The Instigator
Topiarey
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The US Federal Government Should Increase its Investment in ITS

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,891 times Debate No: 28991
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Topiarey

Pro

To begin with, I'd like to thank my opponent Raisor, for entering SocialPinko's ELO Tourney, and I know regardless of whoever advances this will be a great debate. Here are some rules Raisor and I have laid out for the tournament.

Rules:

1. There are no restrictions on argumentative strategy.
2. Burden of proof is shared.
3. Last round may be no more than 4000 characters.
4. This debate concerns the resolution:
5. No arguing on T.

RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government Should Increase its Investment in ITS

So, in the first round, I'll basically explain what ITS is, and my opponent will accept.

I'd also like to say this round is following the rules of a policy debate, other than an argumentation on T because debating on DDO doesn't restrict us to a resolution, simply the benefits and negatives of a plan.

"Intelligent transport systems (ITS) are advanced applications which, without embodying intelligence as such, aim to provide innovative services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated, and 'smarter' use of transport networks."

Basically what that means is that through the development, management, and deployment of ITS systems we hope to improve the efficiency of many government operated forms of transportation. The net benefits of this I'll say when I do my case next round.

GL HF
Raisor

Con

Topiarey and I agree to the following additional rule:

6. Judges may NOT vote on Conduct or Sources unless the points are argued for in-round. Spelling and Grammar may only be voted on as a penalty in extreme cases. Ignoring these instructions constitutes a votebomb.

Additionally, rule 3 has been discarded since this is only a 3 round debate. Final round is full 8k characters.





I would request Topiarey to more fully explain the scope of his plan in his opening speech- specifically what technologies/programs he advocates funding and how much funding he advocates to allocate to these programs.

Finally, I thank Topiarey for this debate- the topic he chose should prove to be interesting.
Debate Round No. 1
Topiarey

Pro

NOTE: THIS DEBATE IS OVER A HIGH SCHOOL POLICY PLAN, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE DEBATED OR JUDGED IN A POLICY FORMAT. THIS IS A REVISION TO MY EARLIER STATEMENT.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. However, I'd like to make some revisions to the rules he made.

I suggest that the voters be able to vote on Sources, if there are serious problems with one sides sources that are being used misleadingly, and to vote on S&G if it seriously becomes a problem.

What is ITS?

ITS, or intelligent transportation systems "are advanced applications which, without embodying intelligence as such, aim to provide innovative services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated, and 'smarter' use of transport networks." [1] To put it shortly, ITS is the development, deployment, and management of innovative computers to more efficiently manage government run transportation infrastructure.

To begin with, here is a problem with the status quo.

The domestic economy is in death throes - collapsing labor force and dwindling stimulus are bleeding the economy dry.[2]

The economy has created just 1.8 million jobs, not nearly enough to give a job to everyone who wants to work. Even though the unemployment rate fell to 8.1% from 8.3%, the decline was due to a smaller labor force, nobody can be satisfied with an economy like this.

Here are the reasons we should pass ITS:

C1: The Plan creates 600 thousand jobs and returns on costs at a 25:1 ration, this stimulus is critical to reinvigorating the economy, the industrial base, and competitiveness. [3]

By improving the operational performance of the transportation network, ITS enhance driver mobility and convenience, deliver environmental benefits, and even boost productivity and economic growth. For Japan, ITS have been crucial as the country strives to meet its goal to reduce CO2 emissions. For many countries, ITS represents a rapidly expanding, export-led growth sector which contributes directly to national economic competitiveness and employment growth. The US Department of Transportation has estimated the field of ITS could create almost 600,000 new jobs. If the US were to implement a national real-time traffic information program, the GAO estimates the present value cost of establishing and operating the program would be $1.2 billion, but would deliver present value benefits of $30.2 billion, a 25 to 1 benefit-cost ratio.

