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

Travel Is The Very Essence of Life

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/10/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 624 times Debate No: 107814
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




Travel invigorates and builds character, what more should I say?

Please feel free to submit your counter-arguments, I will address all of them accordingly.


Travel is too expensive for poor people.
Debate Round No. 1


Your statement "Travel is too expensive for poor people" requires more detail. It would be good if you define "travel", "too expensive" and "poor people" because these three components of your statement have very subjective meanings.

Every individual has his/her own definition of travel. I for one, may define travel as one of the following: getting to work via the public transport, going for a holiday in specially catered vacation facilities (e.g. those with Club Med), going backpacking in the wilderness of the Appalachian mountains.

I hope the above provides some points to aid in our debate.


Travel is a billion dollar industry which refuses to lower prices on the basis that millionaires stuff their fat wallets. No progress has been made over the past 10 years on developing a cheaper airline fuel. I'm not sure why it should cost thousands of dollars to spend a few hours in the sky- that's insane. My favorite YouTube channel, Videos for People, covers this subject quite well, with his "The magical Miracle of human Flight, parts one and two:"

Keep in mind that these videos are satirical, and not in any way fact based. Still, he does a good job of covering all the bases. Now, what else? Ah, yes. the cheapest airline flight I could find online is $92 dollars. That's crazy. I could just buy a tricycle and ride somewhere for free. Why are airplanes so freaking expensive? I have never been on an airplane because they cost too much. I've been out of my state three times: To Canada as a kid, to Nebraska as a kid, and to Wyoming last year to watch the eclipse. The Canada and Nebraska trips were on a train, and I'm too young to remember them. The Wyoming trip was by car and it was incredibly long and strenuous.

Some cities spend all their tax money on things like airports for rich people, when they could be building useful things, like homeless shelters or recreational facilities. The airlines are a way to flaunt wealth. It's ridiculous. I utterly despise airplanes of all kinds. Travel might be fun if you have money. If you don't have money, airplanes suck. And travel might be fun, but I would not call it the very "essence of life". That's an exaggeration. It's just an activity, like swimming or playing tennis. It just costs more and you get to see other places. Couldn't you just read about those places and watch movies and stuff about them? If travel was really the essence of life, then all poor people would be dead, having no essence of life. Poor people are alive, so travel can't be the essence of life. People can function without it.

I admit- travel isn't just in airplanes. No matter what, though, it's expensive. Cars are the cheapest, and you have to go through drivers ed to drive a car, and you have to buy one to start with. Cars are a big hassle just like every other form of transportation. Once we devise a cheap, easy to use mode of transportation, travel might be fun. It's not fun right now. Not only do you have to pay for the thing you use to move around, you have to pay for hotels and stuff once you get to where you're going. Even a fricking campground costs, like, twenty dollars a night. Why should campgrounds cost anything? Like, I'm not even talking about COOL campgrounds with a swimming pool or anything. Just a regular campground with one outhouse costs twenty dollars a night. WHY? It's a fricking forest! It's not worth a fifth of a hundred dollars to lay in the dirt for one night!

I wouldn't define going to work as travel. I'd call it moving around, sure, but I wouldn't call it travel. It's not fun. It doesn't give you life, it sucks your life away.

Backpacking in the Appalachians might be fun. But lounging around in a country club is something that only rich people would do. Everything about travel is fricking messed up and we should fix it.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your response.
I believe that the travel industry (particularly global) is a trillion dollar industry. However, this makes no difference to the individual because you do not have to pay trillions of dollars to engage in travel itself.

How do you know for certain that absolutely "no progress has been made" in developing a cheaper airline fuel? On the contrary, I know for certain that cheaper airline fuel has definitely been developed and is still being developed (consider the rapid and continuous advancement in research technology in this day and age). The likelihood of the cheaper airline fuel being released into the market commercially might be slim, because businesses are profit driven.

