The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
rross
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

It's time to bring back the sedan chair

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
rross
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,488 times Debate No: 29103
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Did you know that the average American walks a little under 400 yards a day? (1) This is truly a shocking statistic, I'm sure you will agree.

I mean, The US is supposed to be the country where convenience is king: the country that provides its citizens with wonderful facilities such as drive-thru restaurants, drive-in churches, drive-thru banks and drive-in theatres so that people can save the effort of getting out of their cars and using their legs.

Yet, here we are in the 21st Century and Americans still find themselves having to walk almost 400 yards a day to conduct their lawful business.

So why is all this undue expenditure of energy necessary? Well, I'll tell you. American shopping malls are usually huge and they often have massive parking lots. This means that shoppers are often forced to walk 400 yards or more just to get from their cars to the mall entrance and back, never mind walking between the various stores.

This is a scandal, of course, but don't worry: I know how to put things right. It's time to bring back the sedan chair.

In the olden days, sedan chairs were used to convey passengers relatively short distances through the crowded, narrow city streets where a horse and carriage were too big and cumbersome (2) but, these days, they could usefully be brought back into service to carry shoppers around American shopping malls.

That's right, for a small fee, two mall employees with a sedan chair will collect you from your car, ferry you to the mall, carry you around the stores, and deliver you back to your car again so you can do all your shopping without your feet ever having to touch the ground.

Now, I know what you are thinking: "What about the problem of obesity?"

I've thought about that, and I realised that obese people wouldn't fit into a sedan chair, and even if they could, it would be too heavy to lift, so I speculated that the mall could provide wheelbarrows for them instead, but wheelbarrows would be too unwieldy and difficult to control and, if they tipped over, the obese passenger could crush a dog or small child as they fell out. Therefore, for health and safety reasons, I have decided that obese people should be allocated dedicated parking spaces near the mall entrance so they don't have to walk too far.

This is my best idea yet, bringing as it will, further convenience to the American consumer as well as valuable employment opportunities for jobless young people wishing to start their career in the sedan chair-footman profession, and I urge you to vote Pro in support of my proposal.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk...

(2) http://www.ltmcollection.org...
rross

Con

I would thank Brian Eggleston for this debate if it were not so offensive and discriminatory to obese people.

More than a third of Americans are obese (1). Therefore it is just mockery to suggest that they should be allocated parking spaces near the mall. It would need to be more than one third of the carpark, and those people on the edges of that third would still have an uncomfortable distance to walk.

Furthermore, obese people would like a sedan chair more than normal people, because they have more weight to carry about when walking. So it's really cruel to make them walk about the mall while slimmer people are lording about in sedan chairs.

Pro's proposal is cruel and discriminatory towards one third of American citizens and I urge voters to react in disgust.

My second objection is pragmatic. This business of a "small fee" and "jobless young people". Nobody likes to see sullen, pimply teenagers lingering about in a shopping area. To have hoards of them hanging about in the car park, scowling, and leaning against their empty sedan chairs would ruin the shopping experience for many people. There needs to be a reward system so that only hot men, brisk and polite, are carrying the sedan chairs. This is the only way to encourage women (the majority of retail shoppers (2)) to the mall. But it would be prohibitively expensive, which would drive up prices too much.

People are buying stuff online more and more and going to the mall less (3). Pro is to be commended for trying to find ways of making mall shopping more appealing to Americans. However, a system that is cruel to one third of the market, and drives up the prices for the remainder is only going to increase the rate of people taking up shopping on-line.

Thank you.


(1) http://www.cdc.gov...
(2) http://www.retailleader.net...
(3) http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would thank rross for accepting this debate, if she wasn't so sexist.

As a "hot man", myself, I sick and tired of being objectified by women, I'll have you know that I'm not just a sexual play thing and I am perfectly capable of performing more demanding tasks than simply being eye candy for female passengers of sedan chairs.

Regarding being discriminatory towards the obese, let's just remind ourselves that, if and when my sedan chair proposal is accepted, gravitationally-challenged people will be better off than they are now. That's because, at the moment, only cripples and mothers with babies are allowed to park in the spaces nearest the entrance, but in the future, shoppers with high calorie diet preferences; people with salad intolerance issues; customers with outsized skeletal frames; people with gymphobia, sufferers of crustulam adjectio syndrome and shoppers with other medical conditions that lead to obesity will be allowed to join them. That's hardly "cruel" is it?

Regarding online shopping, I understand that this is an increasingly popular mode of purchasing goods, especially with people of a certain size, as it means that the only walking involved is to answer the door when the items are delivered. However, it is not an ideal way of shopping for everything, for example clothes. I know one girl, for instance, who is in self-denial about her weight and says she is a dress size 6 when, in fact, she at least a size 8, more probably a size 10, and when she shops for clothes online she gets very frustrated because she has to return most of the garments as they are too small for her. On the last occasion she tried on a dress that had to been delivered but it was such a tight fit that she couldn't unzip it and she had to be cut out of it, thus ruining it completely. So we can see that, in some cases, it is still better to go to the mall to make your purchases direct.

