The Instigator
crazypenguin
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
figoitalia
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points

It is unethical to buy an SUV

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,509 times Debate No: 2891
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (18)

 

crazypenguin

Pro

Thank you for joining this debate,

First I will state my points,

SUVs are harmful to the environment.
SUVs use a lot of gas, more than most other cars, so there is more gas emissions and contributes to global warming like two regular cars.
>> SUV owners collectively paid almost $9 billion – $350 each – more for gasoline in 2002 in the United States than they would if SUVs were as fuel-efficient as the average car. This translates into 151 million extra barrels of oil consumed in the United States in 2002 to fuel SUVs.
>> The fuel efficiency of engines increases by an average of 1.9 percent per year, but automakers chose to use these efficiency gains to increase acceleration and add weight to vehicles (mostly in SUVs) instead of increasing fuel economy.
SUVs are dangerous to other motorists.
SUVs are much larger and bulkier than most cars on the road. If an SUV crashed into a smaller vehicle, the passengers in the smaller vehicle would be in greater danger than if they were crashed against another smaller car.
>>While SUV occupants face significant risks from rollover crashes, occupants of other cars face major risks from SUVs as well. In frontal crashes, SUVs kill 4.3 car drivers for every one SUV driver who is killed.

Thanks,
figoitalia

Con

ok before i start, i would like to point out that my burden in this debate is not to show that buying an SUV is ethical, rather i must simply show that buying an SUV is NOT unethical. therefore the position i will be taking in this debate is that buying an SUV is neither ethical or unethical, but rather amoral. One cannot place a moral or ethical bearing on an object.

An example would be buying a pocket knife. is it ethical or unethical? well, it is impossible to tell. it can be used for woodcarving, or cutting food, or boy scouts, yet at the same time it can be used for stabbing another person. therefore, the act of buying a knife cannot be weighed on an ethical scale, only how it is used can be.

The same it true with an SUV. No one can say that buying an SUV is unethical, because no one knows how it will be used. Maybe a disabled family will use it to make transportation easier. Or it could be used by the police, forest rangers, or in a way to help lost hikers and travelers.

The most important point when arguing ethics however, is that ethics are not object specific. going back to the knife example, we might say that stabbing someone with a knife is unethical, but whether or not a knife was used is irrelevant. Stabbing someone in general is unethical. It doesn't matter if it was a knife, fork, pen, sword, stick, nail. Stabbing, and hurting someone is unethical, we do not need to define the object.

This ties in with the argument you have made. your statement of, "SUVs use a lot of gas, more than most other cars, so there is more gas emissions and contributes to global warming like two regular cars" basically states SUV's waste gas, which harms the atmosphere. But if you are arguing ethics, it doesn't matter if it is an SUV or not, the statement would be, "wasting gas is harmful to the environment, thus unethical.

OK so i have shown that buying an SUV is not ethical or unethical, but amoral, so now id like just to go through and attack some of your arguments.

---SUV owners collectively paid almost $9 billion – $350 each – more for gasoline in 2002 in the United States than they would if SUVs were as fuel-efficient as the average car.

this is just a statement about how SUVs use more gas. this doesn't mean buying one is unethical. If a family can meet all its requirements by using only one car, but has two to make life easier, and do more things, is that unethical? of course not. They have the right to have another car.

---The fuel efficiency of engines increases by an average of 1.9 percent per year, but automakers chose to use these efficiency gains to increase acceleration and add weight to vehicles (mostly in SUVs) instead of increasing fuel economy.

are you trying to say increasing the acceleration of a vehicle is unethical? That just doesn't make sense. it isn't a question of ethics.

---SUVs are dangerous to other motorists.
SUVs are much larger and bulkier than most cars on the road. If an SUV crashed into a smaller vehicle, the passengers in the smaller vehicle would be in greater danger than if they were crashed against another smaller car

This is not true. SUVs are not dangerous. A bad driver driving one is. But the vehicle itself is not more dangerous than any other, it is just a matter of how it is used. For example: it i drive and SUV 20 miles an hour, but someone else is driving a Prius at 120 which is more dangerous? the prius. so again its how they are used. not the objects themselves.