Your Youtube videos have an insignificant amount of views, which goes to show that it's content does not even appeal to the average Youtube viewer (like myself for instance). I myself watched both the videos and the content comes across as amateurish and shallow in thought. As such, I cannot accept this as valid justification for your point of view.

The majority of your argument revolves around travel via air, with examples of you traveling within the United States of America itself. Although I have yet to travel within the USA (as I currently reside in Singapore), I have traveled to: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Turkey, India, New Zealand, Australia, England, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Macau. It is very difficult to deny the fact that reading about the places/"watching movies and stuff" about them is nothing compared to the real experience itself. Travel by car, is at best a matter of convenience. Domestic travel can be done by a variety of ways: foot/bus/train/boat/horseback etc.

This statement "If travel was really the essence of life, then all poor people would be dead, having no essence of life. Poor people are alive, so travel can't be the essence of life. People can function without it." defies the concept of logic. The topic of discussion is about travel being the essence of life, not how travel is critical to the survival of humankind (for instance). You are definitely right when you say that people can function without travel. (Please refer to this link for an example of someone who I may consider as having never traveled:

You are right about the cost of travel. But it is important to note that how much you have to ultimately pay depends largely on your choice of activities and accommodation.

Please review the definition of travel here: Once you have done so, you will realize that a journey from home to your place of work is indeed considered as travel. As for the experience of traveling to work, it varies between individuals. You may hate your current job, which might be a reason for feeling that the journey "doesn't give you life, it sucks your life away".

Finally to address your closing paragraph, I have to remind you that travel is not constrained to backpacking in the Appalachians or lounging around in a country club. The options are endless and I strongly urge you to consider the multitude of travel options.


Businesses are profit driven, so they never attempt to make their fuel any cheaper. They also completely monopolize the industry of air travel. Think about it- in the old days, you could own your own airplane. You could fly around in a two level wooden plane. These days, you can't own your own airplane. There are too many restrictions. If airplanes were really meant for cheap travel, you should be able to go out and buy one. But you can't- you have to fly on one. Why aren't there just airplanes that you can use like a car? I went to an airplane museum, and I saw an airplane that was like a car, for the average family. I hope it's released commercially soon, and the big airline monopolies are broken. I should be able to have an airplane if I want to.

Those two videos I posted aren't mine, I just thought they might give a good impression of how I see things. I'm surprised that the guy who made those two videos thinks the way I do, but both of those videos are good indicators of just how annoying air travel can be. The first one is better, and more philosophically challenging. It compares archaic air travel to modern air travel, which is a good way of looking at it. The second one is worse, but he explains why every problem he brings up is a tired cliche in the description: "I couldn't come up with too many, since I'm too poor to fly anywhere and I've never been on an airplane". That's identifiable, for me, anyway. Then he goes onto an anecdote about why all the buildings in Denver are short. The two videos do have a very limited number of views, but that's not because they're bad. It's because YouTube's algorithm does not show them on a regular basis. They don't have any views, how do you expect them to attain more views? Anyhoo, the way he puts it forth is darn sophisticated.

The majority of my argument revolves around travel via air around the United States because there aren't too many other ways to travel, when you think about it, and the United States is a very big country with lots to do inside it. Air travel has completely dominated all other forms of travel. There are fewer train lines, fewer cruise ships, fewer highways. All other modes of transportation are gradually being demolished by the trillion dollar industry of airplanes. I like the concept of traveling by train, but trains are going extinct like dinosaurs because the fat capitalists are making more money on flights than on trains. In fact, we could devise a whole new method of transportation, one that goes a hundred miles an hour and doesn't take any fossil fuels to power, but we don't try to invent anything cool like that, because it's easier to let the airlines do all the work and end all diversity in travel, forever.

It's nice that you've gone to China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Turkey, India, New Zealand, Australia, England, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Macau. It all just goes to show how much cash you have to burn. Your interpretations of travel are influenced by how much money you have to spend on travel. That's a simple principle.