C2: ITS reduces congestion drastically - saved the US billions. [4]

ITS are contributing to a fundamental reassessment of vehicle safety. Whereas most developments in transportation safety over the past 50 years were designed to protect passengers in the event of a crash, VII and V2V systems such as Japan's smartway or the United States' IntelliDrive are being designed to help motorists avoid the accident altogether. For example, the Intellidrive system could potentially address 82% of vehicle crash scenarios involving unimpaired drivers. ITS maximize the capacity of infrastructure, reducing the need to build additional highway capacity.For example, applying great-time traffic data to US traffic signal lights can improve traffic flow significantly, reducing stops by as much as 40%, reducing travel ttime by 25%, cutting gas coonsumption by 10%, and cutting emissions by 22%. ITS can contribute significantly to reducing congestion, whicbh costs US commuters 4.2 billion hours and and 2.8 billion gallons of fuel each year, cositng the US economy up to $200 billion per year. Overall, ITS can reduce congestion by as much as 20% or more.

C3: Unchecked congestion leads international manufacturers to secede from US markets.[5]

Traffic congestion can effectively constrain both labor markets and freight delivery markets, it can also be a factor affecting the location or relocation of both: (A) distribution center sites and (B) production sites. Relocation of distribution centers - increased travel times that result from congestion can effectively shrink the distribution radius of existing distribution operations, making both existing service and expansion into regional markets more difficult. This means that for manufacturers, levels of traffic congestion and the ability of transportation infrastructure to support efficient production processes is an important factor in their decisions about where to locate new product lines, how and where to position various aspects of intermediate and final production, and where they may best server growing or emerging markets for their products.

C4: The US is locked in a war for talent; the plan creates the conditions for the retention and attraction of skilled labor [6]

Transport services can become a differentiator for cities to attract and retain the talent necessary to drive growth. Talent is becoming more important in driving economic grrowth in cities and regions. Cities will face intensifying competition to attract and retain this talent. Transport services have a critical influence on the attractiveness and liveability of a location. For cities and regions that can attract this mobiele talent, the resulting wealth can be spread out across the economy. More growth means more jobs - not only for higher skilled but also for lowerskilled individuals.

To summarize my starting arguments, ITS is an extremely effective stimulus that has worked in many other countries, and is critical for reinvigorating our economy.





[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] Nutting 9/7


[3] Ezell 2010


[4] Ezell 2010

[5] Weisbrod and Fitzroy 2011

[6] Keeling and Mooney 2011
Raisor

Con

On-Case:

1) Obama JUST signed a bill funding development of ITS called MAP-21. The bill was passed in summer of 2012. All of the benefits listed by Pro will happen whether we provide additional funding to ITS or not. Note that Pro specifically advocates an “increase” in funding.

The bill explicitly funds research and development of ITS systems with the goal of reducing congestion, pollution, achieving standardization across state agencies. [1] Pro’s advocacy of additional funding is not needed and redundant- all the benefits he claims will happen in the status quo.

2) A) Turn: Moderate congestion helps creates an incentive for the use of mass transit and car-pooling by creating a cost to the use of private vehicles for transportation. Completely eliminating congestion would signal an over-investment in highway infrastructure relative to mass transit. The goal is balanced transportation strategy- not overfunding ITS.

b) Mass transit emits 30% less C02 and saves households $6k in annual fuel costs [2]. The plan worsens global warming and hurts the economy. Global Warming is the greatest threat to humanity- shifting weather patterns threaten to turn global farmland into deserts. Shifting ecosystems will result in mass extinction of animal life and massive loss of biodiversity. This will cumulatively cause a massive drop in the Earth’s carrying capacity, threatening humanity with extinction. Global warming is the biggest impact in this round- the fate of the U.S. economy is trivial compared to the fate of the human species, we must prioritize survival.

3) Pro’s “war for talent” argument relies on a zero-sum model of international economy: that shifting of manufacturing markets means an economic loss. In reality the global economy is positive-sum [6]. The shifting of manufacturing jobs globally results in domestic growth in foreign economies and overall growth in the global economy. While this might be problematic in the short-term, the long-term effect is a more efficient global economy- i.e. cheaper products, growth of foreign markets and international trade. Setting policy with the intent of controlling U.S. position in the international economy would require an immense predictive capability that no mortal could hope to have- Pro decries the loss of manufacturers but has no ability to predict what market will replace the role of manufacturing in the future U.S. economy.

4) Moreover, manufacturing is on the rise in the U.S. [8] due to lagging EU and Chinese economies. The U.S. has the competitive edge right now. Note my evidence is from 2013- much more recent than Pro’s.

