the government should encourage more people to use motorcycles
Debate Rounds (3)
No net benefits, The AFF is claiming no net benefits of increasing the use of motorcycles and is therefor only a mindless ideal, to win the debate rounds the PRO (AFF) needs to say why this is good..
First Off case argument:
MOTORCYCLES ARE DANGEROUS - PLAN LEADS TO INCREASED DEATH
A recent CDC study found that:
"Between 2001 and 2008, more than 34,000 motorcyclists were killed and an estimated 1,222,000 persons were treated in a U.S. emergency department (ED) for a non-fatal motorcycle-related injury.
"The highest death and injury rates were among 20-24 year-olds, followed by 25-29 year-olds.
"More than half of all nonfatal injuries treated in EDs were to the leg/foot (30%) or head/neck (22%).
"Motorcyclist death rates increased 55% from 2001 to 2008 (1.12 per 100,000 persons in 2001 to 1.74 per 100,000 persons in 2008).
"The number of nonfatal motorcyclist injuries that were treated in EDs also increased, from nearly 120,000 injuries in 2001 to about 175,000 in 2008.
With more people in the United States riding motorcycles today than ever before, motorcyclist deaths and injuries are an important public health concern.
Second Off case Argument:
GOVERNMENT HAS BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN ENCOURAGING MORE MOTORCYCLES
A. Obama will spend political capital on gun control but no guarantee he will succeed
Julie Pace, Huffington Post, 12.19.12
Gun control measures have faced fierce resistance in Congress for years but that may be changing now because of last week's violence. Since then, Obama has signaled for the first time in his presidency that he's willing to spend political capital on the issue and some prominent gun-rights advocates on Capitol Hill " Democrats and Republicans alike " have expressed willingness to consider new measures. Still, given the long history of opposition to tighter gun laws, there is no certainty the legislation Obama backed Wednesday or the proposals he will send to Congress next month will become law.
B. Infrastructure spending is unpopular -- the public is skeptical of "crumbling infrastructure" claims because they don"t see it
Ken Orski, February 5, 2012 [Editor, Publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, 2.5.12]
[Innovation NewsBriefs is a transportation newsletter that has been published for 20years. Orski was formerly Associate Administrator for the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration, http://www.newgeography.com...]
Along with Lane, I think the American public is skeptical about alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no evidence of it around them. State DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare, transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between. The oft-cited "D" that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given America"s infrastructure (along with an estimate of $2.2 trillion needed to fix it) is taken with a grain of salt, says Lane, since the engineers" lobby has a vested interest in increasing infrastructure spending, which means more work for engineers. Suffering from the same credibility problem are the legions of road and transit builders, rail and road equipment manufacturers, construction firms, planners and consultants that try to make a case for more money.
C. The president has limited political capital to spend on issues like infrastructure
Jeb Golinkin, The Week, 12.21.12
The fiscal cliff. The jobless recovery. Comprehensive immigration reform. Climate change. Implementing ObamaCare. Cutting healthcare spending. Rebuilding our infrastructure. Addressing student debt. Fixing the tax code. Gun control. There is no shortage of domestic issues that this president might address. But to govern is to choose, and this president has limited political capital. He will have to choose carefully.
D. Gun violence is a significant cause of death in the u.s. and is directly related to firearm availability
Violence Policy Center 2012
Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than 1.3 million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. Public health research has shown that firearms violence is directly related to firearms availability and density. What separates America from other Western, industrialized nations is not our overall rate of violence, but our rates of lethal violence--which can be directly traced to gun availability. In 2009 alone, more than 31,000 Americans died by gunfire: 18,735 in firearm suicides, 11,493 in firearm homicides, 554 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than twice that number is treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.
In response to the points made, firstly, you called this a 'mindless ideal'. That is to say, you feel this is an ideal with no meaningful thought or evidence behind it. By the same token, your first paragraph is over saturated in facts, figures and numbers. I understand why you have presented them, but how you have presented them has rendered the figures meaningless. Without confirming the numbers myself, there may have been at least 34,000 motorcyclist killed in the studies you provided. But there is no causation with your numbers. for all I know, they could have been killed by drunk drivers. Anyone can use facts and figures in a debate, but where's the cause and effect? where's the meaning behind your number juggling?
The only directly relevant point I can pick out is 'motorcycles are dangerous'. I agree. But bad car drivers are even more dangerous.