I'm sure watching movies and stuff isn't as good as real travel, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper. I'd rather pay $5 to rent a DVD about China than pay $1,000 to GO to China. That's just simple logic. and airlines will lose customers soon if they don't try to appeal to some poor people. They could figure out how to power their planes using nothing but water, for gosh sakes. I mean, they could invent some sort of mechanism that just boils water and makes the plane go up. There's lots of options here, which would make flying a lot cheaper.

Travel by car is ok, but cars these days don't come cheap, and you're forced to pay insurance every month. I think it's stupid that you HAVE to pay insurance. That shouldn't be mandatory, it should be a choice depending on how confident a person is as a driver. Also, you have to spend two months just learning how to use the darn thing. I'd prefer a mode of travel I could just get onto and go. I don't fancy the idea of zooming around in a big hunk of metal that could kill me at any moment. That's just not appealing. One other thing- they're a lot slower than airplanes. It took two days to get to Casper, Wyoming and watch the eclipse- and in an airplane it would take about half the time. But airplanes cost about five times more. Cars are slow and if you want to head to New York from California in one- well, you'd go nuts halfway there.

Nobody would be willing to travel by foot- that's insane.
There are barely any bus lines that travel all around the country, and they're pretty expensive.
Trains, like I said, are becoming a thing of the past.
Boats are only practical if you live near an ocean.
Nobody uses horses to get around anymore.

That little paragraph about poor people being deprived of the essence of life was only meant to emphasize just how ridiculous the title of this debate is. I could understand you maybe calling travel "A fun little Hobby" or "A way to see other cultures". But you can't define it as the very "essence of life". That's ridiculous. There are better things to life, I'm sure. And you might claim that your title doesn't infer that people can't function without moving around, but the title sure sounds like that. When I first saw your title, I was reminded of this scene, from The Dark Crystal:

It just sounds like that. If travel really was the essence of life, people could not stay in one place or they would die. All I'm saying is that the title is too frickin' extreme. Also- there are some cheap hotels, but they have cockroaches and stuff. Everything in a big city costs. Travel is a hassle.

Going from home to work and back is travel, but it isn't nice. There are hobos on the bus, sometimes you miss your stop, it's crowded, there's bubble gum on the floor and vomit and the seats are hard, and you have to cope with heavy traffic and the buses sometimes take an hour to arrive even in heavy weather. Even if you use your car, there's still lots of traffic. The trip is too short to enjoy but too long to bear. It doesn't depend on whether you like your job or not- even if your job is great, the commute can suck.

You say that the types of travel are infinite- give me a list of ways you could reach New York for under $50. I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for agreeing with me that businesses are profit driven. However, I cannot agree with your statement that "they never attempt to make their fuel any cheaper". There is no way you can accurately decide that no "attempts" have been made. The simple logic of customer retention calls for either a controlled increase or decrease in the cost of your product. The final cost price of aeroplane fuel depends largely on the market cost of kerosene, do take a look at this link: to have a real idea of how the price of aeroplane fuel might vary.
In addition, please take a look at this link ( in response to your claim that "you can't own your own airplane". As mentioned in my previous reply, given the rate of technological advancement and the increasing ingenuity of human-beings, what you might think impossible today might just become possible the next.

You went to an airplane museum and saw an airplane that looked like a car. I wonder what made you hope that something in a museum would be "released commercially soon". The generally accepted definition of a museum is an institute which stores and exhibits artefact's/objects of scientific/cultural/artistic value. I have to agree that you should be able to have an airplane if you want to. I do hope no one is investing their valuable time trying to stop you from doing so.

Yes, your opinions about the Youtube videos might be absolutely valid. However, please remember that "how annoying air travel can be" hardly has any bearing on the main topic of discussion. As I have mentioned earlier, every individual has the freedom of choice of the mode of transport. Just because you find air travel "annoying" should not be reason enough to give up on travel altogether. Please allow me to stress that I did not specifically say the Youtube videos you shared earlier are "bad". I just cannot accept them as valid references to concretely bolster your claims. In addition, please do not blame Youtube's "algorithm" for the number of views not exceeding five (if I may be so generous). If a Youtube video contains information that the masses recognize as valid and valuable, it will be definitely be shared (e.g. via the main social media platforms).