---While SUV occupants face significant risks from rollover crashes, occupants of other cars face major risks from SUVs as well. In frontal crashes, SUVs kill 4.3 car drivers for every one SUV driver who is killed.

see my previous argument. but another point, if someone with a family wants to keep their kids safe, it would be a better choice to have an SUV.

so finally, SUV are amoral. It doesnt matter if you love them or hate them, you cannot place a ethical definition on them, because it doesn't apply
Debate Round No. 1
crazypenguin

Pro

Thanks for joining,

First I will rebutt my opponents points,

"The most important point when arguing ethics however, is that ethics are not object specific. going back to the knife example, we might say that stabbing someone with a knife is unethical, but whether or not a knife was used is irrelevant. Stabbing someone in general is unethical. It doesn't matter if it was a knife, fork, pen, sword, stick, nail. Stabbing, and hurting someone is unethical, we do not need to define the object." Most of his arguments are summarized against this but if the knife wasn't there, then there would the use of being unethical for stabbing someone.

"his is just a statement about how SUVs use more gas. this doesn't mean buying one is unethical. If a family can meet all its requirements by using only one car, but has two to make life easier, and do more things, is that unethical? of course not. They have the right to have another car. " How many people do you know that just buy an SUV and leave it in their garage? NO ONE that's why it is unethical!!!

"are you trying to say increasing the acceleration of a vehicle is unethical? That just doesn't make sense. it isn't a question of ethics." By producing more gas and hurting the environment is that ethical?

"This is not true. SUVs are not dangerous. A bad driver driving one is. But the vehicle itself is not more dangerous than any other, it is just a matter of how it is used. For example: it i drive and SUV 20 miles an hour, but someone else is driving a Prius at 120 which is more dangerous? the prius. so again its how they are used. not the objects themselves." Again I ask you how many people do you know who drive at 20 mile per hour all the time? I rest my case.

"so finally, SUV are amoral. It doesnt matter if you love them or hate them, you cannot place a ethical definition on them, because it doesn't apply" All of my arguments apply because they directly corelate to other high ethics, such as safety considered one of the highest ethics or environment another high ethic WHICH SUVS ARE DESTROYING.

Now I will move to some of my points.
SUVs do not have fuel efficiency standards.
Most cars have to comply with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAF�). For example, most average-weight cars must have 20mpg. However, there are some exceptions, including alternate fuel cars, and very heavy cars like SUVs.
>>Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.

SUVs are dangerous to their passengers, especially children.
SUVs are not safe for children and adults. People on the road with SUVs are in danger because the first increase in traffic deaths in 25 years comes as SUVs have assumed a dominant position in the market for new vehicles.
>>Sport utility vehicles are the second most popular choice of vehicle for transporting children – behind minivans – but they are twice as deadly for children as minivans and more dangerous to children than large or mid-sized passenger cars, according to a new Public Citizen study released today during a news conference at the Capitol.
Children are more at risk from a rollover crash in an SUV than in any other type of vehicle. Alarmingly, the use of SUVs to transport children is rising, while the use of minivans and cars is declining.

SUVs don't have to be safe: a problem.
They are built with less security standard then cars because they count as a truck and trucks don't need to have certain specifications like a pre-planned frame that is built to crumble in certain spots to protect the people inside. Therefore, not only is it unethical to buy an SUV, but also it is unethical to sell an SUV.
>>With SUVs accounting for some 24 percent of all new-vehicle sales in the United States for 2003 alone, and, with well over 20 million on the road today, representing nearly 12 percent of all registered vehicles in the country, 86% of all SUV owners want new regulation safety standards.

And now to restate all my points:

SUVs are harmful to the environment.
SUVs use a lot of gas, more than most other cars, so there is more gas emissions and contributes to global warming like two regular cars.
>> SUV owners collectively paid almost $9 billion – $350 each – more for gasoline in 2002 in the United States than they would if SUVs were as fuel-efficient as the average car. This translates into 151 million extra barrels of oil consumed in the United States in 2002 to fuel SUVs.
>> The fuel efficiency of engines increases by an average of 1.9 percent per year, but automakers chose to use these efficiency gains to increase acceleration and add weight to vehicles (mostly in SUVs) instead of increasing fuel economy.

SUVs are dangerous to other motorists.
SUVs are much larger and bulkier than most cars on the road. If an SUV crashed into a smaller vehicle, the passengers in the smaller vehicle would be in greater danger than if they were crashed against another smaller car.
>>While SUV occupants face significant risks from rollover crashes, occupants of other cars face major risks from SUVs as well. In frontal crashes, SUVs kill 4.3 car drivers for every one SUV driver who is killed.

SUVs do not have fuel efficiency standards.
Most cars have to comply with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAF�). For example, most average-weight cars must have 20mpg. However, there are some exceptions, including alternate fuel cars, and very heavy cars like SUVs.
>>Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.

