The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
76 Points

You should be allowed to bump people with your car.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 8/28/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,739 times Debate No: 5182
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (16)

 

sadolite

Pro

Have you ever been driving down the road and a group of people are standing in the middle of the road? They see you coming, they see you getting closer and closer yet they just sit there with some dumb look on their face. Some times they are riding bikes and swerve like they are going to turn in front of you and other times they just stand their ground, flip you off or yell some obscenity at you as you are forced to drive around them. I think you should be able to run into them to teach them a lesson. I don't want to kill them just hurt them enough to respect the power of an automobile and their complete disregard for the person driving the car as they may not see them and run over them and be killed. Their parents or guardians obviously never taught them not to play in the street. I think this would be a very effective way to teach these belligerent aholes a lesson about the rules of the road. I follow them, what is their special privilege that permits them to ignore them without impunity.
Logical-Master

Con

Good evening ladies and gentleman; hello to all the fellow debaters on this website. In today's case, I shall show why one shouldn't be allowed to bump people with a car. (the purpose of the movie listed on the right shall be revealed below).

"Have you ever been driving down the road and a group of people are standing in the middle of the road?"

Indeed I have. Such is the way of driving on a college campus integrated into a city.

"They see you coming, they see you getting closer and closer yet they just sit there with some dumb look on their face."

Tell me about it. Happens all the time.

"I don't want to kill them just hurt them enough to respect the power of an automobile and their complete disregard for the person driving the car as they may not see them and run over them and be killed."

Well, assuming I can take your word, then we can agree that you may have no intent of killing people, but this speaks nothing of the many others out there. Just imagine a world where people can get away bumping someone with their car. Having played Grand Theft Auto IV, I'm sure most will agree with me when I say that hitting people with your car is fun. In the world my opponent wants ( a world which commandeers respect through so-called "justified" brutality), this manner of fun will come to life and the amount of people who get hit with cars will ACTUALLY INCREASE rather than decrease. People may be more fearful of getting hit by a car in the world which my opponent imagines, but at the same people, the people IN THE CARS will be far less fearful of hitting people (as it's quite obvious that a primary reason for being fearful of hitting people with cars was that it was against the rules). Thus, the society which my opponent wants is clearly nothing more than a society that embraces chaos.

However, I have an alternative that can not only benefit my opponent in his hatred of people whom he believes should stop screwing up traffic but also prevent the loss of lives.

First, I motion that metal (or cement) stairways (wheel chair accessible too)(basically, a structure that allows you walk above the road rather than across it) be built on every block in cities. These stairways would enable people to cross the street on their own time rather than wait for the traffic lights. This system would eliminate the necessity of "pedestrian right of way" laws and also drastically decrease the number of pedestrian accidents associated with automobiles yearly. If cost is an issue (which it shouldn't be at all), then this system can simply be limited to cities which are very busy and/or are known to produce pedestrian accidents due to automobiles.

Second, when this system is in play,people who still insist on crossing the street should be fined astronomically moreso than they would under the current system. I think it's safe to say that with an easier way of crossing the street as well as there being heavy penalties for crossing the street, individuals will be deterred from crossing the street.

Third, if it's payback my opponent wants (while at the same time, no chance of killing people), then not only with the above "increased fine" system work, but (and this is optional) those who insist on crossing the street while under the aforementioned system SHALL BE FORCED TO WATCH Disaster Movie, Epic Moive, Meet the Spartans, and Super Hero movie all in one sitting. Ask yourselves, would you really like to see through crap like the movie on the right for an entire day? What better way to get back at someone then to do it mentally as ones mental state is far more precious than one's physical state.

And that'll do it for now.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them. I am not talking about people who are forced to cross roads in congested areas and are traveling for a purpose. I am talking about people who purposely black the road just to block the road. You should be able to bump them out of the way and and cause painful injuries to them to teach them that they are no match for a car even if they think it's funny to block the road. They deserve to be injured for challenging a car and it's driver.
Logical-Master

Con

Quite aware of what you're talking about, but the point I'm making is that your plan is going to do more harm than good as pedestrian/automobile accidents will increase significantly when it becomes legal to hit people with cars (as explained, one of the primary deterrents for not hitting people will be eliminated according to your plan). On the other hand, my plan gives people NO EXCUSE to be on the roads, thus, deaths/accidents are decreased by a large amount and you have nothing to be annoyed at. When my plan is put into action, someone standing in the road will be the equivalent to someone openly robbing a convenience store (though one won't necessarily go to jail under my plan).

I provided a non-potential-lethal means of helping people learn their lesson, which is to force individuals to pay LARGE fines for crossing the road and/or for them watch which is arguably one of the worst films ever made for an uncomfortable amount of time. In no way has my opponent contested this point (or my plan period for that matter), thus, it is quite clear who the victor is.

Thanks for the debate. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
So sadolite, I see you've become quite the popular guy around here as you've once again been upvoted. Ha, and the admins thought they had created a better voting system. Phooey!
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Ill' take the win, I've been vote bombed to the negitive so much I think it will even out over time.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
LOL! This debate was vote bombed.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
Sadolite- "Some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them."

I have that quoted on my profile.
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
Hilarious!
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
OMG. Favorited.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Wow, I didn't even know you could post Youtube videos like that.

Test
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
LOL! They ripped it to shreds.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Hah the spill.com boys absolutely hate it. (Warning profanity)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
. . . but seriously, don't see that movie. I was kind of forced to see it last night and nearly gouged my eyes out.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteLogical-MasterTied
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:70