The United States of America is a nation, not a country. But you are spot on when you say that it is very big, with lots to do inside it. How much of the "lots to do" have you actually done?
How can you say that "trains are going extinct like dinosaurs"? I have not kept myself up to date with the latest infrastructure development projects in the United States of America, but do take a look at this link: I do believe that your ignorance of projects like this has led to your statement above. This project features a train that goes up to 200 mph, double the speed of your expected "new method of transportation". The last sentence in your third paragraph has insufficient substantiation.

Please forgive me, I left out the beautiful country of the Philippines. I have experienced: Philippines, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Turkey, India, New Zealand, Australia, England, Cambodia, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Macau. Listing out the countries I have personally traveled to is an example of me walking my talk. At the risk of accidentally making an Ad Hominem attack, I have to tell you the following. It would be best that you do not make unsubstantiated assumptions that I have "much cash to burn" and that you know everything I have personally experienced. Your "simple principle" might not be working out for you.

I'm not sure what you morbid interest in the "poor people" is, but I have to remind you that "poor people" are (more often that not) in a struggle for basic survival. How can you possibly expect "poor people" to even have a desire to travel on an airplane? As such, "poor people" cannot possibly be used as valid examples of people that airlines must cater to in order to survive. I'm sure you are as educated, if not more educated than myself. Based on this article ( with albeit rough and outdated calculations, the energy required to keep an average airplane in flight is 7.3 GJ. Do share with me, how you might possibly generate 7.3 GJ of energy by boiling water? "There's lots of options here", pray do tell.

I am sure most people will agree with me that it is usually the people with a higher tendency for self-injury who "feel more confident" about their abilities. Your opinions about the mandatory vehicle insurance might even place you in the above-mentioned category of people. The aspiring operator of very motorized vehicle requires proper instruction by another person with more experience in its operation. In order to minimize the risk of injury, any logical person will accept this fact and appreciate the instruction provided.
In response to your statement "Nobody would be willing to travel by foot- that's insane.", here is another link for you to read: This man is an American who I would love to meet in person to discuss his views on travel.
In response to your statement "Boats are only practical if you live near an ocean.", here is yet another link for you to read:
In response to your statement "Nobody uses horses to get around anymore.", here is another link for you to read:

"The Dark Crystal" is a 1982 high fantasy adventure film directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz and stars the voices of Stephen Garlick, Lisa Maxwell, Billie Whitelaw, Percy Edwards, and Barry Dennen. What is ridiculous, is the attempt to use this as a valid reference while debating reality.

In response to your statement "people could not stay in one place or they would die", I would like to refer you to my previous response in which I provided you an example of an individual on the Isle of Man whom I consider never to have traveled before. Please explain how this individual is "dead" while smiling for a photo after being interviewed in person? The topic of this discussion is less extreme by far as compared to your statements.

The reasons you listed in your second last paragraph has provided me with a better understanding of why you view traveling to and from work in a very negative light.

I did not state at any point in time that "the types of travel are infinite". In addition, your request for "a list of ways you could reach New York for under $50" should be directed to a search engine (e.g. Google).

My rebuttal is thus complete.


Just one more round. Hmmm...

If they were really trying to create a cheaper fuel, we'd hear something about it. They aren't spending one penny on scientists or experiments. I mean, why would some rich guys spend money on losing money? it doesn't make any sense. Still, they should, because if they make it just one iota cheaper, more poor people will go. And the combined profits from lots of poor people could be higher than the profits from just a few rich people. It would be a gamble, but it should be a gamble that they should take. In addition, there should be more options as to where you can sit, whether you get food, whether you can see a movie, how comfy your seat is, and so on. For people who don't really care about fancy stuff, but who just want to travel, there could be a few benches in the back of the passenger area that only cost about $50. Simple.

