The Instigator
Toharu
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
csarebel
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

THW Limit the numer of vihicle(s) in every household

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
csarebel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,305 times Debate No: 38113
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Toharu

Pro

I'm Toharu from Indonesia and I believe we should limit the number of vihicle(s) in every household. the purpose why we should limit the number of vihicle(s) is for decreasing the traffic jam and safe our world :)

4th round is time for reply :)
csarebel

Con

There are many aspects of your position that are incorrect. First is that limiting the number of vehicles per household will reduce traffic. As an example; I currently own 2 vehicles but I can only drive one at a time. Second; you imply that reducing vehicles will save the planet. I am unaware that the planet needs saving or that less vehicles will help...for all i know the planet may have nutured life with the single goal of intelligent life producing vehicles that will burn oil, because the planet doesnt like that nasty oil inside of it.
Debate Round No. 1
Toharu

Pro

That's so funny. You said that you only can drive a vihicle at one time. Of course that's right, but how about ur family? If the member of ur family is 4 - 6 members, does we need the vihicle in ur house until 4 - 6 vihicles? I totally disagree about that.
The reason why I can say if we limit the number of vihicel in very household in a country, it can decrease the traffic jam in a country who legalize this programe. In Indonesia, Indonesia doesn't legalize this programme. And the capital city of Indonesia (Jakarta) from 24hours in a day, that 20hours there's happened the traffic jam and every household in Jakarta, they can have the vihicle 3 - 4 vihicles in every household. And because of this, Jakarta is the 1st rank as the biggest donatur of carbon dioxide in Indonesia. That's why, if we limit the number of vihicle in every household, not only decrease the posibility for the traffic jam but also decrease the number of carbon dioxide in the Air.

We know, Japan (Nippon) run this prgramme, and in Japan (Nippon) the traffic jam is so seldom. And why not we run this programme in every country in this world, so we can decrease the tic jam and can decrease the number of carbon dioxide in the air of this world and it's one step to avoid this world from global warming. And I believe all of us know the the worst impact from the global warming itself.

I BELIEVE ALL OF YOU CARE TO OUR GREEN WORLD!
VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO !
csarebel

Con

Well, if you limit the number of vehicles per household you still do nothing to limit traffic. Each individual in the household that had somewhere to go before placing a limit on vehicles, still has someplace to go after limiting the vehicles. Someone will have to drive them. So, there is no change except life would be more complicated for members of a household.

I would also like to mention that it would punish larger households (such as ones with extended family or many kids) while single individuals would be able to drive as much as they wished. The limiting of vehicles per household would set off a chain of unintended consequences, such as people putting off marriage in an effort to avoid being without a vehicle.

If the limiting of vehicles will not change traffic then how would it affect the environment? I do not know that cars affect the environment but if they did your proposal still would not help.

It is very possible to be both for less traffic and a cleaner environment while seeing that your proposal will do neither...but the unintended consequences will be great. In addition it cannot be implemented in a fair manner.
Debate Round No. 2
Toharu

Pro

Sir, if you said that by limiting the vihicle per household will do nothing to decrease the traffic, ur arguments totally wrong and totally WEAK !
I have a data about a country who run this programme like Japan (Nippon). And that's totally SUCCESS ! Beside that, I give you a data about a country who doesn't run this programme like Indonesia, and I take the example from Jakarta as the capital city in Indonesia.
Do you have a data about a country who run this programme, but still can't avoid the traffic? If you don't have any data about that, just keep silent. You're LOSER.

Second, If you said that by using this programme will not help our environment, that's totally wrong! the CO2 from the car itself can give us house glasses effect! So, by limiting the vihicle, we totally decrease the production of CO2 in this world, and it's mean we save our wolrd and prevent it from global warming.

VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO !
csarebel

Con

You called me a loser!? A sure sign the my argument has won. Perhaps in the next round you should try comparing me to Hitler...you may find that effective in swaying opinion on this subject.

It is up to you to support your argument with some proof. Please provide some links that will provide information on the number of vehicles per household in Nippon and Indonesia and the laws effect on traffic. I tried to find info and found none. So for now I will say that your claim is not accurate at best and a lie at worst. Since you have decided to make the debate more personal with name calling I choose to believe the latter until some evidence is provided.

I am sure that here in my home country of the United States that there are areas with greater numbers of vehicles per household yet less traffic than other areas with an opposite situation and effect. An example would be New York city (where many households only have 1 car if any) and any suburb of the same city (where there is on average several vehicles per household). Yet New York city has more traffic than the suburbs. I am providing no evidence but I trust the readers to know that this is true from their own life experience with any city vs suburb living.

Now I expect you to counter this with saying that people from the suburbs are entering the city in their vehicles and creating the traffic. Or, that there are greater numbers of people in the city...therefore more traffic even if they have less vehicles per household. If that is your response then I would say you are absolutely correct! This proves that number of vehicles per household is not a decisive factor in traffic that it is based on many variables and that your argument is simplistic and naive.

If your concern is the planet...and you feel like cars are the problem...then why not ban all vehicles? Or why limit by household? Why not limit by building? Such as each apartment building is allowed 1 vehicle for communal use. According to your logic this will reduce driving and therefore pollution.