You speak of the government having 'better things to do'. I think this is a poor point; it is not as if all departments of government would divert all other work just to promote motorcycling. I'm thinking more small time anyway through TV advertisement and posters perhaps.
- To make some points of my own which you may or may not want to respond to directly, firstly, think of congestion. Heavy traffic in city centres is a real problem. it means congestion, which leads to impatient drivers, which leads to risky driving and ultimately accidents.
- Another point is getting people in to work. Motorcycles are significantly cheaper to run than cars. This is especially so for young people.
- Being a motorcyclist and going through correct training, actually improves many other aspects of road safety. Motorcyclists are also safer drivers and pedestrians, as they are more aware of dangers on the road than car drivers.
I have more points to give, but I will now give way for my opponent to respond. hopefully we can expand on these points as well as adding new ones.
Okay I agree the second point hardly related and I'm kicking that.
So yes, motorcycles are extremly dangerous let me extend on that since it will be my main point
No number crunching this time just pure logic:
So yes we agree that cars and motorcycles dont mix since you stated that yourself that the possiblity of cars crashing into these motorcycles and them dying is possible however i Believe that you were stating that it woundnt be their fault pretty much correct? Well if you think about by encouraging more motorist then your going to increase the amount of death wether it be by drivers or the motorists themselves
Also think about this, current infrastructure is in such a state of disrepair that the roads are in no state of condition to safely support an increase in motorists.
Third, motorcycle crashes statisticly prove 5x more fatal then car crashes, the thousands of crashes we have every year would then increase the amount of lives lost by an astronomical number
On to your points :D
1. congestion. Congestion needs to be solved by utilizing the revenue of 217 billion from the gas tax to expand roads and therefor safley fix this problem, instead of encouraging people to use the barbaric death traps
2. Work. People might indeed use your motorcycles to get to work, oh wait, no they wont. I'm sure im speaking for thousands of workers when I say that I personally need to place to put my stuff when im going to work aswell as keeping my hair combed to some degree, and well I'm not get on my motorcycle in middle of winter correct? or What if its raining? Do i show up to work wet?
That is if I even get to work, according to the facts I've researched I'd be scared for my life that I'll die.
As a matter of fact this is such a bogus point that I'm going to turn this as an advantage to my offence, people can't use motorcycles all year long and they must yeild to the weather so losing jobs by missing work becomes a problem.
3. Road safety. To be honest since so many americaners would never ride a motorcycle [I.E. certain religious groups, elder people, most women in general.. ect] that the safety change wouldnt even be notice able, which gets me into a ridership argument
I agree that roads need to be maintained. But there is no argument is saying encouraging more to ride motorcycles would worsen road surfaces. Firstly, if more people were to ride motorcycles, they wouldn't use cars as much, which are significantly heavier. But simply, bad roads for the most part, are caused by extreme variants in weather conditions. Roads crack and morph as the weather changes from extremely hot to cold....and visa-verse. So it wouldn't matter if more people ride motorcycles, if anything, it would be better for road surfaces.
And what ever the statistics say, they still don't give the full picture. Let's say a motorcyclist killed himself because he was speeding. I think we can both agree that rider was an idiot for speeding in the first place, but he has now paid the price for that. But it was his risk to take. But what about car drivers?? Many accidents happen with car loads full of people, and drivers are still stupid. At this point they are actively putting everyone in the car in danger. I understand a biker could hit other cars . But the purpose of this point is to again show your statistic curve balls mean nothing as a stand alone figure.
Moving on to congestion....do you honestly think it is a good idea to 'expand' roads in city centers?? just trying to plan this would be a logistic nightmare, not to mention how much it would cost. And as I have already pointed out...using motorcycles relieve congestion. And I can say this without any stats, facts or figures, as it's common sense.
Your point about not being able to use a motorcycle all year round. This depends largely where you live. I live in the UK, and largely there are only a few days in the year that are bad enough so that I can no longer ride my bike. And as you say, this does not mean people are unable to get into work as they have excellent public transport to rely on.
And bad hair? a mirror and some hair wax... fixed.
finally, if people can't or don't won't to ride motorcycles....then fine.
To close, more people should be encouraged to ride motorcycles for the reasons discussed above. But I do maintain a change would and should be accompanied by a 'shake-up' of rider and drivers attitudes a-like when it comes to driving/riding safely.
MaqicDan forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.