I suppose you could own your own airplane, but you have to go through lots of paperwork and deals and you have to learn how to fly the darn thing and they're a lot more expensive than cars. I'm talking about a world where every family owns an airplane just like they own a car. You know, a little airplane for just four people. Why aren't airplanes as common and cheap as cars? They're not, so you can detect the monopoly put out by the airlines.

I did go to an airplane museum and I saw an airplane that was like a little car, for four people. However, I don't think it's been released yet, and I don't see them flying all over. Still, it would be neat to own one. Just because something is in a museum doesn't mean it's real. There might be a diagram of a robot in a museum, but it doesn't mean that robot has been mass-produced. I'm not sure if that little airplane/car thing was real or not, even. It was just darn cool and I hope they start making them.

I think that the topic of "How annoying air travel can be" is crucial to the main topic of this discussion, since most travel these days is done by air, and the annoyance level of travel is what determines if it's truly the essence of life or not. people have freedom of choice as to how they travel, but some ways just aren't as convenient, or they might be slower, or bumpier. You could walk from Denver to new York, but you'd be exhausted by the time you GOT to New York. The world's a big place. Also, I find that those videos are valid references. They combine reality with a hearty dose of satire. YouTube's algorithm does not always share good things. If it did, then those videos would have more views. it does not share GOOD things, it shares POPULAR things. there's a difference between QUALITY and POPULARITY. You're committing a logical fallacy known as the appeal to majority. Just because a million people watch a video about a man squeezing a pimple, it does not mean that video is good.

The U.S.A. is a nation, and it's a country. The two words are synonyms. A nation, technically, is a country where most people are the same, such as Japan. The United States isn't a nation, really, because it's diverse. Still, nation, state, country- they all mean pretty much the same thing. Just a place recognized by the United Nations. There's lots to do, but, like I said, I've done very little of all the things to do inside it, because travel is $#@#! expensive. Trains might be booming in Asia. They have lots of trains over there. They see the value in them. In America, though, they're going way down. Nobody uses trains, modern or otherwise. They're being replaced by aircraft. Also, we don't have any of those "bullet trains" like they have in Asia, just Amtrak and like that.

I'm not committing an Ad Hominem by stating that you have lots of cash to burn if you've visited all those places. Heck, I never even specified it as an insult. Just a simple assumption. Those are, like, 15 places right there. You gotta have some money to have some fun there. What, am I supposed to expect you can pave your way there with bus tokens and bubble gum? Didn't think so.

My interest in poor people is not morbid. They might be in a struggle for survival, but that doesn't mean they don't want to travel. They want to travel, they just can't. Airlines don't have to cater to them in order to survive, sure, but life stinks if you can't get places. Travel is ridiculous. You can't hold it. Why should it cost anything?

I'm no whiz in engineering. When I mentioned that boiling water thing, I just meant THEY could handle it. I can't, but they could. They're geniuses, they could put some sort of furnace on board. I don't know how an airplane could travel using water, I'm just sure that they could replace their current fuel with water. Michio Kaku, in his book about the future, talks about a car that runs on nothing but water. It's the best solution ever, and we could grasp it. We just choose not to, because , like I said, travel is a trillion dollar industry. Just put some firewood on there or something. Heck, it can't be too hard.

No, no, somebody can get insurance if they want to. You just shouldn't have to. Then, if you get into a wreck, you take full responsibility for it, and you agreed to take full responsibility by not paying for insurance. Somebody should not be forced to pay insurance. The whole concept of insurance is stupid to begin with. You pay in small increments so you don't have to pay in one big increment. But you don't really save any money! I could just put $20 in a jar every month and it would be the same thing with less hassle. Really, this is simple.

Cars could kill you at any point. Why not just switch to tricycles, anyway? You have to spend two months learning to drive a car. That would be like spending two months learning how to draw an eyeball. If something takes two months to learn, it's not worth learning about.

