Instigator / Pro
4
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#2437

Grid structures are better than Cul-de-sac structures when it comes to the development of the city

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

BoP is shared, Con must also prove why Cul-de-sacs are better. Pro waive r1, Con waive r4

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I got to keep this one on the shorter side, but I think both sides will appreciate the vote instead of the inevitable no-vote tie.

Interpeting the resolution: this one is weird, as any tied point can be given to CON.

1. Mobility/Efficiency:

CON opens up with a decent case that cul de sacs are capable of being efficient currently, although notably many of his sources pertained to suburban/lower density housing, whereas the resolution specifies "city planning." PRO counters that cul-de-sacs in present cities are highly inefficient in dealing with traffic. CON points out that we are talking about capability here, not what is in current cities (I will note though, in terms of capability he hasn't demonstrated that traffic flows well in cul de sacs. Just that in terms of housing density, things look good.)

This point seems at a stalemate, and then CON switches his argument to being "they are equally good." PRO says "they aren't" without really changing their tune other then to argue that city suburbs are not the city proper, which is fair, but technically city proper can include suburbs. Overall, this point is a tie for me. It defaults to CON, then, because he must only show that there is not a notable difference in quality between the two.

2. Social Cohesion/Youth Suicides:

I approached this argument from a place of skepticism. While I am sure there is a correlation somewhere in there, there are so many factors contributing to suicide rates that I'm not weighing this point as much as Mobility/Efficiency. That said, there is a little weight there, and what little there is goes to CON.

3. Crime

This was a pretty good point... in theory. PRO replies that crime is irrelevant when it comes to the development of a city. I don't buy it. I think city planners should keep crime in mind when developing cities. This is dropped entirely, but PRO weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime. Additionally, considering how many factors are involved in crime rates, I'm not giving a terrible amount of weight here, but I'm still calling it in CON's favor...

Conclusion:

I'd say overall I've been convinced that both have their purposes in city planning, and that one is not terribly better than the other. This favors the CON position. It feels like PRO didn't put all that much effort into this one, which is a shame because CON's case was totally beatable.