The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Rural people should be banned from using the London Underground during peak hours

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,798 times Debate No: 10211
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Turnip-munching farmers and other inbred clod-hoppers often whinge when city-dwellers visit the countryside and they say things like "'em blasted townies dun't understand the ways of the cuntrysoide" and "get orf moy laand afore oy blows yer blinkin' ‘ead orf."

However, during the months of November and December, many wealthy farmers and aristocratic country landowners visit London to spend some of the billions of Pounds in agricultural subsidies they rake in from the taxpayer every year, buying expensive Christmas presents from upmarket stores such as Harrods, Harvey Nicholls and Fortnum & Mason's. Now, those well-heeled hicks that do not clog the already crowded city streets with their brand new Range Rovers travel to London by overland train and then attempt to use the Underground.

However, these bungling bumpkins don't understand how to use the ticket machines because you don't get touch-screen devices in ploughed fields and they are also unable to grasp the concept of electronic tickets so they can't get through the barriers. Neither do they know how to get on and off the escalators properly and they hold on to both sides in abject terror rather than standing on the right, as instructed, so that other people can get past. Furthermore, they don't let passengers off the train before trying to get on themselves and, once on board, they don't move down inside the carriage to allow other people on.

The upshot of all this is that decent, hardworking commuters' journeys to and from work are seriously hampered.

Now, since farmers and country landowners are always keen to put up "Private Property – Keep Out" and "Trespassers will be Shot" signs and the Country Landowners Association are bitterly opposed to increased public access to rural areas and are even actively seeking to remove existing public rights of way (1) it seems wholly justifiable to impose limited restrictions on moneyed yokels' lavish shopping trips to the capital.

Therefore, since these wealthy worzels can easily afford to take taxis, I propose that those people who cannot prove that they: either live in London; commute to the capital regularly or are overseas visitors should be banned from using the Tube between 0700-0930 and 1630-1900 on weekdays.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.cla.org.uk...
Korashk

Con

Thanks to brian_eggleston for creating this debate, and I hope that it is a good one.

My rebuttals will come first and then my own arguments:

"Turnip-munching farmers and other inbred clod-hoppers often whinge when city-dwellers visit the countryside and they say things like "'em blasted townies dun't understand the ways of the cuntrysoide" and "get orf moy laand afore oy blows yer blinkin' ‘ead orf.""

[It may be true that some people of the rural UK say this on occasion, I wouldn't know being an American, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the debate, you don't have the right to trespass and it is true that not all urban individuals understand rural life. This is merely an attempt by my opponent to portray those he takes offense to in a negative light even though a minority, if any at all, are like this.]

"However, these bungling bumpkins don't understand how to use the ticket machines because you don't get touch-screen devices in ploughed fields and they are also unable to grasp the concept of electronic tickets so they can't get through the barriers. Neither do they know how to get on and off the escalators properly and they hold on to both sides in abject terror rather than standing on the right, as instructed, so that other people can get past. Furthermore, they don't let passengers off the train before trying to get on themselves and, once on board, they don't move down inside the carriage to allow other people on."

[It isn't accurate to imply that every person that lives in rural UK is technologically impaired. This statement also applies to every example. My opponent is portraying that individuals that live in rural areas are all ignorant, rich, and rude. This is a stereotype that is quite offensive. Simply living outside of a city does not correlate anything about their individual knowledge or personality. I personally live in a rural area and am perfectly able to understand proper train/subway etiquette.]

"The upshot of all this is that decent, hardworking commuters' journeys to and from work are seriously hampered."

[If this is such a large problem for or others then you should take measures to ensure that it stops happening. For instance you could use the train earlier in the morning to beat the rush.]

"Now, since farmers and country landowners are always keen to put up "Private Property – Keep Out" and "Trespassers will be Shot" signs and the Country Landowners Association are bitterly opposed to increased public access to rural areas and are even actively seeking to remove existing public rights of way (1) it seems wholly justifiable to impose limited restrictions on moneyed yokels' lavish shopping trips to the capital."

[The act described in your source, the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, that the CLA was in part against of passed and became Royal Assent on November 12, 2009 [2]. This Assent actually provided the public with greater access to costal areas in the UK [3]. The fact that the CLA wanted the public access portion section removed has no bearing on whether or not other bills should be passed. It is inaccurate to say that they want to remove public access; they were opposed to a bill that would increase access that already exists. It is this group's right to protest and their rights should not be removed because of it.]

My Arguments:
The United Kingdom's urban population accounts for 89% of the total population as of 2005 [1]. This is a very large majority. Using this statistic and that of the population approximately 6,154,000 people would be banned from using the train altogether between the hours you provided. Not all of these people use the train, but for those that do you would be removing their right to use public transportation.

The removal of this right would also reduce the amount of revenue that the public train generates. This means less money, which means lower quality of service for those who would be allowed to use the train during these hours.

[1] http://www.studentsoftheworld.info...
[2] http://www.thebmc.co.uk...
[3] http://www.direct.gov.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to extend my thanks to Korashk for accepting this challenge and for relying in such an intelligent and well-informed manner.