Finally, the cost of renting a couple of guys on minimum wage carrying a fancy wooden box on poles is not going to break the bank, and ladies on a budget could pay for this service by sacrificing one or two expensive luxuries such as exfoliating scrubs; air-fresheners; lip balm; fabric softener; tea cosies; hair conditione; bath salts; lace table cloths; designer bottled spring water; napkin rings; moisturising cream and paper doilies and the cake stands they go on, none of which I have ever bought and have managed to live without perfectly successfully.

In conclusion, there is no good reason why shopping malls shouldn't bring back the sedan chair.

Thank you.
rross

Con

If Brian wants to be taken seriously as a debater, I suggest he concentrate on reason and evidence. Stripper tactics, describing himself as a "sexual play thing", as "eye candy" and a "hot man" may sway one or two voters, it's true. However, I think he'll find in the long term that people will respect him more if he uses non-sexual persuasion. This is not "sexist" advice. I would say the same thing in the unlikely event I ever saw a woman making the same mistake.

It's not "sexist" to say that hot men should carry female shoppers around malls in sedan chairs. In fact, I said that hot men shouldn't be employed because the costs outweigh the benefits. Brian has taken my words out of context and is reacting to a piece of business analysis that was not intended in any way to denigrate men. Men exist on a continuum of attractiveness. I'm sure most women agree with me and women (as I said in the previous round) represent the majority of retail customers. We are discussing the viability of a business model. Of course I regret extremely any injury to Brian's sensibilities, but he needs to learn that plain speaking is expected and essential in a debating environment.

Mall shopping today is all about the experience. If shoppers don't have a pleasant experience then they will spend less or avoid the mall altogether and shop on-line. Now, the reality is that weedy or flobby sedan-bearers would not enhance a woman's shopping experience. Sedan-bearing requires a certain amount of cardiorespiratory fitness and upper body strength. Fitter men also tend to be more attractive. Having fit men bear the sedans just makes sense. Brian ignored my comments about the bearers being brisk and polite. I assume that he accepts that they should be. To single out the word "hot" to object to is political correctness taken to ridiculous levels.

Brian's proposal has some merit. It taps into a basic urge women have to lounge in the shade watching men carry about heavy objects. This instinctive knowledge of human nature cannot be taught and I'm sure it will be of great use to Brian in the future.

What Brian is lacking, and really must have if he wants to succeed in this area, is a sense of business. I can't overemphasize this.

Brian is aware of the danger that on-line shopping poses to the viability of malls. He has even identified obese people as the customers who might benefit most from the convenience of on-line shopping.
Obese customers are over one third of the American population. Once food court sales are factored in, they would represent over 50% of shopping mall revenue.
And yet, Brian is presenting a scheme that not only discriminates against obese customers, but is likely to annoy them too.

There is no denying that Pro has a certain appeal when he presents his ideas, but nobody's going to dance with this one even if it's hotted up in Armani. No shopping mall will accept a scheme that endangers 50% of its revenue.

Brian should have faith in himself. He's clearly talented in lots of different ways. Next time, if he concentrates a bit less on his presonal presentation and a bit more on his business model, I'm sure he's capable of coming up with something formidable. I sincerely wish him all the best with his future endeavors.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO: "I would thank rross for accepting this debate, if she wasn't so sexist..." Then, "the cost of renting a couple of guys on minimum wage carrying a fancy wooden box on poles is not going to break the bank, and ladies on a budget could pay for this service by sacrificing one or two expensive luxuries such as exfoliating scrubs; air-fresheners; lip balm; fabric softener; tea cosies; hair conditione; bath salts; lace table cloths; designer bottled spring water; napkin rings; moisturising cream and paper doilies and the cake stands they go on, none of which I have ever bought and have managed to live without perfectly successfully." Werd. CON is indeed sexist. Thank you PRO for pointing this out.
2) CON: "I suggest he concentrate on reason and evidence. Stripper tactics, describing himself as a "sexual play thing", as "eye candy" and a "hot man" may sway one or two voters, it's true. " I was almost convinced myself, but "reason and evidence" convinced me otherwise. GET A BETTER PICTURE BRIAN!! :D
3) CON: "Obese customers are over one third of the American population. Once food court sales are factored in, they would represent over 50% of shopping mall revenue." rofl...

Although I am not obese, I am offended by the discrimination prevalent in this debate! I am offended that obese people may be too heavy to lift - get more lifters! I am offended that the morbid weight of the obese poses a danger to "a dog or small child" - they will see the obese from miles away and have time to react! I am offended that food court contributions of the obese ONLY make up 17% of total mall revenue - they eat much more than that!

In fact, I am so offended by both PRO and CON's stance on obesity, that I will vote this debate a TIE. Thanks for nothing!
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
A Ph.D. is waiting for someone to prove my theory that public transit is the number one step that government can take to improve public health. When visiting Japan, I was walking about seven miles a day almost entirely to and from train stations. That doesn't happen in America.

Good thing we have a debate here getting to the heart of important policy matters.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
brian_egglestonrrossTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro as Con made a serious refutation to an obviously sarcastic debate. Con also continues to critique Pro's style of debating in the second round. That said I do buy Con's economic argument, that accepting the given proposal would endanger the mall's economic revenue by up to 50%, to which Pro does not satisfactorily refute.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
brian_egglestonrrossTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment - thanks for nothing! :D