5) Stimulus spending doesn’t create jobs [7]. Several studies of OECD studies show strong negative correlation between government spending and business investment, a surge in investment following spending cuts, negative correlation between spending and GDP growth. Additionally, studies show no positive correlation between government spending and growth. At worst spending hurts the economy, at best the plan is neutral- the best option is to leave growth to the private sector.

6) Pro’s Keynesian economics is flawed- it just relocates money within the economy via government intervention, with the inefficiencies associated with taxation and government overhead. Every dollar Pro advocates we spend on “job creation” via infrastructure development came out of the pocket of a consumer or employer who could have created job demand more efficiently.

Politics:

1) Republicans are adamant about reigning in national budget and debt, but the plan is not only a major government expenditure but a REDUNDANT one. The plan would infuriate the GOP and tank Obama’s credibility in negotiating bipartisan support.

2) GOP support is key to resolving the upcoming issues of sequestration, debt ceiling, and budget- they control the House. Additionally, many in the GOP are so fed up with Obama that they are willing to let us go over the cliffs-Gingrich advocated letting the government shut down on national TV [3]. Negotiations are a delicate balancing act and Pro is a two-ton scale-tipper.

3) Sequestration, etc. is the single biggest threat to the global economy. Passing the plan will tank any chance of bipartisan compromise and wreck the economy.[5] Failing to raise the debt ceiling will force the U.S. to either default on debt, resulting in massive devaluation of the dollar and spiking interest rates, or go into austerity via cutting benefits such as Social Security. Sequestration would result in 1.2 trillion in cuts, resulting in millions of job layoffs and huge cuts to the military. This would cause a global depression and cripple U.S. military Readiness.

4) U.S. military Readiness is crucial to global stability- multiple conflict flashpoints are held in check only by U.S. hegemony. For example, South Korea DMZ, Iran and the strait of Hormuz, and the Pakistan/Indian border.

5) Sequestration also turns the case, as it would result in major budget cuts to transportation- effectively undoing MAP21 and all the benefits claimed by Pro.

6) The impact Pro claims will take decades to realize due to the long-term nature of infrastructure projects and the fact that ITS is a new technology that requires future research and development. Conversely, the fiscal cliff impacts will occur within the next few months. Additionally, the fiscal cliff impacts are much more clearly understood in terms of scope and certainty.

Spending:

1) Fiscal Restraint is key to preventing a Credit Downgrade of the U.S. [4] While the U.S. earned a AAA rating in 2012, the outlook to maintain that rating is contingent on U.S. ability to get its fiscal house in order. Note that credit ratings are based both on economic facts on the ground and on economic predictions, meaning that perception matters. Perception of fiscal irresponsibility results in a loss of creditor trust.

2) Plan destroys fiscal restraint by indulging in “luxury” government spending. At a time when the world is looking at the US to manage its budget, the plan dumps additional money into an already-funded program. Note this plan is especially bad because it represents redundant spending- it is the equivalent of buying a Porsche the week after buying a reliable economy car. The global spotlight is on the U.S. due to the fiscal cliff, new major funding would be devastating to financial reputation.

3) A credit downgrade would tank the global economy by devaluing the dollar. A downgrade also risks raising U.S. Treasury bond rates, potentially increasing Treasury debt payments by trillions and putting the U.S. on the path of Greece and Spain[9].

SOURCES: Pro did not provide full cites to ANY sources. This means neither I nor the judges can read the warrants to Pro’s claims. I can’t provide analytics to see if his evidence actually supports his claims or to compare it to mine. Where in conflict, prefer Con evidence because it is fully documented.

CONCLUSION: Pro’s plan is redundant and ineffective- his economic arguments are based on flawed assumptions. Pro increases use of highway transportation thereby increasing the risk of Global Warming. Pro collapses negotiations about the fiscal cliff, causing a global depression. Pro ruins fiscal discipline, causing a global depression.

[1] http://www.dot.gov...

[2] http://www.apta.com...

[3] http://thehill.com...

[4] http://rt.com...

[5] http://www.opb.org...

[6] Mitschke, ‘The Influence of National Competition Policy on the International Competitiveness of Nations’

[7] http://mercatus.org...

[8] http://uk.reuters.com...

