The Instigator
medinka95
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
pdaines
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

high speed should be limited

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Cars
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 595 times Debate No: 37994
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

medinka95

Pro

Most of us know people who have had friends or family injured or killed in terrible car accidentson the highways. Certainly we have all read or heard about these tragedies in the news. We haveheard not only about car accident but bus, plane and even train accidents. We all want to live longlives and not worry about the possibility of accidents. No on want to worry about whether they willarrive at the destination safely every time they get in a car. Because of high speed we will have a lot of problems. And I want to say thateven we are hurry we have better drive more quitely, because no one will give us a guarantee ofour lives.
pdaines

Con

You clearly have never driven in the DC area during rush hour, so I will tell you what happens. As traffic gets thick, people slow down in order to continue driving safely. As people slow down, the thickness of traffic increases exponentially because the time that everyone is on the road is increasing. This leads to a painful cycle of stalled traffic such that thousands of vehicles are barely idling down the freeway all afternoon. If you ever go through this experience then you will understand that there are fates much, much worse than death. If everyone had just payed more attention to their driving, and driven faster to begin with, then they could have gotten off the road faster, and rush hour might have been averted altogether.

You contend that speed should be limited in order to protect individuals, but you never lay out a plan. You never specify for what you are actually arguing. As the opposition, I will therefore take the prerogative to define the boundaries of this debate. I interpret this resolution to mean that there should be a maximal speed limit on every public road in America that should be enforced universally and swiftly. I interpret this as a value round, in which the proponent argues for the value of personal safety. I accept the value of personal safety, but add the value of utilitarianism to the debate. I will also propose a mutually exclusive counterplan which will better suffice these values than the resolution that has hitherto been considered.

Counterplan: Speed limits should continue to exist on many roads. There should always be a route available that includes only roads with speed limits. However, some roads should exist, where demand is sufficient to make them worthwhile, with no speed limit whatsoever. Individuals who so choose should be allowed to utilize these roads at their own risk. Furthermore, the law should be changed so as to officially disallow legal punishment for any traffic action which cannot be shown to expose a reasonable risk to the public safety. In other words, it should be legal to run a red light in the middle of the night when there is no other traffic, and therefore no conceivable safety risk.

You will note that my counterplan does no harm to the value of personal safety as the only real risk that is incurred is to the safety of those who knowingly and willingly accept that risk in exchange for some benefit such as arriving at a destination sooner. On the other hand, my counterplan does wonders with the value of utilitarianism by allowing for individuals to take societally beneficial actions that carry little to no risk. When we way the costs and benefits of the counterplan I have proposed against the resolution that you have asserted, My plan has a clear net advantage. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1
medinka95

Pro

medinka95 forfeited this round.
pdaines

Con

pdaines forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
medinka95

Pro

medinka95 forfeited this round.
pdaines

Con

pdaines forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by andyjfraser 3 years ago
andyjfraser
What I can't understand in the first place is why car manufactures are allowed to make and sell cars that can surpass the maximum speed limit in the first place, I would have thought that in the interests of road safety Governments would legislate so that manufactures could only make road cars with a non by passable speed limiter set to the maximum speed limit of that country!
Posted by clos891 3 years ago
clos891
The idea of having roads where there is no posted speed limit is a good one. Even though you did mention to use the road at your own risk I think we can take it a step further and make it part of the license test. If a person were to fail that part of the test they would simply not be allowed to use the speed limit-less roads. In so making it safer to travel at even higher speeds.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Please define your terms, such as how slow do you wish the maximum speed to be?
No votes have been placed for this debate.