The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
attatae
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

It's time to crackdown on cashpoint cripples.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,621 times Debate No: 5248
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

First of all, a word of explanation for North American members – a "cashpoint cripple" is a cretin who parks their car illegally in order to use a nearby ATM because they are too damn lazy to walk a few yards.

http://www.askoxford.com...

In America, they have got drive-thru cashpoints for really lazy people, but here in Britain, there are no such things. However, we do have more than our fair share of incredibly indolent slobs who don't care if they cause a traffic jam while they get their beer vouchers out of the hole in the wall.

Occasionally, they get their just reward. Yesterday, I watched as a toff in a brand new Bentley pulled up outside a bank in central London to use the cashpoint, blocking a lane of traffic as he did so. Without looking in the mirror he opened the door and a bus that was trying to squeeze past took it clean off its hinges. Oh, that really made my day, that did! Ha-ha-ha-ha!

However, that sort of thing doesn't usually happen and a few days ago I was seriously delayed by a posh bird in a Porsche who completely blocked the road while she got out and queued up to use an ATM. If a traffic warden had come by (one didn't, of course) she would have got a �30 fine, but even if she had, that sort of money means nothing to the likes of her.

No. There needs to be a better deterrent to these lazy, selfish drivers. Yes, it's time to tool the traffic wardens up with sawn-off shotguns. So, in future, if a disabled person parks right outside a cashpoint, that's fine, but if an able bodied person does the same, let's give them a proper excuse to do so – traffic wardens should be instructed to f*****g spastic the c***s by blasting their f*****g kneecaps off.

I hereby commend this reasonable and measured proposal to the House. Thank you.
attatae

Con

I would like to share a quick little anecdote to illustrate the absolute and blatant monstrosity of what my dear opponent proposes.

Marie, a senior at an excellent university, was in a hurry for her exam. After kissing her grandmother goodbye, she rushed out the door of her shoddy apartment, her "Protect the Rainforest" and "Save the Dolphins" pamphlets spilling out of her backpack (for she was a member of these charities, including others), and her dark green sweater only halfway pulled over her. As she ran, she quickly remembered that she needed to pay for the Scantron sheets in order to take her exam. Knowing there was no money in her apartment (she knew this quite well in fact, quite well), she prayed that there would be enough change in her car to cover the $2.15 fee. As she got to her 1975 Ford Pinto, she noticed someone had spray-painted "Im Poor" against the rusty, decaying exterior. Tears came to her eyes, but it was only when she attempted to open the door, and the handle broke off into her hands, did she actually begin to cry. And yet she knew she had to carry on, for if she missed the exam all her hard work would come undone. Opening the door through a previously smashed-in window, she got inside and started the car.

As the engine slowly warmed, she looked desperately for any money she could, but found only bits of broken glass and some old books. After having to kick the gearstick into 1st, the car slowly began to sputter along.

With only 11 minutes before her exam would begin, she quickly came to the avenue where the bank was. Noting that parking would be nearly impossible to find at this hour, not to mention would sap all her time, she pulled to the right hand lane, next to the parked cars, and ran toward the ATM. As she neared the kiosk, however, two uniformed figures walked into her path, cocked their modified shotguns loudly, aimed, and shot her in the knees. She crumpled to the floor, blood splattered everywhere, and died.

Speaking of the incident later, for which he was touted as a local hero, one of the officers said: "Only the 'andicapped can do what she did...'if an able bodied person does the same, let's give them a proper excuse to do so – traffic wardens should be instructed to f*****g spastic the c***s by blasting their f*****g kneecaps off.'"

Are human lives really so worthless, so devoid of any value that this measure could possibly be ok? Is simply stopping at an ATM really the infraction that deserves the most cruel, ultra-violent and inhumane death sentence of any civilized society?

Didn't thinks so.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate but ask the voters not to be fooled by his clever appeal to your sense of pity.

Let us, instead, examine his anecdote dispassionately.

