NASCAR ought to implement right turns
Debate Rounds (3)
For today's debate we must look at what better enhances culture. Culture defines our quality as a nation and that which better enhances culture is inherently making the nation better as a whole because of the fact that we would, as a people, be better united and have a better national identity making that which better unites the nation, or unifies the most amount of people, the better of the two sides in today's debate.
Value Criterion: Uniting forms of entertainment
As stated previously, that which better unifies a country best promotes culture thereby bettering the nation as a whole because of the increased quality of unity as well as overall happiness and patriotism. So the side that best unites the nation is the side that will be winning today's debate.
Observation: I'm not bound as the affirmative to argue to keep the same tracks and can argue for any rebuilding of circuits. This obviously just serves to make sure that those judging don't assume that I'm arguing that we intentionally wreck and risk lives.
Contention 1: Right turns prevent the boredom of those watching, increasing entertainment.
If you ask anyone who is familiar with NASCAR, they will tell you the best part of the race is a wreck. While I'm not arguing we intentionally wreck, the added difficulty in performing right-hand turns adds to the likelihood of a collision occurring. If more collisions occur, races will be more entertaining, thereby increasing the popularity of NASCAR and in turn the actual number of NASCAR fans uniting our country and increasing the quality of our culture and in turn our nation which is overall a good thing. Also, by increasing the difficulty of being a driver, we would be increasing the skill needed to be a successful competitor. With this increased skill it would be much more enjoyable to watch simply because we'll be more impressed with the actual ability of these "new and improved" drivers.
Contention 2: Right turns make the race less visible at all times making people less willing to see the race in person, this helps diminish the risk of skin cancer as well as drunk-driving and dehydration.
In order for a culture to exist, there has to be people. Therefore, the more people that are able to participate in cultural activities, the more likely that a cultural aspect will be enjoyed; not only that, but if there is a clear identity of a larger population country, then that implies incalculable unity because of the prevalence of this aspect. So whatever maximizes the amount of these good outcomes would increase the likelihood of increasing the quality of culture as a whole. With right turns being implemented in NASCAR, the race would not be entirely visible from the stands making it less likely that one would wish to see the race in person. While it's a bad stereotype, NASCAR and alcohol consumption seem to go hand-in-hand; meaning that the less a person drives, (or the less amount people as a whole drive), after a race, the less likely he or she would be to drive under the influence making the amount of alcohol-related deaths go down increasing the amount of lives saved. Furthermore, the less people are exposed to the sun's UV rays, the less likely it will be that used-to-be spectators will get skin cancer, once again showing how the reduction of live spectators to races saves lives. And quickly going back to the alcohol-usage point, since people will not be outside while drinking, (which they would be if they were live-spectating), they will not run as high of a risk of dehydration proving thrice-over that right-turns saves lives meaning an increase in the quality of culture due to the shear numbers of those involved making the affirmative side the preferred side in today's debate.
NASCAR has already implemented right turns on a full-time basis at a select few courses, including current ones such as the Canadian Tire Motorsports Park, the Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course, Road America, Sonoma Raceway, and Watkins Glen International. The introduction of right-turns into NASCAR has thus already happened, rendering the contention of this debate moot.
Fair enough, a lot of people don't seem to realize it even though there was this really awesome finish a few years back at Watkins Glen. I'll go along with this for now.
Contention 1 is an interesting contention, but is flawed in several respects. First off, the best part of a NASCAR race is not the wrecks. Instead, it is the actual, side-to-side racing that dominates the majority of the race. Unlike in open-wheel, road course series races like the entirety of Formula 1 or 2/3s of the IndyCar season, NASCAR races generally feature extended battles for lead - in fact, battles for all positions, because unlike in Formula 1, where only the top ten are awarded points, all spots are awarded points. This encourages competition throughout the race because every spot gained is worth more points. And as another flaw, it assumes oval racing requires no talent. If that is the case, why has Juan Pablo Montoya, a champion of the Monaco Grand Prix who finished in the top ten in each of his six F1 seasons, managed no greater than an 8th place finish in NASCAR's highest division? Simply put, oval racing requires a skillset that many road racers simply do not master. Why is that? Because, unlike in F1 where contact is usually illegal, contact in NASCAR is perfectly legal in most cases, and contact frequently occurs at speeds in excess of 180 mph. Similarly, the cars do not have nearly as much downforce, meaning drivers have to be much more talented at braking and steering through the corners, something that becomes immensely harder as tires wear down. These factors combined mean the skillset is much different and very hard to adapt to for road course racers.
My opponent's second contention is also flawed. Drunk spectators are a fact of life at any sporting event, and NASCAR is no exception, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - many people want to watch NASCAR races, and ovals allow more people to watch them than road courses. In fact, at many tracks you can see virtually the whole course! This is much more fun than having sold old guy in a booth be telling you what is happening. You paid a lot of money to see the race, who not be able to see all of it? Any sun-related issues could be solved by giving free sunscreen to all people at the event, but no other sporting event has to deal with this so why bother?
Secondly, he goes on to refute my points by basically describing NASCAR to me and the difference between that and Formula 1 racing; however, I AM NOT arguing for a change in the rules of NASCAR, just the introduction of right turns. All the same rules would apply and the mere presence of right turns would actually better the system as a whole, even as he described it.
1)I did not state it takes no skill to race in an oval-type fashion, just that it would be more difficult for them to actually race on tracks with right turns. And to address your noting of the driver who went from Formula 1 to NASCAR, the transition would be similar for NASCAR drivers to road-racing type tracks; however, there would still be contact between cars still making it difficult to maneuver around turns. The skill-set acquired from racing on tracks with right turns would increase the quality of the races in terms of points as well. With more opportunities to pass other drivers on tracks with right turns, it makes it more even as to who would be in what place, (and this is over the course of multiple races). With a more even distribution of points, point"s races will actually be closer drawing an even bigger crowd because of the anticipation and suspense of who the winner will be in the end. Once again, this ties back in with culture because it draws a larger audience and actually promotes the sense of a unifying culture which is a good thing.
Lastly, addressing his attacks on my second contention, he merely mis-interprets the entire point of my second contention. I was stating specifically that people would be less likely to go to races because of the fact that you can"t see the whole race. This is good for the same reasons I listed before. He states that drunken fans are a part of any sport; however, not every sport is played with literally no shade in 90+ degree weather. With people drinking as often as they do in NASCAR in that amount of heat, it is putting the fans at a higher risk of dehydration than any other sport. Also think of the placement of stadiums or arenas for other sports as opposed to NASCAR tracks. They, for the most part, are in the city or are near some major public transportation system. Those drunk fans say at a New York Knicks game can take a cab home whereas drunk fans that leave Charlotte Speedway have to drive to get home or to a place that can take them home. This puts more people that are intoxicated on the streets driving than most any other sport. That"s lives that can be spared by making it less appealing to see in person. Also, he stated that for those that do go see the race, NASCAR can provide their fans with free sunscreen so as to prevent the likelihood of sun poisoning, skin cancer and any other sunlight caused health issue. This is bad because it would be too insane of a request to make speedways provide sunscreen to their attendees. It"s too much money and would not be realistically implemented, and also he stated that since NASCAR is the only sport that has to deal with such a problem, there would be no real reason to give out sunscreen in the first place. So without the introduction of right turns we can see that people would still be at the same amount of risk of skin-related issues. If right turns could save lives, why would you not want it? Saving lives is an inherently good thing therefore right turns maximize the amount of good in a situation making it the best option in today"s round.
In conclusion, you should vote for me because I better maximize good outcomes which is inherently good. Right turns maximize competition which increase the fan-base, they maximize the skill-set of those competing making the sport of better quality as well as more entertaining, they reduce not only drunk drivers but also the negative effects of dehydration, and finally it reduces the amount of skin-related problems meaning it save more lives in the long-run.
For these positives and my opponent's lack of reasoning as to why it should not be implemented, I urge a vote for the pro.
My opponent's responses here are flawed. In response to my arguments noting the wrecks are not the best part, so basing your argument around it is faulty. In response to my skill comments, my opponent suggests that ' right turns only increase the competitiveness of the sport and actually allow for more opportunities for over-taking other opponents, meaning that it's even more of a toss-up'. This is false, because from all indications right turns inhibit overtaking. Talladega, an oval course, has frequenly led to races with over 80 passes for lead. Because F1 has so little passing, they have had to turn to video-game gimmicks like DRS to encourage and promote passing. If right turns encourage passing, why does F1 not have 80 passes for lead (let alone 80 passes) a race?
In response to my arguments on issue one, my opponent now agrees it takes skill to race on ovals but that it also takes skill to race on road courses. I agree with this, of course, but the superiority of road courses to ovals has not been proven, and in fact some points (such as right turns boosting passing) do not actually have a basis in reality. I would in fact agree that points would be more evenly spread out than in other sports, but this isn't a symptom of road courses, it's just due to NASCAR having a points system that encourages competition even from backmarkers.
To my second point, he argues that NASCAR tracks are different from other events because there is no shade. What? Has my opponent ever been to a football stadium, particularly one in the deep south? Heat is going to be a factor anywhere. NASCAR is already suffering from attendence problems anyway, a natural decrease in the number of people. He also asserts NASCAR is the only sport that has to deal with sun issues (ever heard of cricket or golf, anyone), but rejects my idea of the racetracks offering free sunscreen to solve skin-cancer issues.
To conclude - my opponent has not proven that the introduction of right turns will have a tangible impact on the fans or sport itself for the better. I have disproven several of his points entirely (passing, drunk fans, oval racing requiring skill) and other points simply aren't enough to do anything. I urge a vote for CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 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:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Hmmm, I don't think Con gets to fiat different worlds, doing so makes the debate impossible for Pro. Thus I'm giving pro that his "decreasing attendance" arguments are uncontested. Doing so decreases skin cancer risks, dehydration, and drunk driving in a linear fashion. I don't think Pro meets his criterion or value on these points but this argument is made by Con. Thus I give Pro the more convincing arguments. Con wins most reliable sources.
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.