Debate Rounds (3)
This could be managed by scrapping the excise duty on the first vehicle and bringing in a sliding scale for each additional vehicle.
By doing this we would cut pollution, help preserve fossil fuels, and reduce road congestion.
Thank you to PRO for initiating this debate. I would like to start out with a few rebuttals, I will proceed to deliver my arguments in the next round seeing that I have little time.
R1) "...has now reached ridiculous proportions."
The term 'ridiculous' is left undefined and thus cannot be seen as a reason for limiting car ownership in and of itself given that there are different standards and perceptions on what is ridiculous and what is not ridiculous. Even if both sides of the house and all parties involved come to an agreement on the boundaries and yardsticks for the term 'ridiculous', it is still unjustified to limit consumerist privileges seeing that there exists the very real possibility that the status quo may have been a result of poor economic infrastructure to begin with, bad regulation on part of the government, or poor design by the car manufacturers.
R2) "...excise duty on the first vehicle"
Excise duties are inland taxes, meaning that such a policy or scheme cannot account for vehicles that are produced outside of the country that implements such a tax. The automative industry is very much a global one, and a substantial percentage of cars seen on the streets of any country can be traced back to overseas manufacturers and assemblers. In other words, a significant proportion of cars bought and sold would be exempt from taxation, translating into minimal resolution of the issues of pollution, road congestion, and fossil fuel usage. This is not to mention the fact that for economies with more localised automotive industries (such as Japan and South Korea), such a taxation policy would greatly impact the productivity and employment rates of said country as well as the individual companies themselves as consumers begin to turn towards overseas options and deserting the now-costly local manufacturers.
R3) "...sliding scale for each additional vehicle."
I am not the best with economics, and PRO might have to clarify this for me, but doesn't a sliding scale make cars more affordable for those who are underprivileged and modify prices to cater to all classes and aspects of society in general? Isn't this contradictory to PRO's motive of trying to make cars less affordable (as seen with the excise duty) to dissuade car ownership and in turn alleviate the problems he/she has listed above?
Once again, thank you to PRO for their arguments. I will be delivering mine in the second round, may I remind PRO that no arguments be presented in the final round. Thank you.
malster forfeited this round.
Since PRO has not posted any arguments in the previous round, I will not be rebutting anything and will jump straight into delivering my arguments in the hopes that he/she returns to the debate. Since PRO has not responded to my enquiries about the details of his model, I will be arguing under the premise of the 'one car per family' policy.
P1) It is an unfair violation on consumer rights
This entire policy of limiting the car ownership of one household to one car is based on the hollow assumption that each family will use both cars on a regular and frequent basis. It is also founded on the assumption that one car is enough to cater to the size and/or special needs of each family. What if, for example, a family has a normal family car that is used for everyday purposes (i.e. groceries, commuting to and from work), but the family also wishes to own a sports car as a prized possession to be used on special occasions? The greenhouse gas emissions from the cars of this family are presumably not a far cry away from other families who own and use one car, which echoes one of PRO's yardsticks of 'pollution levels'. Additionally, what if there was a wheelchair-bound member of the family? He/she would need a car to themselves for commuting, whilst the rest of the family, who would likely not be able to adjust their schedules to cohere with the wheelchair-bound person's schedule, would need another car.
Even if we assume there are no such hypothetical cases, we can still come to the conclusion that this is an unfair and unjust policy. I as a consumer should have access to all products and services on offer in the market as long as I meet legal requirements. Governments can place heavy taxes on cars or limit supply for whatever reason, but blocking off a market or sector completely is a manifestation of the government overstepping their authority. It is not the fault of the individual aspiring drivers that the problems associated with an overwhelming number of cars has gotten so severe, it is a collective issue. To discriminate against consumers who wish to purchase a product simply because its repercussions have been magnified by the shear number of people purchasing said product is an biased and inconsiderate policy, simply because said consumer has no say in how many people will purchase this product and how big the industry is.
P2) There are more equitable solutions out there
There are an array of other options as opposed to stripping the rights of consumers and purchasers available for implementation. To solve the issue of road congestion, Singapore, for instance, uses Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) where certain roads in the most frequented and congested places of Singapore are toll roads and one will automatically have a certain amount electronically deducted from their bank account when they pass through these roads, thus disincentivising drivers to pass through these roads, keeps city entre less congested, and encourages public transport usage altogether. 
To preserve fossil fuels and reduce pollution, governments can consider upgrading their public transport infrastructure and expanding its network and coverage, as well as enact subsidies and long-term reward systems for those who take public transport on a consistent basis. They can also place heavy taxes on all cars. Sweden, as well as many other EU nations for example, employ the solution that is the low emission zone (LEZ), where fuel inefficient and high polluting cars are not allowed to enter the city centre and places with relatively high population density, forcing drivers to upgrade their cars in order to access these places and thus cutting down on emissions and fossil fuel consumption. 
I await PRO's response.
malster forfeited this round.
PRO has once again forfeited, leaving me with no choice but to extend my previous arguments and rebuttals. I hope all is well for PRO. For the reason that my case was unrefuted and the same cannot be said for PRO's, vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.