SUVs are dangerous to their passengers, especially children.
SUVs are not safe for children and adults. People on the road with SUVs are in danger because the first increase in traffic deaths in 25 years comes as SUVs have assumed a dominant position in the market for new vehicles.
>>Sport utility vehicles are the second most popular choice of vehicle for transporting children – behind minivans – but they are twice as deadly for children as minivans and more dangerous to children than large or mid-sized passenger cars, according to a new Public Citizen study released today during a news conference at the Capitol.
Children are more at risk from a rollover crash in an SUV than in any other type of vehicle. Alarmingly, the use of SUVs to transport children is rising, while the use of minivans and cars is declining.

SUVs don't have to be safe: a problem.
They are built with less security standard then cars because they count as a truck and trucks don't need to have certain specifications like a pre-planned frame that is built to crumble in certain spots to protect the people inside. Therefore, not only is it unethical to buy an SUV, but also it is unethical to sell an SUV.
>>With SUVs accounting for some 24 percent of all new-vehicle sales in the United States for 2003 alone, and, with well over 20 million on the road today, representing nearly 12 percent of all registered vehicles in the country, 86% of all SUV owners want new regulation safety standards.

Thanks for this debate,
figoitalia

Con

Look, as good as it is that you are trying to debate something intelligent like ethics, there is a lot you don't understand. Ethics is a moral philosophy that is used to judge right and wrong behavior. There are several different branches ranging from hedonism (An ethical action maximizes instant pleasure to reduce pain, they believe in instant gratification) Epictus (which values peace and serenity of mind) and applied ethics (which apply ethical application to real life applications, and an action's affect on society), among countless others. So we can see that there are several different ways to apply ethics. For a heathen, it would be perfectly ethical to buy an SUV.

But, assuming you are talking applied ethics, or a similar branch, the action of buying an SUV cannot be determined ethical or unethical, because we do not know how it will affect society.

You stated a few arguments against this in your last argument, so i would like to go over that now.

to my argument of, "the object is irrelevant" you stated:
if the knife wasn't there, then there would the use of being unethical for stabbing someone
- frankly i don't know what you are trying to say, but it doesn't matter what you use to stab someone with, the act is still unethical, because it harms someone.

to my argument of "a machine that uses more gas is not unethical" you stated:
How many people do you know that just buy an SUV and leave it in their garage? NO ONE that's why it is unethical!!!
- again, what are you talking about? i stated if a family buys an extra car, because it makes life easier that are entitled to do so. that same rules apply for an SUV. i never said they were going to leave it in the garage.

To my argument of SUV's are only as dangerous as the people driving them, you stated:
I ask you how many people do you know who drive at 20 mile per hour all the time? I rest my case
- I am sorry but that is just ignorant. granted i may have used an extreme example, but just like all the other times in this debate, you refuse to attack the point behind it. Again, an SUV in not inherently dangerous, but it becomes so with a bad driver. heres another example, think about it this way, a car with the best crash test rating can still be dangerous if the driver is drunk.

ok so then you go on to state a bunch of random facts about how much SUVs pollute the environment, and how they are not as structurally sound as other vehicles, and how they don't have to be safe.
-these points do not mean buying one is unethical. Ethics are relative on the intent and the affection on society. Ex- murder is wrong because it harms society, stealing is wrong because it hurts society. But buying an SUV is ambiguous. i already gave examples of how an suv could be used that are beneficial(which my opponent ignored)these included a disabled family using it to make transportation easier. Or it could be used by the police, forest rangers, or in a way to help lost hikers and travelers. or even to make life easier for a large family.

the main point of my argument is that SUVs are amoral, they are just machines, buying one doesn't cause a negative impact on society. But using it inappropriately, or too much (like any vehicle) then it can pose problems. If my opponent wanted to have a debate that was polluting the environment is immoral. or needlessly driving vehicles was unethical then maybe he could swing it. but simply buying an SUV is not unethical or ethical, but rather immoral
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
I find it interesting that crazypenguin chose to take the opposite side of this debate as he had been given at a tournament and succeeded and won.
Posted by figoitalia 9 years ago
figoitalia
please read the debate and vote based on debating, not whether or not you hate SUVs
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
Based on your title statement, i realize that this is an extremely easy debate for con to win. Just argue ethics.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 9 years ago
crazypenguin
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by numa 9 years ago
numa
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by ionthenerd 9 years ago
ionthenerd
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by balluh 9 years ago
balluh
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by ballplayer 9 years ago
ballplayer
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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 
Vote Placed by radical258 9 years ago
radical258
crazypenguinfigoitaliaTied
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