Boats are only practical if you live near an ocean. SHIPPING boats might be practical to inland people, sure. But TRAVEL boats are just nutty for people inland. Some states don't have oceans, you know. I get calls sometimes, for a free cruise. But they say you have to drive all the way to the port. That's so stupid. If I live, say, 2000 miles inland, why even bother?

That one guy who crosses the whole country with just two horses is a nut. That's not common at all.

I used that clip from The Dark Crystal to show you just how ridiculous your statement is. It's an exaggeration.

there are some ways you could reach New York for under $50. they just aren't GOOD ways.
Debate Round No. 4


Thank you for your response.
Please note that using words and phrases which sound pompous but misplaced in sentences and typed in capital letters does not contribute to strengthening your stand.
I have also noticed that you are attempting to shift the entire focus of this debate from travel as a whole, to specifically air travel.
This should not be the case and will not be allowed to continue if a moderator is present. However, for the sake of continuity, I will continue addressing your expressed points.

Just because you as an individual have limited knowledge about "cheaper fuel" or any of the "rich capitalist" and "poor people" rhetoric you have been repeating, does not mean that that information does not exist. For the benefit of the spectators of our debate who are unsure about the word "iota", it is the ninth letter of the Greek alphabet. It has been assigned the Greek numerical value of 10. In order to avoid distracting your debate opponent from key arguments using unnecessary jargon, perhaps it would be better to restrict its usage to only when necessary.
Addressing your statement "And the combined profits from lots of poor people could be higher than the profits from just a few rich people.". If I were to approach it from a logical standpoint, the rich have significantly greater spending power (hundreds of thousands, millions, billions or trillions). This is enough to make anyone think twice before offering the claim that money from "lots of poor people" can definitely outweigh money from "a few rich people".
To even suggest having "a few benches in the back of the passenger area that only cost about $50" and calling it "simple" to implement shows your utter lack of understanding about the design of an airplane (even though you claim to have visited an airplane museum).

To have to learn how to fly your own airplane after buying one is obviously a requirement if you want to operate it yourself. I cannot think of any other alternatives if you want to operate your own airplane. The rest of the points in your second paragraph hardly makes for any discussion because they do not conform to reality.

In response to your statement "Just because something is in a museum doesn't mean it's real.", I would like to confirm if your visit to the museum was actually a fantasy.

Please refrain from creating restrictions on the main topic of discussion (in the sense of ignoring the multitude of alternative modes of travel). If the topic of discussion was about how air travel was the essence of life, then your fourth paragraph is very much warranted. Yes, the fact that you included the two Youtube videos as references is evident that you find the videos to be "valid references". What I have been trying to explain is how they are actually not as valid as you might believe them to be, considering our on-going discussion. I am no expert on the algorithm of Youtube and will cease to rebut your opinions about the algorithm of Youtube. By your reference to a logical fallacy called "appeal to majority", I will assume that you are actually referring to the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. If that is the case, I will hasten to remind you that my opinion about the Youtube videos is not solely based the fact that the videos did not have a combined viewership of more than 5 views (at the time of me viewing them). I did substantiate with a second sentence after.

In response to your insistence that "nation" and "country" are the same.
Please refer to these two separate definitions of the two words, as specified by the Oxford University Press.
To insist that nation and country are the same might be equivalent to insisting that the Oxford University Press is wrong.
In response to your statement "There's lots to do, but, like I said, I've done very little of all the things to do inside it, because travel is $#@#! expensive.", I have to say that this proves my point that your opinions are constrained by your very limited travel experience.
Yes, it is true that America does not currently have "bullet trains". But do you truly understand the reason?
Please read this article:

I did not at any point in time allege that you committed an Ad Hominem.
What I did however mention was that I was worried about taking the risk of accidentally committing an Ad Hominem myself.