On the pollution subject...do you have any data on how a car effects the environment? On how it contributes to global warming? If so please provide it. You may think it is common knowledge but if so then you should very easily be able to provide some facts.

I will say that if you eliminated all vehicles then the environmental damage would be even greater. As people lost the ability to transport themselves to central work locations then they would eventually resort back to a subsistence living of growing and raising their own food and burning wood to heat and cook with. This would lead to even more CO2 along with other particles released into the atmosphere. If you doubt me try this experiment. Cook a pot of rice in your home over a wood fire....then try cooking it over a gas or electric stove. You will find that the smoke from a wood stove will make your home nearly uninhabitable unless you vent the smoke to the outside. You will find that a gas or electric stove does not need to be vented unless you burn your food.

One last point. You mention traffic as if it is a bad thing. I think that is the initial thought of most people. They do not like traffic. I know I do not. However it is better than the alternative of no traffic. I know...that doesn't seem true or possible. But if it isn't the case then why do so many people suffer through it every day? They could simple stay at home and avoid traffic all together. Yet they do not...because they find it more rewarding to deal with it than any alternative that they have.
Debate Round No. 3
Toharu

Pro

Actually, you don't know the tacitc of Japan Government to limit the vihicles for every household. Japan run this programme, and with this programme Japan run a new programme that they increase the number of public tranportation. Not only Japan, but also Singapore run this programme. because they know the impact if teh number of vihicle in they country increase extremly. It will give a lot of bad impact for they country. Traffic and global wraming are the only two from a lot of bad impact from the vihicle itself. The other bad impact, their country wil be so full because of this. And we know in every year, the number of citizen increase in every country, so their country will be full by the vihicle and the citizens.
About the effect of car, does the gasses from the car itself will give the bad impact for this world? ofurse yes! everyone know about that. The student of elementary school in my country know about the bad impact of car, should I give you the source? if you want, this is it the sites :
1. http://www.racv.com.au...
2. http://online.wsj.com...
Sources of my fact :
1. http://www.aseanaffairs.com...
2. http://www.quora.com...
Reader, I STRONGLY BELIEVE, HIS ARGUMENTS ARE WORSE THAN MY ARGUMENTS !
SO, VOTE FOR PRO ! BECAUSE I DESERVE TO BE THE WINNER !
csarebel

Con

Singapore does not limit the number of vehicles per household. They do have a rationing system however. Yet that is not what we are debating. We are debating if vehicles should be limited by household.

I maintain that it should not. I have stated previously that the number per household does not have any effect on traffic or the environment. You continue to maintain that it does. Yet your links embedded in your argument do not back this up. You continue to reference that it works in Japan yet still you provide no documentation (one link I had to sign in to see, I wasn't going to do that, if it was that one I am sorry). The link to Singapore discusses rationing but based on income not household.

I still maintain that the number per household does not effect the number on the road at any one time. I could give every person 10 vehicles yet each person can only drive 1 at a time. If a person has a need for vehicle transportation that doesn't change depending on how many are in each household, even if that number is zero...they will simply pay someone who has a vehicle to take them where they need to go. The miles driven may actually increase under that scenario.

I will freely admit that vehicles cause pollution but I also argue that the economic alternative to a petroleum based economy can result in greater pollution. Vehicles increase a person's economic opportunities, resulting in a greater standard of living, resulting in more wealth...and wealthy societies can more effectively fight pollution. If you doubt that take a look at wealthy cities verse poor cities throughout the world. And it isn't cheap transportation that makes societies poor...its expensive transportation and energy that makes a society poor, or at least some of the main factors.

The Pro has not proved how limiting vehicles PER HOUSEHOLD will help her concerns about traffic and the environment. I have even challenged that her concerns are a problem. Yet even if a voter finds her concerns valid and overriding then I still do not see how her proposal will alleviate those concerns.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
Conduct:
Pro loses this point for several reasons. Calling your opponent a loser is a personal attack; it does not strengthen your arguments, and is very bad form. The "Vote Pro" spam at the end of every post was pointless and wrong. We are not going to vote for you because you yell at us, or because you "deserve to be winner;" if we are going to vote for you at all, it would be if you had made the better arguments. Yelling "VOTE PRO!" just seems awfully childish, and frankly made me NOT want to vote for you.

Spelling and Grammar:
Pro's grammar was terrible, if unintentionally hilarious. It is entirely possible that he used Google Translate or something similar to write his debate; the "house glasses effect" was obviously meant to be the "greenhouse effect," for instance. I am not certain whether we ought to encourage people to participate, even if they cannot speak English; or if we should enforce the use of clear writing at the expense of our foreign members; but anyone who would use cellphone abbreviations in a debate should lose this point.

"Ur" is ONLY acceptable when referring to the Sumerian city.

Arguments:
Con showed how Pro's proposal would do nothing towards the goals of reducing traffic and global warming. Pro said he had data backing up his arguments, but failed to provide us with any; instead relying on personal attacks and arguments from emotion to sway the voters. "VOTE PRO" is not a valid argument.

Sources:
Tied. Con used none, and Pro's sources did not support his arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
ToharucsarebelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment.