over which book to read, what to eat, how to while away the time; no need to endure annoying babies crying for the whole duration, no need to sit uncomfortably, cramped into economy class seats, etc.///

Then just take a sleeping pill. Why would passengers only be put to sleep if everybody is put to sleep. Pro is saying it should be law. But they always have the choice.

/// During my innumerable plane trips, I've observed that a majority of the people in planes do nothing but sleep. Some of them read books, listen to music, watch movies, work on some important looking spreadsheet/notepad type program on their laptop, knit, or stare ahead like zombies///

Again they can use a sleeping pill if they want. They can also take advantage of this time be working. If taking a plane trip is incredibly boring then they always have the choice of taking a sleeping pill. Or they can simply just sleep as many people don't need a pill to sleep during a plane trip.

///Moreover, no electronic devices can be used during takeoff or landing///

Then why did my opponent mention laptops in the previous quote?

///Coming to the airlines, they can save money in myriad ways. No need for stewards/stewardesss, no need to provide for food/entertainment, no need for all the security check equipment, etc. Also, since the passengers will be asleep the entire journey, they can use the entire space inside the plane to fit in passengers. Thus, more passengers can be ferried per plane.///

Again how will they go to the bathroom?

And what about an emergency how will they be woken up?

And during that emergency how can they easily move around if the entire space of the plane is being used up?

And they wouldnt save money in the way that they would have to provide drugs capable of putting numerous amounts of people asleep for long periods of time.

///There might be issues with long term effects of such drug induced sleep (especially for frequent travellers), but this can be worked out. No need to drug most people. Making them listen to a tape of my high school history teacher for 5 minutes would put most people to sleep instantaneously.///

This is obviously a joke so I think my opponent is saying their might be issues with long term effects. Thus helping me prove my point.


///In case of emergencies, the passengers could be woken up.///

One: this suggests that drug would be fairly weak. Making it possible for terrorists to somehow find a way to get woken up in the plane.

Two: earlier pro suggests all the space of the plane would be used up. In case they made a forced landing lots of people might die not being able to get out in time due to over crowding.

Three: in some scenarios oxygen masks need to be used. The passengers would not be fully awake after being awakened and might be too drowsy to put on the masks. And that's assuming they could be woken up and in time before they completely ran out of air. You have to take into acount the old men and the little kids.

Four: how would they be woken up?


[1] http://www.darksideofsleepingpills.com/ch2.html

Debate Round No. 1
Indophile

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments and will proceed with my rebuttal.

As foreseen, the major argument was that it would have a bad effect on people. Also, if you notice, my opponent has said that it is his GUESS, that any other method would be harmful. I request you to keep this in mind.

I'll bunch my opponent's responses in a group according to their uniqueness and respond to them one by one.

1. It will have bad effects. Addiction to the drug used. Allergy.

If my resolution is passed, people will have no option but to have an up-to-date health report that will list all their allergies. With close interactions with their physician, they can find out if the drug used will affect them adversely. If so, alternatives can be used. As my opponent said, they can also bring their own sleeping pills. Even if it gets addictive, as long as there are no harmful effects, it does not matter. Every child has to go to school. One cannot stop a child from going there just because it might be addictive (Yes, there are children like that too. Shocking, I know.)

The added benefit, of course, is that people will have frequent health check-ups, which cannot be argued to be harmful at all. Also, I'd like to direct the attention of the readers to the movie Inception, where all the passengers wake up hale and hearty after a 10 hour drug induced sleep. If you can't trust Hollywood......

But all this is assuming that drugs are needed to put people to sleep. I will list some alternates other than the one I already gave of my history teacher. We have Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 (I've yet to find anyone that did not fall asleep 10 minutes into the movie, and even after 4 attempts, I've not been able to finish it), asking them to read the safety manual completely, so on. [1]

2. People can get work done.

Bunkum, I say. I have a nice comfortable chair, in my own cubicle and I still find it difficult to get any work done. I completely refuse to believe that anyone can get work done sitting in a cramped seat with Kevin Smith sitting on your side and the passenger in front of you sleeping on your lap. Please disregard this point of my opponent.