Marie was too lazy to get up on time and was consequently running well behind schedule. Even so, her family were well into incest and she couldn't resist snogging her granny before she left. Then, between her apartment and her car she committed two crimes:

1 – Littering the street with ""Protect the Rainforest" and "Save the Dolphins" pamphlets spilling out of her backpack".

2 – Offending public decency by going out with "her dark green sweater only halfway pulled over her" thus exposing her breasts to the neighbourhood prudes.

She then climbed into her classic two-door coupe – a 1975 Ford Pinto - a valuable and stylish car with a potent V6 engine (http://classiccars.com...). However, she had failed disgracefully to maintain it properly and, as a result of her shameful neglect, the handle fell off and the engine spluttered. As it happened, though, one of her neighbours had realised that this car was a piece of American motoring history and tried to shame Marie into giving it a little bit more attention by writing "I'm poor" on it, in the same way as some people write "please clean me" on dirty vans.

Subsequently, within the next eleven minutes Marie committed two further crimes:

3 – "she pulled to the right hand lane…" - driving on the wrong side of the road is incredibly dangerous and a very serious offence; vehicles in Britain must keep to the left at all times (except when overtaking).

4 – "…next to the parked cars" - double-parking is the most selfish way to park because it completely blocks the traffic. Who knows who may have been delayed by her thoughtlessness? A social worker that had just rescued a starving orphan from her abusive foster parent and was in a rush to get the poor child to hospital? Possibly? Or a couple of slimmers in an eco car who were only minutes and yards away from breaking the record for being the quickest ever obese people to drive round the world in a vehicle powered solely by human fat and whose failure to do so, as a result of Marie's selfish parking, cost charities thousands of Pounds in lost sponsorship deals? Who knows?

Luckily though, a couple of public-spirited traffic wardens were on hand to resolve the matter by kneecapping Marie (who for some reason died of her injuries - perhaps she was a haemophiliac or something?) Anyway, the traffic warden that shot her was rightly "touted as a local hero" for making an example of her and thus deterring other motorists from being equally selfish in the future.

Actually, the story could have an even happier ending if Marie had been carrying an organ donor card. As a young woman, doctors could have salvaged her internal organs and used them to save several other peoples' lives.

So, in view of the greater social good my proposal would have, I refute my opponent's suggestion that to f*****g spastic c***s that wilfully block the roads by blasting their f*****g kneecaps off represents a "cruel, ultra-violent and inhumane" punishment and would ask the voters to support this important measure in the fight against traffic congestion by voting Pro.
attatae

Con

Far be it from me to accuse my opponent of being in cohorts with the Prince of Darkness to destroy mankind. However, I am confident that the harrowing information you are about to read - which I deemed too ghastly to divulge earlier - will absolutely convince you to vote against my dear rival.

Let it be known, the opposition's proposal will bring about the apocalypse - the dreaded annihilation of the earth and man. Before I can illustrate this, however, I must begin by addressing the most underlying and basic issue that makes my rival's measure so horrendously diabolical - the mass slaughter of innocent human lives.

There must be absolutely no doubt in any reader's mind - the persons my opponent wishes to be viciously murdered are all "innocent until proven guilty", and have the chance to contest any accusations in a court of law.[1] And do not be fooled, o my brothers and sisters, for the savage method of punishment supported by my rival, shots to the knees, will almost always prove deadly, as such ferocious weapons are commonly used by specialized law enforcement to blast open doors, not to mention the extreme blood loss that would be experienced.[2]

Even further alarming is the fact that the opposition provides absolutely no age restrictions on who he wishes to be ferociously executed, only that they not be paralyzed, are able to drive and have a bank account. Bank accounts can be held by any legal citizen, and in the United States, minors as young as 14 years are able to drive.[3]

Alas, my dear friends, the measure so enthusiastically supported by the opposition would throw open the door for the brutal executions of innocent children, pregnant mothers and any of the hundreds of millions of people that meet the three aforementioned criteria.

