Great Yarmouth should be wiped off the map
Debate Rounds (2)
I have similar feelings about the town of Great Yarmouth, only stronger. For those of you unfamiliar with Yarmouth, it is a puss-filled sore on the face of Britain that is infested by some 90,810 maggots, or "people" as the Government generously describes them. (2)
Although the town used to be prosperous, benefiting from a formerly busy port, having a once booming tourist trade and latterly serving as a base for the offshore oil and gas industry, Great Yarmouth has been in steep decline for many years and as a result, the local economy has gone to wrack and ruin. Shamefully, Yarmouth is now one of the poorest towns in the country and the prefix "Great" certainly seems hopelessly inappropriate these days. Indeed, they were going to rename this country "Fantastic Britain" but Yarmouth brought the average down!
One of the reasons for Yarmouth's demise is that the town's transport links with civilisation are abysmal - its only physical connections with the outside world are three minor roads and a single track railway. Not that it matters much though, few people want to go there anymore and any residents with any sense left a long time ago.
Another contributing factor in the borough's relegation to the lowest depths of human habitation is that those residents left behind take no pride in their town. Many even dispose of their rubbish in their own gardens, which led to the slang term "Great Yarmouth gnomes", meaning old furniture householders dump on their own property. (Please refer to embedded YouTube clip for pictures of feral Yarmouth residents in their natural habitat)
Those few locals with a little more pride take their old furniture and dump it in the back streets and lanes, which means the town now officially has the worst problem with fly-tipping in the country. (3)
These days, the town centre is a desolate, windswept, litter-strewn scene of abject deprivation where hopeless, miserable people traipse aimlessly through the filth and debris that bespoil the streets.
In conclusion, the town is so far gone that is now beyond repair. It must be evacuated, condemned and sealed off. This will be simple to achieve as Yarmouth is surrounded on three sides by water and the only way in without crossing a bridge is the A149 Caister Road, which could easily be blocked. (4)
Without any maintenance to the flood defences, the sea will soon reclaim the town, which is built on a sandbank that didn't even exist as recently as Roman times. (5, 6, 7) Thus, the detritus and the scum of Yarmouth will be washed into the deeps, the town will soon be forgotten and Britain will be a better place as a result.
Anyway what's the problem? A borough no one sees doesn't look pretty. This place is about the size of Staten Island.
Your plan does not say where to put them or the garbage but why not Staten Island? They cannot mess it up more than it is already. And if some of them end up in Newark or Hoboken well that is their problem.
But anyway now these lazy good-for-nothing maggots will just go somewhere else and mess up somebody else's yard and the garbage will be washed on to somebody else's beach and both will become someone else's problem.
It would be cheaper and cleaner just to arrange for an unfortunate natural disaster to kill everyone in the town. It could be made to look like a volcanic eruption. There is nothing wrong with GY that being buried in volcanic ash wouldn't fix, and take care of the garbage problem too. Just poke a hole deep enough but not too deep. How hard can that be? The government probably already has that technology.
We must develop our Assisted Volcano technology. As other cities become eligible for Early Retirement and other coutries rush to implement it, its advantages will become obvious.
Resources wasted on war can now be utilized more productively. Each nation must declare war on itself and vigorously mobilize. This will greatly simplify logistics, and we already know how to destroy our own cities. Tourists will marvel at the beautiful mountains where ugly cities once stood.
The environmental benefits will be obvious. We will suffocate in sulphur unless we develop clean chimney sweepers. Cities and pollution will become a thing of the past.
Great Yarmouth, however, should be spared. Its much maligned inhabitants, courageous and fine citizens who never hurt anyone, will become rulers of Earth. All the capital cities will be gone anyway. Saying anything bad about Greatest In The World Yarmouth will be punishable by death.
GITWY will be separated from Fantastic Britain and be a country like the Vatican.
Anyone that wants North Sea oil can just forget about it.
Firstly, I agree that it would be easy just to ignore Yarmouth and let the natives of the borough get on with living their tawdry, depressing lives. However, the town is on the doorstep of the Norfolk Broads National Park (1), which is a popular boating destination. Visitors from abroad who don't know any better and can't see the litter from the satellite images on Google Maps, often think that the town might make a good touring base, arrive by sea, take one look at the place and turn around and go home again. They, understandably, conclude that the whole of Britain must be one huge stinking toilet and this is very damaging for the country's reputation as a respectable tourist destination.
