Should SUV's be illegal or not
Debate Rounds (3)
SUVs are not exactly environmentally friendly. For starters, they have horrible gas mileage. www.fueleconomy.gov, a website dedicated to educating the public on the benefits of better fuel economy, has tables of the current fuel economy that 2014 automobiles are actually achieving. SUVs have a considerable lower fuel economy than more conventional cars; SUVs tend to average about 16 miles per gallon in the city and 20 miles per gallon on the highway, whereas conventional cars get around 20 and 26 miles per gallon respectively. Due to the SUVs excessive use of gas they have a higher rate of emissions when compared to other cars.
The rise in SUV popularity factored with the greater emissions of SUVs means that more and more gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide will be released into the atmosphere as time progresses. These gases have an adverse effect on Earth"s climate and the Environmental Protection Agency are contributing factors to the greenhouse effect and therefore may play a large role in global warming. There are current efforts to try and reduce these emissions, but they either won"t be out any time soon or are rejected altogether. For instance, many car manufacturers will be coming out with hybrid (vehicles that are powered by both gas and electricity) SUVs which will significantly increase gas mileage and thus reduce emissions.
The large size of SUVs is of great concern when dealing with safety. While more than just a great annoyance, the large size of SUVs can impair visibility of people trying to see around it. While it is easy to see over the top or more traditional vehicles, SUVs block the line of sight for not only drivers of smaller cars, but also bicyclists or pedestrians trying to cross a road or enter traffic. Their overall wider body makes them more likely to clip other cars or objects than much smaller car. Some might make the observation that semi-trucks also block the line of sight for smaller vehicles. However there is a key difference between SUVs and semi-trucks. Semi-trucks actually have a good reason and purpose for being so large, to transport products and materials in an efficient and costly manner. While some people do buy SUVs for their true purpose (recreation or hauling large objects and equipment), many people will use them for things that many other cars are capable of doing; a station wagon can go get groceries, take kids to sports, and carry large loads all at a fraction of the cost for gas.
SUVs are just an overall huge safety problem on today"s roads. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an organization that deals with the safety of all vehicles. They are the organization that gives cars safety ratings between one and five stars that so many people are familiar with. According to the NHTSA, standard passenger cars have an average of a 12 percent chance of rolling over when involved with single-vehicle accidents. However, SUVs have more than twice the chance of rolling over with a 28 percent average chance when involved in single-vehicle accidents. This increased chance of rollover is of great concern, considering that rollovers have a higher rate of fatalities than any other type of automobile accident. The only person at an advantage when driving is the one in the SUV while everyone else must be inconvenienced while the SUV driver rides high. This unfair advantage is especially present when an SUV is involved in an accident with a normal sized car.
Owning a bigger SUVs have a much greater mass than smaller cars; the average SUV weighs about 900 more pounds than the average car. Simple physics show that this increase mass means that the SUV would beat the smaller car to a pulp. The fact that SUVs are traditionally higher off the ground does help out much either. This increased height means that their bumpers actually ride higher than bumpers on regular cars. Bumpers act as a sort of buffer, but in the case of an SUV they act more as a battering ram when hitting a smaller vehicle since they ride right over the smaller car"s bumper.
Something needs to be done about SUVs. If they continue to be left unchecked we will see a rapid rise in environmental deterioration as well as more fatal automobile accidents. John D. Graham, founder of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, believes that SUVs need to be somehow "civilized." Efforts need to be put forth by such organizations as the NHTSA to help make SUVs safer and more environmentally safe.
The Affirmative stance would call upon society and the state to perform a function or role they are not ethically permitted to perform, and thus would warp the administration of justice by means of corrupting its own ends.
All Concessions of Freedom Snowball into increased Tyranny
We must say no!
Sylvester Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, Spring 1974, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, p.480.
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway " "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume"s observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no importance because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
The_Intelligence forfeited this round.
airoil937 forfeited this round.
The_Intelligence forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cmeyer73 1 year 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:||2||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate, but Con wins with the argument of using the state to achieve ends
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.