3. Emergency situations

My opponent argues that something might happen to the passengers, such as a heart attack and countless other things. I wonder what they could possibly do if these countless things happen while the passenger is awake that they could not do while the passenger is asleep? If it helps, passengers can be monitored. Anyway, passengers will have a health checkup, so the occurrences would be rare. My opponent also says that passengers might not be able to tense themselves in case of a crash. But I already said that the passengers will be woken up before such situations. Oxygen masks don't drop down just before the plane hits the ground. There will be ample time for passengers to wake up and put the masks on.

4. Cannot eat, will piss or s**t

Do we do all these things while we sleep at night?

5. Terrorists might find a counter to it.

And do what? Blow up the plane with their bare hands? Anyway there will be some person monitoring the passengers, and they would know if anybody showed any signs of waking up.

Rebuttal

//Of course they would still have to go through security check. Bombs don't have to be set off manually every time.//

My opponent misunderstands when I said no security check. Passengers will be checked for anything on their person, which can be easily done. As there won't be any bags carried into the plane, that's all that is needed. The bags they check in will of course be checked, but the passengers need not be troubled for that.

//Plus theirs always the chance that terrorists would find a way to counter the drug.//

Already addressed.

//And many people would not want to be handled by other people while they are asleep.//

No passenger will be handled while asleep. They can lie down on their seats, which will be on a conveyor belt and be slotted into the plane. It would be like a factory machine floor. It'd be just a one-time investment and can be easily recouped with all the savings and the extra passengers ferried

//And would this be a safe and healthy thing for babies to be put to sleep?//

They need not be put to sleep, if you want. So long as they don't cry in the most annoying manner, or I don't get to hear their crying. The monitoring person can take care of the babies.

My opponent just repeats "take a sleeping pill" again and again. Well, they certainly can. I don't care how they are put to sleep. Regarding passengers having a choice, I wonder which world my opponent lives in? The passengers' so called choice has been consistently curtailed to a point where I feel in the near future, everybody will have to travel naked and the total number of bags they can carry will be zero and the maximum weight allowed will be zero pounds. I would like to disillusion my opponent from the idea that the passengers have any choice in the items they are allowed to carry. They can't even carry a water bottle, so that puts paid to any choice. As always, the safety card can be used to do away with protestations of choice.

Again how will they go to the bathroom?

Already addressed.

And during that emergency how can they easily move around if the entire space of the plane is being used up?

I'm not sure which planes my opponent is talking about. But the ones I flew in do not have any space for all the passengers to move in, let alone easily. They need not use up every square inch. As there would be no more carry-ons, the overhead compartment space becomes available. They can have a double decker, like in trains. The walkway would still be there.

And they wouldnt save money in the way that they would have to provide drugs capable of putting numerous amounts of people asleep for long periods of time.

I already said that drugs are not the only way. Even so, passengers can be asked to provide for their own drugs, or as my opponent keeps saying, bring their own sleeping pills. Just like nowadays, airlines announce that passengers are welcome to bring their own food (but only bought inside the airport).

And what about an emergency how will they be woken up?

They could be asked to bring a recorded nightmare or any such assorted wake-up-quick methods and could be plugged into the monitoring devices and in an emergency be activated. If this does not work…[2] (It's the embedded video)

With this rebuttal, I feel that I've adequately responded to the objections raised by my opponent. I encourage you all to vote pro.

[1] http://www.escapistmagazine.com...

[2]
phantom

Con



//Even if it gets addictive, as long as there are no harmful effects, it does not matter.//

So my opponent is saying it’s okay if they become drug addicts (which will have harmful effects.)

//The added benefit, of course, is that people will have frequent health check-ups, which cannot be argued to be harmful at all.//

Too expensive. It costs a lot of money to see the doctor now days. But to have frequent health check-ups just so that you can fly on a plane? The plane trip already is expensive in itself.

//But all this is assuming that drugs are needed to put people to sleep. I will list some alternates other than the one I already gave of my history teacher. We have Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 (I've yet to find anyone that did not fall asleep 10 minutes into the movie, and even after 4 attempts, I've not been able to finish it), asking them to read the safety manual completely, so on. [1]//

As my opponent gives no other options than drugs, I am assuming drugs is the only way.

//Bunkum, I say. I have a nice comfortable chair, in my own cubicle and I still find it difficult to get any work done// etc…

Well for one thing that’s only you. Many people don’t mind flying, or are so used to flying it’s easy for them to do work. First class passengers have plenty of space and comfort. If the plane's not full lots of others will as well.