Now, let's examine my opponent's Transport them to Staten Island proposal. Good idea, why not? After all, Britain always used to export our underclasses overseas. Two hundred years ago, if someone urinated in the street (as is still common practice in Yarmouth) they would be shipped over to Australia where they would be released into the bush to forage for themselves. However, this plan back fired on us. The convicts exploited the natural resources and indigenous people there, developed a functioning (albeit uncivilised) society and exacted their revenge on Britain by sending us crappy soap operas like Home and Away, fizzy beer like Fosters and, worst of all, JASON "I had the chance to make love to Kylie Minogue but I turned her down but that doesn't make me gay*" DONOVAN!
By the way, if you are British and are planning your first trip Down Under, remember the Aussies still have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to us Poms so be careful what you say. When I got to Sydney Airport the immigration officer asked me if I had a criminal record and I replied that I didn't realise it was still a requirement. You don't want to fly 12,000 miles just to be put straight back on the plane do you?
Sorry, I digress. Back to Staten Island. I've been there and it's certainly not posh. I asked a man in a New Jersey pub why there were so many tramps living on the streets of Staten Island. I mean, you don't pay rent if you are homeless so why not live over the river in Manhattan, or better still, somewhere exotic like Miami? The bloke in the pub replied that Staten Island was very popular with vagabonds because it was one of the few places where they could feel superior to the local residents!
Next, let's look at the Bury Great Yarmouth under a Volcanic Lava Flow proposal. This idea has many obvious appeals and superficially seems to solve all the problems at a stroke. However, I can see three flaws in the plan:
1 - Yarmouth is located in one of the most tectonically stable regions on Earth, lying as it does towards the centre of the Eurasian Plate (2) where the continental crust is thickest and, therefore, most difficult to drill through.
2 - The lava flows might be difficult to control and could potentially bury neighboring Gorleston-on-Sea, which would be a shame because it is actually a quite a nice little place.
3 - Genocide is illegal in Britain.
Moving on, my opponent correctly pointed out that allowing Yarmouth to return to the sea would pollute the oceans and wash garbage up on foreign shores. This is, unfortunately, unavoidable but it will be a one-off event and would not happen every time the town is flooded as happens every few months as it does now.
Finally, I would implore the voters to reject my opponent's suggestion that Great Yarmouth should be spared in anticipation of the town becoming the centre of a world superpower. As the only famous person from the area is a turkey farmer called Bernard Matthews (see YouTube clip) the locals would be likely to install him as President with the following consequences:
* He would dismantle the Houses of Parliament and have them rebuilt on Yarmouth seafront (after spraying them with gold paint to match the tacky plastic souvenir replica of them he has on his mantelpiece at home). Then he would convert Big Ben's clock face to digital to make it look more modern.
* He would close all the libraries and re-open them as Bernard Matthew's Golden Fried Turkey drive-thru restaurants.
* Everybody would be forced to wear nylon trackie bottoms and cheap t-shirts made in India by malnourished orphans.
* He would convert the Norfolk Broads National Park into a poultry-themed amusement park called Bernard Matthews World of Luvvly Legs, Faboolus Fighs and Bootiful Breasts.
* The only programmes allowed on television would be Trisha, The Jerry Springer Show and QVC Shopping.
Instead, I merely propose to return Great Yarmouth to mother nature and assimilate the town's displaced inhabitants into mainstream society by sending them on courses that will cover everything from toilet training to basic literacy in the expectation that the habits of respectable British citizens will have a civilising effect on them.
* Yes it does.
The Queen went to Australia. "You know, I have a brother-in-law that's a photographer," she remarked to a photographer. "What a coincidence," he replied, "I have a brother-in-law that's a queen." She has not been back.
Richard Nixon, visited Australia but was not informed that his famous "V" sign is an obscene gesture there.
I have a proposal.
Anyone who complains about any place gets sent there. If you are already living there you get sent to someplace worse. Soon everyone will be living in New Jersey
and watching American TV.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 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:||5||0|
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.