The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
C-Mach
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

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: 12/16/2007 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,611 times Debate No: 546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (20)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

To clarify the title: My main argument is that the US should stop the free sale of automobiles to civilians. DOes this mean stop letting people buy cars? No. It means stop allowing 1 person to buy a Toyota Tundra who lives in the city and will never use 90% of the vehicle. It means stop selling Escalades to a family where only one or two people will ever be in it at any one time. It means stop making cars with the capacity to go at 200 miles per hour when in most areas the maximum speed limit is 75. Yes, this does step on American rights, and violate Constitutional amendments, however, I believe in this case, the ends justify the means. I believe the only people who need trucks are those in construction or some other type of business involving hauling or carrying of large amounts of equipment. SUV's should be limited to those who actually need 4 wheel capable vehicles, like those who live in primarily rugged terrain, or in a climate where the weather has a grossly large effect on driving conditions. There is a definite line between need and want. Had such a law been passed, perhaps cities would still be able to see starlight. Perhaps LA would be able to see more than 5 feet in front of them. Families do not need the use of an all terrain vehicle in the suburbs, rather, they need a minivan.

Personal experiences: I used to live in Colorado. The massive snow storms that we encountered there did make an SUV both safer and more reliable on the road. I also have a dad who is constantly obsessed with renovating the house, thus we use our truck on a regular basis. Now I live in Texas. On my walk from the parking lot to work, I take the liberty of looking into the backs of the many trucks that I pass on the short 2 minute walk. 9 times out of ten they are spotless.

(I will not relate this to global warming as I do not personally believe that man has had a massive influence on the atmosphere or weather. My reasons are my own and will not be discussed here.)
C-Mach

Con

People should buy any car they want. The government sould have no say. Even though I do believe we should reduce smog, the rest is just a bunch of bullcrap. Whether is an SUV or a hatchback, a supercar or a hybrid, or left-hand drive or right-hand drive, a person should be free to purchase any car, or any item for that matter, they want. That's the beauty of lasseiz-faire capitalism adherents to Neo-Environmentalism don't get: Buyer choice and competition. Neo-environmentalists believe that if we adhere to the prophecies of Al Gore and other idiots like him, we will be safe from all the disasters that we have caused. EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?! I think this is all a plot to control how we live, like totalitarianism. Oh, wait, it IS totalitarianism!!! Rachel Carson, at the highest estimates, has killed more people inderectly with "Silent Spring" THAN CHAIRMAN MAO!!! I mean, come on. We need an industrialized society with lasseiz-faire capitalism OR ELSE WE WILL ALL DIE!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

But in some cases the government must play a role because the general populace will not do what is within their best interest. There are numerous examples. For instance, had the government not put a law restraining monopoly's then we would not even be able to have this free trade you speak of. The American public would still be buying their goods from one company at whatever cost they deemed necessary. But this would not stop people from being able to have cars, it would only limit the car choices to fit a rational and logical need. One person does not need a truck that is only for show. Just today, a truck user passed me going, what I estimate to be, 85 miles per hour on a 70 mile per hour highway. The massive amount of fuel used by this driver was wasted so that he could get to a destination five minutes earlier. As it turned out, he went to the exact same destination as I was, and I arrived going the speed limit approximately 2 minutes behind him. The emissions for those two minutes where most likely enormous. The wasted fuel used by that car, and the many others like it, could power so many other vehicles. It is the same concept as gluttony. Just because you can continue to eat even after your full does not mean that you should. Like wise, just because you can drive a truck at 85 miles per hour, wasting gallons of fuel for a few minutes, really does not mean you should. The problem though, with both concepts is that when the people have 100% of a choice they will almost always make the bad one. This is why America is not only the fattest country on the planet, but also the most polluted. In the case of food, the issue of survival comes into play. But with vehicles, a fuel efficient Honda Civic will get anyone to the same place as a fuel inefficient Escalade. In essence, nothing is lost, but everything is gained. No one will get to work any later. No one will not be able to get to the grocery store. But everyone will have that much cleaner air, that much less traffic, and that much less of a gas bill.

Secondly, I truly see how Rachel Carson, who stopped pesticides being injected into our food, or Al Gore, who simply wants the world to be less polluted, have anything to do with this topic. I also fail to see how an act like this would be a manner to control the public via secret police, mass surveillance and widespread terror tactics, as defined by wikipedia. And how having fuel efficient cars would cause us to all die alludes me too. If you'd care to back this argument up in a way that actually has to do with this topic, it would be very much appreciated.
C-Mach

Con

Sorry about mentioning Al Gore and Rachel Carson (even though what I have said about them is true). Anyway, still, it should not be restricted. And no, it does not have to be a monopoly, government or privately owned. About the guy driving the Tundra really fast, that guy actually got HIGHER GAS MILEAGE by going faster. The EPA says you should go 40-45 mph for optimum gas mileage, but the truth is, it's TWICE THAT SPEED that's optimum. Go for a drive at 70+ mph and look at the mpg meter. It should read HIGHER when you're going FASTER (Not when you're accelerating rapidly, of course. It just goes down then). If not, there's something wrong with the meter. Your rebuttal?
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