Your interest in "poor people" is morbid in the sense that you repeatedly use them as examples of how air travel does not make for affordable travel. Your focus on air travel and how it is in-affordable to them skirts around the main topic of discussion and instead attempts to unnecessarily shift the direction the debate. In response to this statement "They want to travel, they just can't.", will you classify yourself as one of these "poor people"? If your answer is yes, I then like to invite you to look up the definition of poor (although I do know that the concept of rich/poor is comparative).

It does not matter if you are a whiz in engineering. If you did read the article I shared as a reference, you will realize that the energy requirement to keep an airplane in flight is so huge that your suggestion of boiling water is purely laughable. Your subsequent reference to the book by Michio Kaku only applies to cars on the road, because the energy required to power a car is largely insignificant in comparison the the estimate of 7.3GJ for airplanes. GJ is Giga Joules, wherein Joules is the unit of measurement for energy. To attempt to provide everyone with a better idea of the scale of magnitudes: an average adult male requires 0.008GJ of energy in his daily food consumption. To keep an average 100HP petrol driven car running for an hour, 0.27GJ of energy is required. My figures are just rough estimates and you are most welcome to provide calculations proving me wrong (although the focus should not be on mathematical calculations).

Car insurance may be made voluntary, since everyone should have the freedom of choice. I shall not further elaborate on this point because it has no bearing on our main discussion about how travel is the essence of life.

You are most welcome to get rid of your car and replace it with a tricycle, it will definitely do the environment a lot of good. But will you actually replace your car with a tricycle? To actually replace your car with a tricycle amounts to embracing regression. The car is a very complex and highly advanced piece of machinery, to compare learning to operate a car with learning to draw an eyeball is most ridiculous indeed.

In response to your statement "some states don't have oceans", I will assume that you actually mean to say that some States do not have immediate access to the sea or maritime facilities. This I can agree with. However, the rest of this paragraph consists of a composition of non-debatable fluff.

Your last three sentences also further proves my point that your opinions are unfortunately constrained by your lack of travel experience.
Hence, I end my final rebuttal by stating based on my personal experience that: travel is not only the essence of life, it significantly broadens one's perspective and helps develop one's character.


Yeah, I'm sure I made some typos and errors and syntax and stuff in the last round. This debate's been a real ordeal, but let's finish it. Let me think, hmmm...

I'm not just talking about airplanes, I've talked about cars and stuff too. I'm surprised you haven't been listening. I only really want to talk about airplanes because they're the only things people use these days. They're also a prime example of why travel sucks. They're a type of travel, so it's not off-topic.

I'm sure there is lots of knowledge about cheaper fuel and capitalists vs. communists. That's what I'm saying. I simply don't know how a cheaper fuel would be produced. I'm not a rocket scientist. But those rocket scientists who know the periodic table and stuff just aren't doing their jobs if they can't come up with a fuel that knocks a few bucks off the price.

There's no reason why I can't use the word "iota". Sure, it's the ninth letter in the Greek alphabet. But, according to Google, it also means "an extremely small amount". That's how I use it. It's not unnecessary jargon, people say that all the time. Don't be so picky about how I express small quantities.

Rich people have more money as individuals, sure. But they don't spend their entire fortunes on airlines. Sometimes a lot of little things can amount to more than a few big things. Think of three basketballs and 500 tennis balls. Which makes a bigger pile? Or think about it this way: If two rich people buy a candy bar that costs two dollars, and five poor people buy a candy bar that's one dollar, the poor people have given the candy store owner a better profit- five dollars instead of four dollars. It's completely logical. If three rich people buy three flights, each costing $500, and ten poor people buy ten flights, each costing $200 dollars, then the airlines get more money from the poor people than from the rich people. There are more poor people in America than rich people. That's why the richest people in America are called the 1%. They're only ONE PERCENT of the population. There are more peasants than kings. Get it? It makes perfect mathematical sense.

I don't see how installing a bench in the back of an airplane would be so hard. They just strap a bench back there and people can sit on it.

Nah, I really went to the museum. I think that car/airplane thing was only a prototype, though.