//My opponent argues that something might happen to the passengers, such as a heart attack and countless other things. I wonder what they could possibly do if these countless things happen while the passenger is awake that they could not do while the passenger is asleep?//

First my point was no one would know that it happened to them and therefore no one would be able to help them.

//If it helps, passengers can be monitored.//

VERY expensive. To monitor every passenger in the plane would cost way too much.

//My opponent also says that passengers might not be able to tense themselves in case of a crash. But I already said that the passengers will be woken up before such situations.//

I’m not convinced that the passengers could simply be woken up. And like I said the effects would take a while to ware off. They would be all drowsy and light headed.

//4. Cannot eat, will piss or s**t

Do we do all these things while we sleep at night?//

1. We don’t do these things at night because we wake up before it happens. I don't need to used the bathroom at night, but other people (especially older people) do.

2. Some people do, like little kids and babies and people with diarrhea. And it would be infinitely worse to wet/soil your pants in a plane than in your bed.

3. A plane trip can be up to 14 hours long. If you are asleep for that long without going to the bathroom you will probably wet your pants.

4. Yeah no problem if someone doesn’t eat for 12 hours straight at times during the day where their body is used to having food.

//5. Terrorists might find a counter to it.

And do what? Blow up the plane with their bare hands? Anyway there will be some person monitoring the passengers, and they would know if anybody showed any signs of waking up.//

1. Take out a knife or scissors and slit as many throats as possible before being stopped.

2. Put your hands around the man in front of you's throat and hold him as hostage.

3. My opponent says some person. If only one person is watching he would easily miss someone waking up.

4. There are many objects that could be used as weapons. Even something from one of those monitors my opponent mentions could probably be used. Just break of something and shove it deep into someone’s eye. Terrorists will do anything to be with those 100 virgins they are promised.

//My opponent misunderstands when I said no security check. Passengers will be checked for anything on their person, which can be easily done. As there won't be any bags carried into the plane, that's all that is needed. The bags they check in will of course be checked, but the passengers need not be troubled for that.//

Sounds just like a normal security check to me.

//No passenger will be handled while asleep. They can lie down on their seats, which will be on a conveyor belt and be slotted into the plane. It would be like a factory machine floor. It'd be just a one-time investment and can be easily recouped with all the savings and the extra passengers ferried//

Sounds expensive.

//They need not be put to sleep, if you want. So long as they don't cry in the most annoying manner, or I don't get to hear their crying. The monitoring person can take care of the babies.//

1. The resolution states passengers must be put to sleep for the entire journey. Passengers includes babies. My opponent cannot change the resolution and therefore my point still holds.

2. Now the monitoring person has two jobs. Tending babies and watching for terrorists. Doesn’t sound like the safest plan to me.

//My opponent just repeats "take a sleeping pill" again and again. Well, they certainly can. I don't care how they are put to sleep. Regarding passengers having a choice// etc...

My point is if you want to sleep the whole plane trip you can. It doesn’t have to be law that everyone has to sleep.

//I already said that drugs are not the only way. Even so, passengers can be asked to provide for their own drugs, or as my opponent keeps saying, bring their own sleeping pills. Just like nowadays, airlines announce that passengers are welcome to bring their own food (but only bought inside the airport).//

My opponent provides no other method of how to wake them up.

Vote con.

Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate.

Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
No one sleeps on airplanes anymore; they are all afraid of having their safe combinations stolen.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Sorry Indophile, the checkmarks for "better arguments" and "better spelling and grammar" were right next to each other, I checked them both by accident.
Posted by Indophile 6 years ago
Indophile
I didn't know how else to contact quarterexchange, so posting here. Thanks for voting, but at least you could've given a tie for spelling and grammar :) Or at least point out where I made spelling or grammar mistakes. (I pride myself in not having those)
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
"I propose that every passenger should be put to sleep before boarding the plane."

You want to kill all the passengers? lol.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
IndophilephantomTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
IndophilephantomTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly waste of time.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
IndophilephantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's methods of health checks and monitors were way too expensive to implement. Seriously, the national cost to give checkups to everyone on planes would be in the billions every year. So since we can't do those two things, con accesses terrorism and drug addiction impacts.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
IndophilephantomTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments regarding an emergency trumps any other argument. You can't have a plane catch on fire and have 200 people burn and choke to death because they guy at the exit door was snoozing
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IndophilephantomTied
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: Light debate, Pro was entertaining, Con's attempts were just that.