First of all, I realise it might appear to some readers that I am tarring all country folk with the same brush and that the only people living in rural districts are subsidy-rich farmers, inbred aristocrats and their half-witted, forelock-tugging farm workers but this really is the case if you strip out all the people who live in the countryside but commute to the cities to work, and since this latter group of people will not be affected by my proposal, for the purposes of this debate they can be ignored.

You see, in the rural areas surrounding London, the average income is �62,869 ($103,821) p.a. and the average house costs �285,143 or 4.5 times the average annual salary. (1) However, the average farm worker only earns �15,602 ($25,765) p.a. (2) so the average home costs 18.3 times their average salaries. In other words, almost all of a farm worker's salary will be spent renting some rat-infested hovel so he will never be able to afford to take his family Christmas shopping in London, especially considering it costs �4.00 ($6.60) per adult - or about what a farm worker earns after tax in an hour - just to travel one stop on the Tube. (3)

Therefore, the only people my proposal will affect are wealthy farmers and country landowners.

My opponent suggests that hardworking Londoners should get up early and leave late to avoid the troublesome toffs on the Tube and I suppose that is a possibility for me personally as I only live four stops from my office and now that the pubs are allowed to open 24 hours I will be able to go for a few drinks before work as well as at lunchtime and after work as I already do. However, I have a presentiment that this practice may be as damaging to one's career prospects as arriving late and leaving early every day, which was the other suggested alternative.

Finally, I accept that the Marine and Coastal Access Bill is about (quite rightly) increasing public access and that the CLA have the right to protest about that but my point is that the farming and country land-owning fraternity are notoriously resentful of outside visitors so we shouldn't feel bad about treating them the same way they treat city-dwellers.

Now, to address my opponent's argument that Tube revenues would be decreased. I would deny this on the simple premise that our country cousins would still use the Underground, only during off-peak periods that's all.

In conclusion, in a democracy the rights of the majority must prevail over the rights of the minority and in this case the right of commuters to get to and from work without undue hindrance must prevail of the right of filthy rich farmers and braying countryside toffs to make nuicances of themselves on the Tube during rush hour.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.parliament.uk...

(2) http://www.thisismoney.co.uk...

(3) http://www.tfl.gov.uk...
Korashk

Con

The statistics in my original first argument applied within the idea that the same restriction in London would be put in place for all major urban areas in the UK. My opponent argued his points as if they would only apply in London which is the idea I now assume.

"Therefore, the only people my proposal will affect are wealthy farmers and country landowners."

[This is an false statement. If this hypothetical restriction was made a law Then everyone who doesn't commute in London or live in the area surrounding it would be unable to use the subway system. This includes everyone in the UK that lives outside of the London area. Approximately 7,500,000 people lived in London in 2005 [1], I'll add 1,000,000 to that to include those that live in the areas outside of London. This number about 0.14% of the population of the UK given in source [1] of my above argument. While the restriction's intent was to only apply to wealthy farmers and landowners it actually removes the rights of over 99% of the total population.]

"My opponent suggests that hardworking Londoners should get up early and leave late to avoid the troublesome toffs on the Tube and I suppose that is a possibility for me personally as I only live four stops from my office and now that the pubs are allowed to open 24 hours I will be able to go for a few drinks before work as well as at lunchtime and after work as I already do. However, I have a presentiment that this practice may be as damaging to one's career prospects as arriving late and leaving early every day, which was the other suggested alternative."

[In my argument I only suggested that you get up earlier so that you won't be late for work, I did not suggest that you arrive late to work, leave early, or drink. I do agree that drinking before work, at lunch, and after work would harm your career. This statement has nothing to do with our debate as not everyone would partake in the activities mentioned by my opponent.]

"Now, to address my opponent's argument that Tube revenues would be decreased. I would deny this on the simple premise that our country cousins would still use the Underground, only during off-peak periods that's all."

[Stating that a certain group that uses the train can not use it at a specific time any more would absolutely decrease the revenue generated by said train. Saying someone can't use the train at a specific time does not mean that they will use it at a later one. My point stands.]

"democracy the rights of the majority must prevail over the rights of the minority"

[I don't actually agree with this statement, but for this debate I will accept my opponent's definition of the purpose of democracy. This comes into play in the last sentence of my first rebuttal. This restriction would be putting the rights of the few above the rights of the many.]

[1] http://www.londononline.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Cool, take your time. Actually, I probably won't be able to respond until Sunday anyway.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Sorry I'm not being timely with my response; holidays are a bit hectic.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Ha-ha! That's right, of course. It's just I was delayed by some provincial day-trippers on my way to work this morniing and just missed a tube as a result. Another one came within a minute, but that's not the point.

And I got wet becuase I couldn't find my brolley (but I don't blame the yokels for that!)
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Usual lols from Brian.

Not everyone outside London is rural though mate!

You're playing into US stereotypes and your buddies back up in Sunderland would be peeved I'm sure. :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06