Those two videos I gave are absolutely valid references. The first one shows how much air travel has changed since its conception. The second one shows some problems associated with modern air travel. Satire can be considered a valid source. You are resorting to Argumentum ad populum if you assume that videos are only good because they have lots of views. They only have 5 views. Picasso was once a starving artist. So the heck what?

"Nation" and "country" aren't exactly synonyms, like I say above, Nations have more similar people within them. I only brought it up because YOU said, back in round 4, that "The United States of America is a nation, not a country." Now that's just wrong, even according to your definitions. The United States of America is NOT a nation. Japan might be considered a nation, because most people there are Japanese. But the U.S. is one of the most diverse countries anywhere. We have white people, black people, Native Americans, Asian people. That's our thing- you know, a big melting pot. We aren't a nation, and you said we were.

I have a limited travel experience because travel is too expensive. I know what travel is, though. It's not that great. It's not the essence of life.

Your article doesn't give any reasons why America can't have bullet trains. If we did have bullet trains, it would be amazing. We're just too freakin' lazy to build any railroads over here. We suck. Trains are becoming dinosaurs over here. We just use them to move coal around. That's it. Like I've been saying the whole time, there isn't too much diversity in travel in America. Airplanes are pretty much it.

Yeah, I'd classify myself as poor. And I don't know how talking about the lack of travel for poor people is off- topic. It's definitely a reason why travel stinks. Also, you say it's morbid. According to Google, morbid means "characterized by or appealing to an abnormal and unhealthy interest in disturbing and unpleasant subjects, especially death and disease." Why ignore poverty? I shouldn't have an interest in it? It's grim, sure, but it's a reality.

Ok, let's say a car takes a little less energy than an airplane. You could still power an airplane using boiling water- it would just fly at a lower altitude and go a little slower. Maybe it could have some parachutes or something on it to give air resistance. Like I said, I don't know how it would be done, but I'm sure it COULD be done. A few decades back, they thought computers were impossible. They're not impossible anymore.

If you have a tricycle with a roof and some space for stuff it's basically a car with pedals. It's cheaper and it doesn't hurt the environment. And it doesn't go at 50 miles an hour. And it takes less time to learn. When we run out of oil and I use a tricycle, I'll be superior to all the car owners.

Judges, vote wisely. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by louigi 3 years ago
Posted by AlfredCSM 3 years ago
Yes, you are quite right with your statement "Well every persons his/her "essence of life" " which I will assume to mean the following.
That everybody embodies his/her own definition of the essence of life.
Perhaps you would like to debate me on this issue by posting a new debate topic addressed to me?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
"it turned out to have too many dramatic twists for my liking.".. Well every persons his/her "essence of life"..
Posted by AlfredCSM 3 years ago
Revolutionary Road as in the film released in 2008?
I didn't watch that but I just did a quick read-up on the story and it turned out to have too many dramatic twists for my liking.
Well, @canis you never know if you will reach the end unless you give it a shot (your best shot even).
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Yes. it is like "Revolutionary road"...I could do the project in 2025 I could do the project...In 2023 I could be dead.
Posted by AlfredCSM 3 years ago
Fantastic, I will have to try that one day.
Thanks for the link.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
No. I have only been doing a lot of canoeing. Sometimes for 3-4 weeks with, (almost) only fish to eat..I do not like fish anymore..I made some rc boats in plywood (160cm). They cost "nothing" in material for the hull, and are very easy to build..just an example.
But it would be easy to build to your own specifications.
Posted by AlfredCSM 3 years ago
Thank you.
I am quite interested in your mention of building a "plywood boat for about 2-8000$".
Have you attempted that?
If you have, I would love to know more about the challenges you might have faced.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
But I do agree with pro. Maybe more suitable for poor people past 50 with no kids at home..You can build a ocean going plywood boat for about 2-8000$ , and live of seeweed and fish.. Life would become "different".. As every essence is..
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Hi.."Travel is too expensive for poor people."...= No essence of life.. ?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.