My first rebuttal is to say that this topic does not concern one guys gas mileage in a highly fuel inefficient vehicle. Its about restricting automobile sales to persons based on their need. He himself may be getting better mileage, but his vehicle and the gas emissions he is still letting out are harmful to the air as a hold. A Civic is still more efficient than a truck fuel-wise no matter the speed. Which is exactly my point. Suppose that yes, going 70 is more efficient than the speed limit, a small car with lower emissions will still be less harmful than a truck or SUV. It still has four wheel, and will get you where you need. It won't however, smog the air nearly as much. The only drawback is you won't be able to have that selfish feeling of size superiority. Poor American consumer, where ever will you be without your ego?

Thats my rebutal, now whats yours?

In conclusion, I believe I've made my point that the limitation of vehicle choice to consumers would be beneficial. Yes, you won't be able to go lightspeed down a highway. Yes, you won't be able to run over a small child or animal and not feel a thing. Yes, you won't have that huge container that comprises half your vehicle that you never use. I believe that is the only price consumers will actually face: pride. But then, do we really need even that? If the people can't make the choice for themselves, then a more drastic plan is needed, and the good old government is the only force than can establish such a change. After all, they can mandate a switch across America to stop analogue TV, why not a more important and ultimately beneficial one?

Thank you for your attention dear reader, and I beg for you to not vote on your own personal opinion on the subject, rather on which of us (meaning myself or Mr. C-Mach) presented a better argument. I don't wish to influence your opinion, but if this does, I can't say I object to that either.
C-Mach

Con

People shouldn't be pushed around to which car they can buy because the government tells them to. People should be allowed their own personal choice, you know, make their own decisions. Owning a certain type of car for some people, including myself, brings those people happiness to suit their needs and wants, and the government tells those people that they can take that away from them? NO WAY!!! Think about it.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Modernmoron 9 years ago
Modernmoron
If someone wants to buy a car that they like let them get it. If you wanted a star wars movie hat had just come out, and a person wanted it just for him, and you wanted to get i for your whole family, well too bad. he can get it. It just consumer demand. Besides, think of the effects on the economy. it would be horrible. When the Ford Plant closed down earlier, lots of people lost jobs. And if only a certain amount of people could buy cars, then they would only need so many factorys, so many workers, and not so many available jobs.
Posted by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
Basically ditto to IraqiStateofAmerica. I feel that your stance is incorrect on this one Darth, however C-mach fumbled a case that could have easily been a slam dunk/grand slam (and those are all the sports references I could fit into this post). So I will vote for you Darth, but if you were to repost this and a strong debater (who doesn't TYPE IN ALL CAPS WITH MULTIPLE !?!?!?'s) were to take you up on your point I think that this could be quite a debate.
-Mdal
Posted by IraqiStateOfAmerica 9 years ago
IraqiStateOfAmerica
Although you had a much more valuable argument Grievo i just don't agree with the government controlling what and how we drive our vehicles. But in spite of the fact that I'm all for the environment and own a 4-cylinder vehicle myself i highly disagree with the whole "limitation" and "who gets them theory" because although the escalades, hummers and the rams are damaging to the environment and wasting a whole lot of our limited resources, it should never be taken upon the government to regulate and decide that you or I aren't or should not be able to own one because then, when you force people to do something that they don't want to do there going to end up doing it anyways because now his rights are being trampled on and he is no longer happy . Its truly not helping the environment in the first place unless that person wants to drive that little Honda and not forced by the government "But in some cases the government must play a role because the general populace will not do what is within their best interest." Yes that is true but welcome to capitalism democracy my friend.
Posted by nycfinestpaki 9 years ago
nycfinestpaki
I Disagree with darth, but his point was better than cmach, it was a easy topic to for opponent but the opponent didn't try at all/
Posted by thinkingduck 9 years ago
thinkingduck
I agree that Grievous was more compelling, but that he has the wrong stance. C-Mach should expand more on his points. In con round 1, explain why buyer choice and competition are better than the alternative. Some detail on "OR ELSE WE ALL DIE!" would be helpful. Ultimately, it would be good to see both sides try to explain at just what point it is good for government to make decisions for people.
Posted by Aziar44 9 years ago
Aziar44
I absolutely and completely disagree with Darth Grievo but his argument was much more compelling.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Modernmoron 9 years ago
Modernmoron
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kingtruffles 9 years ago
Kingtruffles
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Wharrel 9 years ago
Wharrel
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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 
Vote Placed by Diethaus 9 years ago
Diethaus
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by RAM 9 years ago
RAM
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by sovietwigglything 9 years ago
sovietwigglything
Darth_Grievous_42C-MachTied
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