The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should the U.S. build a national high speed rail system?

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: 9/23/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,444 times Debate No: 38028
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




U.S. should build high-speed rail because its advantages. U.S. should use high-speed rail technology solutions technical application of International Patent No. PCT/VN2012 / 000 003. HSR Construction; speed 500-1000km / h. Investment USD/1km less than 3 million, two-way railway, the American people will not oppose high-speed rail. View PCT/VN2012/000003 model.


due to the fact im not sure if this is an accecptance or not i will give my side.

On my first point
-High-speed rail fails " costs greater than benefits, passengers wont use, and trades off with freight transport which is comparatively more important to US economy
Lind 10 Michael, New America Foundation, "Goodbye, Bullet Trains and Windmills", Salon, June, 8 2010
High-speed rail in America is perpetually discussed and never built. The less dramatic but real reason is that federal and state officials repeatedly have concluded that the costs of high-speed rail proposals outweigh the benefits. A train is a kind of expensive, pre-modern bus or truck caravan that can never change its route because it is fastened to the road. As nations grow more affluent, their people prefer the convenience of personal automobile transportation to the inflexibility of mass transit. as clearly made from this evidence noone will use this primary transport is buses if we build these they could intentionally be a waste we wont use this and what will fun it

onto my second point
-Economic Benefits of HSR exaggerated
Edward L. Glaeser, econ prof at Harvard, Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?, 2009
Yet the public must be wary every time our leaders decide to spend billions of our tax dollars The Government Accountability Office"s comprehensive report on high-speed rail that reminds us that While some U.S. corridors have characteristics that suggest economic viability, uncertainty associated with rider and cost estimations and the valuation of public benefits makes it difficult to make such determinations on individual proposals. Research on rider and cost has shown they are often optimistic and the extent that U.S. sponsors quantify and value public benefits vary. The founders of transportation economics, like John Meyer and the deeply missed John Kain, found that the benefits of passenger rail rarely exceeded the costs. Their views were caricatured by generations of Harvard graduate students as "Bus Good, Train Bad." meaning there is no surity on price of ticket nor price for all the billions of dollarsthat will go into this program it is like shoveling money into a fire thats burning 1000 degrees its useless we already have millions of dollars going into bus and other forms of transportation that are all in need of being better funded

onto my third contention
i will now cover over the issues of pollution over electricity
The Los Angeles Times 2006
It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.That may be because it's tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But livestock emissions are no joke Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day
so as we can see from this card pollution is not that bad when it comes to our entire transportation infrastructure there are other issues we need to deal with other than this small 1% of co2 in the air from vehicles

my next contention
-Water Vapor and Volcanoes
Meta Tech 07 . "Global Warming Will Cause - the Coming Ice Age." 2007.
We are not the cause of Global Warming. Somewhere between 85% and 95% of greenhouse gases are WATER VAPOR. At most, only 3% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air results from human activity.Seventeen thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans producing CO2 is not the cause of global warming. The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years is from oceans releasing CO2 because they are heating up. Oceans heat the air, not the other way around.
we as a whole world are not an issue on co2 there are other issues happening that are causing co2

my next contention
-Ice Age Inevitable " Only warming solves
the geologic record shows that the ice has retreated every 100,000 years or so for the last several million years, each cycle giving us warmer interglacial periods that last about 10,000 years. Why this cycle repeats is not known, but the prevailing theory attributes it to the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit and a slight wobble in its tilt on its axis.The Earth's orbit actually gets more elliptical, making the seasonal variations more extreme. Right now the orbit is relatively round. Currently, the earth is closest to the sun in the northern hemisphere's winter, making the winters milder and summers cooler. Without human influence, the cycle is likely to repeat. But now the total concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 30 percent higher than it was at the beginning of the century, and temperatures are rising. "The warming will certainly launch us into a new interval in terms of climate, this global warming issue whether you see it as a myth or what not is actually helping our world because ice age is inevitable we should leave it the way it is so we dont go into another ice age

my final contention
-HSR fails"not interoperable with status quo tracks and too dangerous to be reliable
O"Toole 2008 (Randall, Senior Fellow @ Cato, "High Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America,"
from the California senate committee pointed to a risky assumption that the California High- Speed Rail Authority would be able to build high-speed lines in the rights-of-way owned by private railroads such as BNSF and Union Pacific.76 The questionability of this assumption was confirmed by a May 2008 letter from the Union Pacific Railroad to the High-Speed Rail Authority explicitly denying the authority the right to use any of its right-of-way. "Union Pacific has carefully evaluated CHSA"s project," says the letter, and "does not feel it is in Union Pacific"s best interest to have any proposed alignment located on Union Pacific rights-of-way. freight railroads may not want high-speed rail in their rights-of-way is safety. The California High-Speed Rail Authority presumed that it would use European-style rail equipment, which is very lightweight, in order to save energy. European and Japanese rail safety is based on an accident avoidance standard, that is, everything is very highly engineered to prevent accidents. there are big issues with with the right of way there is no way to get this going where would we put it what would we do and until the affirmative can prove to me why we should where we would put it how we will pay ar any other details i urge you to vote in negation for the following contentions
Debate Round No. 1


The problem is due to the generation of high-speed rail has been used with great construction costs, operating costs large, power-consuming, safe speed train running low, high ticket prices. Should you object to the building.
To be successful need to build on new technologies: small building costs, speeds greater safety, low fare passengers....
1 - the costs outweigh the benefits: I said to the high-speed technology Trains Flight: PCT/VN2012/000003,; Construction 1km 2-way rail system will be less than $ 3 million, train speed flying at 500km/h-1000km/h. train security by flying high in fourth rail. Train operators do not use automatic helmsman. Trains mechanical reduction should more lightweight hull, trains run by electric motor should not have to carry many tons of fuel (fuel oil). Trains can fly rail friction with very small (close to 0). Trains fly lower energy consumption: aircraft, automobiles, trains other types. So Trains transport flight is less polluting environment - reduce global warming.
2-Do not use tax money to build high-speed rail. Construction costs will be investment funds, companies and individuals; equity. Why get investment: the cost of construction due to high-speed rail technology to the international patent PCT/VN2012/000003: less than 3 million USD / railway 1km 2 pm. operating cost high-speed rail system + small energy consumption. The benefits of high-speed rail system will be greater than the cost, the investors want equity to higher profitability.


CongressNut22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I am the inventor Pham Hong Giang all PCT/VN2012/000003 international patent applications. Application of technical solutions to develop inventions generation commercial high-speed rail (High Speed R03;R03;Train Bay) Train speeds on 500km/h-1000km/h. The cost to build the railway system small Huon $ 3 million for 1km double track. High Speed R03;R03;Train fares by about the cars. Bring profit to investors, and the national patent application to build high-speed rail. You may want to patent business, I invite you to cooperate with patent registration in your country, you will be the legal representative for your country I'm in, Once registered independent patent rights, You and I do patent licensing, I will join you split profits from patents. You do want to cooperate with business contacts Iby e-mail address in the clip: New Patent High Speed R03;R03;train in the HSR on youtube....


CongressNut22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CongressNut22 5 years ago
the reason why i did not finish this debate is because it is a joke i give you a case where you dont attack any of my contentions but instead you give me a video and talk about random crap with no sources so in turn i win this debate due to the fact you did not attack any of my points and i destroyed yours
No votes have been placed for this debate.