[9] http://charlesrowley.wordpress.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Topiarey

Pro

I regret to inform my opponent that I am in a condition in which I cannot debate. The flu epidemic has began to spread to my area of california and unfortunately I am one of the earlier cases. I'm extremely sick, and I'm quite frankly not in the condition in which I should be debating. I need to get better for some invitational policy tournaments I'm doing in the next 3 weeks.

I apologize foremost to SocialPinko, for screwing up one of the early rounds of what I'm sure will be a great tournament. Raisor, I really wanted to debate you, but I'm going to be spending the next couple days sleeping instead of typing arguments.

-Topiarey.
Raisor

Con

My opponent has forfeited for reasons beyond his control, please vote Con.

Get better soon Topiarey!
Debate Round No. 3
Topiarey

Pro

Again, I urge the voters to vote con, as this is near full forfeit. Congratulations to Raisor on advancing to the second round.

Vote con, thanks.
Raisor

Con

Vote con due to forfeit.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Hmm, I am undecided as to who is in the right with this one.

On one hand, tying a debate because you don't like the terms seems a bit excessive, but on the other, I wouldn't want my vote as a judge countered if I vote as I see fit. But then again, I rarely if ever vote on anything besides arguments and make sure to follow instructions in R1 before voting on unconventionally structured debates so I'd probably agree with Raisor. Calling it a votebomb seems a bit excessive though.
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
Debaters set the terms of the debate- it is an overreach on the judge's part to vote against debater's instructions.

Judges can have an infinite number of views on how to vote on the different criteria, moreover who will actually judge a given debate is unknown so judge adaptation is impossible. There is no way for debaters to know how to win conduct, S&G, etc. Allowing the criteria to be set by debaters is the only way to ensure debaters stand on equal ground.

The only fair way to write a ballot is to evaluate the debate on the terms the debaters agree to.

We already allow debaters to order voters to vote according to certain criteria- we allow stipulating BOP but more fundamentally by setting the resolution debaters are instructing the voters on what they can vote on. The debate is set up by the individuals involved, why would it be unfair that they get to set the terms?

How is it objectionable to set mutually agreed upon voting criteria? I wouldnt agree to any debate unless I knew it would be judged on terms I agreed to.
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
Debaters set the terms of the debate- it is an overreach on the judge's part to vote against debater's instructions.

Judges can have an infinite number of views on how to vote on the different criteria, moreover who will actually judge a given debate is unknown so judge adaptation is impossible. There is no way for debaters to know how to win conduct, S&G, etc. Allowing the criteria to be set by debaters is the only way to ensure debaters stand on equal ground.

The only fair way to write a ballot is to evaluate the debate on the terms the debaters agree to.

We already allow debaters to order voters to vote according to certain criteria- we allow stipulating BOP but more fundamentally by setting the resolution debaters are instructing the voters on what they can vote on. The debate is set up by the individuals involved, why would it be unfair that they get to set the terms?

How is it objectionable to set mutually agreed upon voting criteria? I wouldnt agree to any debate unless I knew it would be judged on terms I agreed to.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
"Topiarey and I agree to the following additional rule:

6. Judges may NOT vote on Conduct or Sources unless the points are argued for in-round. Spelling and Grammar may only be voted on as a penalty in extreme cases. Ignoring these instructions constitutes a votebomb."

Telling voters that they must vote by certain rules or else it constitutes a votebomb is gross overreach of the debaters prerogatives. I'll vote such debates a tie.

It's probably okay to ask voters to weigh something more or less than usual, but the idea of ordering voters to vote according to certain criteria is really objectionable.
Posted by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
To coincide with my opponent's request I will not add my contribution to the 2nd round until Thursday night.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
TopiareyRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
TopiareyRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
TopiareyRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Telling voters that they must vote by certain rules or else it constitutes a votebomb is gross overreach of the debaters prerogatives. I'll vote such debates a tie.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
TopiareyRaisorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct points for attempting to declare what the voters can and cannot vote on. Con gains the arguments vote for Pro forfeiting, but since the forfeiture was beyond his reasonable control, no other points were awarded.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
TopiareyRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunate forfeit from Pro
Vote Placed by Noumena 4 years ago
Noumena
TopiareyRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con due to Pro's forfeit. Though Con's arguments were generally stronger even before that. The increase vs. already funding point I think was the strongest point in Con's favor. The "politics" points were also intriguing on their own as a topical change to the generally utilitarian-centric nature of these types of debates.