The Instigator
grandma-complex
Pro (for)
The Contender
Nuevo
Con (against)

Pickup trucks should only be available to those who can prove they need them

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
grandma-complex has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2017 Category: Cars
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 868 times Debate No: 102601
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

grandma-complex

Pro

Wikipedia defines pickup truck as a "light duty truck having an enclosed cab and an open cargo area with low sides and tailgate." I will be arguing that they should be available to only those who can absolutely prove they need them using the following points:

1- They are not pragmatic vehicles for everyday usage as a commute car. They are over large, can be jacked significantly higher than need be, and often require side mirrors that jut out over a foot to either side. Some don't fit in parking spaces, others are so awkward to park that they might as well be taking up another's parking space. Many pickup trucks do not fit within the length of the parking space and stick out a foot and a half and make trying to back out a general nuisance.

2- They promote aggressive, unsafe driving. Unfortunately, it is a trend where I live (central Texas) for a demographic largely consisting of 16-40 year old men to get large, loud pickup trucks and drive them like fools. Anecdotal evidence from many peers suggest that being that high above the road and that much larger than other cars promotes a feeling of power, and this is the opposite of what needs to occur.

3- In order to prove the need for such a vehicle, the prospective vehicle owner must provide proof of a job or hobby that necessitates it. Examples include agriculture and hauling.
Nuevo

Con

Before I start, I'd like to thank my opponent for making a good resolution to discuss. I wish you luck.

I'll be arguing against the resolution that pickup trucks should only be available for those who can prove they need them. I will be proving that pickup trucks should be available for anyone who wants one.

1. If pickup trucks should only be available to those who have occupations that are comparable to the said vehicle's uses, the freedom to buy cars are limited. People who simply are enthusiastic about buying cars for themselves or getting a pickup for somebody, say a birthday gift, will be discouraged to buy one. Cars, each and every kind, should be available to every citizen of every state and country. The narrowing-down of availability inherently deprives the people their right to happiness, choice and freedom. People shouldn't be restricted of their freedom, limited by choice.

2. Across the globe, there are tens of thousand car industries that manufacture pickup trucks. Being fairly massive around the globe, a dramatic decline of sales would be potentially dismal to virtually all companies. If a certain company's only line of business is manufacturing pickups, then falters, jeopardizes its worker's source of living, ignites global protest, would it be favorable? Let me tell you that if you disable the people choices they should be open to, the imagery of chaos, mild or worse, is the perfect example of its result.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
grandma-complex

Pro

Thank you Nuevo for accepting this debate. I look forward to reading your arguments.

1- Con states that the freedom to buy cars will be restricted. This is not entirely true; only the freedom to buy an overlarge large car that has twice the CO2 emissions of a sedan (table near bottom) [1] that is inherently difficult to park based upon reviews [2]. People should not be able to go out and just buy a truck because they want them, and I don't really believe they should be able to go out and rent a moving truck (see: my mother, who has driven small sedans with the occassional mom-van all her life, driving a truck that really should require a class A license. That was terrifying).

Similarly, Con asserts that making trucks more exclusive deprives people of their rights. As an example, I will admit to being a crazy cat lady in the making. If I could, I would go and adopt my county's worth of stray cats, and then some more. This isn't practical at all, but it would make me happy. The same applies here. People may want to get a truck since they make them happy, but since they are not practical vehicles unless they can prove it, they cannot get one.

2- Con has me pinned on this one, economics are not my forte. However, if demand suddenly decreased to a select few that are able to prove that they need trucks, competition would increase. Which company has the best truck for the worker's needs, which truck has the best quality, etc. Con also neglects that car salesman and manufacturing skills are transferrable to other companies that would certainly go through a boom.

[1] https://www.edmunds.com...
[2] https://www.f150forum.com...
Nuevo

Con

Thank you for maintaining a good exchange of thought, Complex. I will now present my rebuttals.

Round 1 Rebuttals:
1.)
"They are not pragmatic vehicles for everyday usage as a commute car. They are over large, can be jacked significantly higher... Many pickup trucks do not fit within the length of the parking space...and make trying to back out a general nuisance."

I certainly disagree with Pro's judgement on the vehicle's practicality as means of transportation. Certainly every car is practical for commuting. Denying this would simply deny the machine for its rudimentary purpose, transportation. Additionally, through the years, perks are added to cars to increase car company sales and raise competition, making some larger than others, faster, flashier, etc. But, the beauty of progress is manifest in this evolution. Differences are salient when thinking of a potpourri of automobiles and it is inevitable to not have small nuisances such as difficulty in parking and backing out. These are superficial problems compared to the deeper turmoil present in making pickup trucks hard to get.

2.)
"They promote aggressive, unsafe driving... Anecdotal evidence from many peers suggest that being that high above the road and that much larger than other cars promotes a feeling of power, and this is the opposite of what needs to occur."

This is fairly subjective. Being high up above doesn't necessarily inject a feeling of power, and if this is true, it wouldn't necessarily promote aggressive, unsafe driving. Also, if people really are overwhelmed by driving high up the road, wouldn't it be unfair to deprive these people of a temporary pleasure? And, with Pro's logic and reason, would pilots be more aggressive not to mention that they are so high up the air, making airplanes unsafe to fly on? I wonder.

3.)
"In order to prove the need for such a vehicle, the prospective vehicle owner must provide proof of a job or hobby"

As I stated before and strongly argue, this would restrict the people freedom to buy pickup trucks. If an enthusiast simply wants one, he couldn't buy one, depriving him of his right to happiness. Also, if this were to be imposed, it would strongly discourage people to buy pickups due to longer processes for validation and registration. What would happen if an agriculturist suddenly retire at 35 and had a pickup truck under Pro's world? Obviously, he is not a valid practitioner anymore. What would be of his possession to that car? There is only one word to characterize this. Processes. Processes. Processes.

Round 2 Rebuttals:

1. The first paragraph of this segment of the argument is an epitome of Circulus Probando or circular arguments. "People should not be able to go out and just buy a truck because they want them, and I don't really believe they should be able to go out and rent a moving truck" says Pro, which certainly is not well explained and poorly corroborated, a circular argument nonetheless . Again, the deprivation of people's right to freedom and choice and happiness is a demoralizing action.

Pro also made a fallacious analogy of a cat lady and a car enthusiast. Pro said that if a cat lady wants cats, she can go buying every cat in the county, simply because it makes her happy even though it's practical. A car enthusiast, on the other hand, can buy cars, for it makes him happy but because pickup trucks aren't practical, they should prove its practicality first before getting one. This is a flawed analogy for its mismatch. The precedent doesn't connect well with the antecedent for it introduces the value of proving practicality in the latter while being non-existent in the former.

2. Although it would hold true that competition may arise among pickup companies, this wouldn't elude the potential upheaval that is to come, the turmoil, the protest. Also, exclusiveness, as it may sound good in popular belief, is poorer than inclusiveness. All-out inclusion, having every person be open to choices are, in utmost, a massively beneficial theory. Economically, more customers, more profit. And, competition is already happening among industries as we speak. If we cut off the customer's population to workers-only population, it shrinks competition, shrinks profit.

Over to Pro. And I am excited for this debate's end rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nuevo 1 year ago
Nuevo
We could just simply copy our former arguments, which is written here, and paste it on a new one. That should save time. The site hasn't been able to recover this match-up from the forfeiture and it takes long before it does.
Posted by grandma-complex 1 year ago
grandma-complex
is there any way to do so aside from starting an entirely new debate? I haven't been here long and I'm still learning the ropes
Posted by Nuevo 1 year ago
Nuevo
Oh. So, would you like to go again?
Posted by Nuevo 1 year ago
Nuevo
Oh. So, would you like to go again?
Posted by grandma-complex 1 year ago
grandma-complex
Sorry about the AWOL! School got intense for a little while
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.