The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

More belligerent fire alarms should be mandated in all workplaces with more than 10 employees.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 14631
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Most modern fire alarms combine a siren with a recorded message which usually goes something like this: "A fire has been reported in the building. Please leave by the nearest exit as soon as possible" and this message is repeated ad-infinitum until the alarm is either deactivated or it melts in the fire.

However, some people, unless they can actually smell smoke or see flames, will delay evacuating the building in order to finish a phone call or e-mail, or to collect their personal belongings or to put some make-up on or tidy their hair.

That's why the fire alarm should be more belligerent and, as well as the siren, broadcast the following message:

"A fire has been reported in the building. Please leave by the nearest exit as soon as possible."

Repeat 10 times, then:

"Did you not here that? I mean it's not like I haven't said it enough times, is it?

So what are you still doing here? Do you want to fry? Well, do you?

In that case I suggest you get a fvcking wiggle on. Come on, move it!"

This will prompt tardy or excessively nonchalant evacuees to leave the building without further delay, thus saving precious lives.

With this in mind I urge you to vote Pro in favour of the resolution.

Thank you.
Ore_Ele

Con

While it is true that many people will wait when they hear a fire alarm and do other things, my opponent makes no reasonable argument that if the fire alarms are belligerent that they will speed people up.

When I worked in a 9 story office building (on the 9th floor, of course), fire alarms would only go off on the floor that was actually on fire, not through the entire building. And it was company policy, as well as building policy, that you should not evacuate unless the alarms on your floor are going off. This is to prevent a clog up in the stairwells and so that people who are actually on a safe floor are not running down towards dangerous floors.

However, since the stairwells ran all the way to the top, any alarm on other floors could be heard on the 9th (though it was quiet enough that you could tell that it was not on our floor). Had the alarms been belligerent, we would have just been subject to an insulting alarm, rather then just a mildly annoying one.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to OreEle for accepting this debate, I should like to respond as follows:

Blimey! Are you kidding? They wouldn't let you evacuate the building until the fire actually spread to your floor? How did that work then?

"Excuse us for disturbing you, Mr Big Boss Man, sir. A fire has broken out on the floor below us and we can see that it is quite localised at the moment. If we evacuate now we have a chance of escaping with our lives."

"What? You miserable bunch of indolent, work-shy skivers - you'll evacuate when the fire spreads to this floor and not a moment sooner. Now stop slacking and get back to work."

What a cruel, ruthless slave-driver of a boss you had - no wonder you quit!

I don't know how he was allowed to get away with it. Normally fire regulations are governed by law and are strictly enforced – certainly where I work, if a fire is detected anywhere in the building the entire premises are evacuated immediately and the fire alarm system automatically alerts the fire brigade – but this is practiced universally as it is a statutory obligation that applies to all but the smallest companies. [1]

And it makes sense: where people's lives are concerned, it is better to err on the side of caution and have everybody evacuated as quickly as possible rather than risk death or injury in order to maintain productivity levels, and more belligerent fire alarms would facilitate this process.

Therefore, in the interest of saving lives I urge you to vote Pro in support of the resolution.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk...
Ore_Ele

Con

No, we were not to evacuate until the "alarm" reached our floor. This would occur if the fire was maybe a floor or two below us, or if it the fire system showed that the fire was spreading quickly.

One of the primary reasons for this, was because there were only so many stairwells in the building, and if everyone tried to evacuate at the same time (over 1,000 people), then the stairwells would get clogged and bad, this would risk trapping people on floors where they were actually in danger.

The idea is to evacuate those in the most danger first (and in a haste manner) then to evacuate others. Or, if the fire is small and quickly contained, those that were in no danger at all don't need to be evacuated.

All in all, an organized and planned evacuation is far superior then one that insults you.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
How would you break your vote up? For the different categories?
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
I haven't submitted a text.. but if I could vote.. it'd be for brian.

orele's argument was a kind of distraction from Brian's... and didn't really address getting those who ARE being called to evacuate to evacuate faster/better... which was what brian suggested.

so... Brian's initial argument stands :P
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
You had me at "Blimey"
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Being laid off just before Christmas really is hard lines: I was right about your old boss being a heartless bastard though, wasn't I?

Glad you got a new job though.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Also, I didn't quit, I (along with about 20 other contractors) was laid off 3 days before Christmas.

But I've got another job already, so I'm not too mad anymore.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
wjm, that would be a good "debate." I'm picturing shotguns that when you pull the trigger, along with firing a shell, they say something like "This'll cure your ugliness!"
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
lol, that would be a funny debate.

Con seems to have cinched this debate rather cleverly. I wonder how brian can respond.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Oh wow, I read, "More belligerent firearms should be mandated in all workplaces with more than 10 employees."
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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: Con pointed out in Round 1 that Pro's arguments weren't strong enough to make belligerent fire alarms desireable. He followed up with a strong negative effect of the fire alarms. Pro's response consisted of mosty a misunderstanding of Con's arguments, as the fire alarms were more fair than he supposed. Con clarified, and had one successful contention that trumped Pro's failed one.
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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: testing
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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: Just testing to see how these comments will be seen from the voting.
Vote Placed by eric.castelli 6 years ago
eric.castelli
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by TMBTay 6 years ago
TMBTay
brian_egglestonOre_EleTied
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:23