As if this scenario were not reason enough to shun the opposing measure, let us not forget the cataclysmic apocalypse that would certainly follow. It must be considered that for my opponent to actually convince any government to pass his utterly abhorrent measure, he would need a powerful method to do so. Let us assume he joined forces with an excellent rhetorician, as many fiendish orators have used their words to push abhorrent agendas upon the public.[4] Furthermore, when we consider that Armageddon has been predicted to fall December 21st, 2012 [5], it becomes extremely likely that such an orator would be none other than the prophesied Antichrist, and due to his aspirations of world domination, he would surely see to it that this atrocious measure was passed world-wide, not just in the UK.

The key turning point would be, of course, when upright citizens stage massive uprisings against the governments that have betrayed them. This will undoubtedly occur, of course, due to the many civil rights unions and watchdog groups that would rally their followers to action. One could feebly attempt to argue that stopping at ATM's would cease, due to the deterrent element, but as we all know, the human spirit is rebellious and will violently clash against any laws deemed unfair by the masses, rather than peacefully accept the circumstances yet feel oppressed.[6] Soon, in order to suppress the rebellions, the governments would need to adopt even more severe and ultra-violent punishments for the people, which would only stir them to more anger and eventually total chaos would erupt. This would be the beginning of the end.

Dearest reader, you mustn't allow the opposition to swindle you with his clever trivializations, but see that he is purposely trying to desensitize you to violence and brutality.[7] It is obvious that he is playing dubious mind-games in a furtive attempt to rewire your mindset, and even goes so far as to give royal praise to the 1975 Ford Pinto, an infamous and extremely dangerous car which not only dealt a severe blow to Ford's reputation, but would also become known
as "the barbecue that seats four."[8]

So, as has been clearly illustrated, the barbaric measure proposed by my opponent will not only lead to the brutal slayings of millions of innocent lives, the rise of the Antichrist, and the onset of Armageddon, but also unprecedented and severe traffic congestion, due to the massive rioting/ looting that would occur as a result. Furthermore, it is very likely that my rival's car would be burned for sport by ruffians, as is extremely commonplace in extreme civic unrest, and his original problem would then become his least.

So I say to you, o my brothers and sisters - let us squash this apocalyptic measure while we still can. Let us protect
our innocent, ensure our futures, and preserve our world. Let us not be swindled and fooled into sealing our own fates.

Let us Vote Con.

[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
[3]http://tinyurl.com...
[4]http://tinyurl.com...
[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6]http://tinyurl.com...
[7]http://tinyurl.com...
[8]http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Good point, Handsoff, I never thought of that!

But what can society do to punish them for parking illegally next to the ATM?

You can't disable their legs twice and I think a couple of shotgun blasts to their torso or head might prove lethal - I am not a great fan of the death penalty, well at least not for minor motoring offences!
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I always found it ironic that people in wheelchairs needed to park closer to the store. Afterall, rolling 100 yards is at least as easy as walking 100 yards.
Posted by PorcelainPluto 8 years ago
PorcelainPluto
Buhahahahaha The pamphlets spilling out of her back pack were an especially nice touch!
Posted by kcougar52 8 years ago
kcougar52
wow.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I haven't seen a debate this funny... ever.

*marks as favorite *
Posted by craiglightcap 8 years ago
craiglightcap
We might have drive-thru ATM's but there are many other ways our slobs over here routinely inconvenience us. It was almost comforting to hear that it is just not a local epidemic. Thank you for the humorous debate.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
LOL even more at round 2 xD
Posted by attatae 8 years ago
attatae
haha more cashpoint cripples....yeah thought about saying that or about the amount of mops needed to clean the streets but i am curious to see if he will continue his line
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Another work of art Brian. :-)
Except that shooting off people's kneecaps is likely to increase the number of cashpoint cripples.
At least you won't feel so irritated when you see that they are now truly munted.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I'd take this debate, but then I;d end up eliminating the comedic part of it. =/
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonattataeTied
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 attatae 8 years ago
attatae
brian_egglestonattataeTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
brian_egglestonattataeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by kcougar52 8 years ago
kcougar52
brian_egglestonattataeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
brian_egglestonattataeTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
brian_egglestonattataeTied
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