Instigator / Pro
7
1317
rating
267
debates
41.01%
won
Topic
#4052
Cars are harmful and should be banned before more people die
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Tell us how people should die due to cars.
Well actually, on the contrary....
My first two contentions are.:
1. Cars could save lives
If someone were to end up attacked and they dialed the police, the fastest way for them to make it would be to use a car as their means of transportation.
And if you were also being pursued by a stranger, getting into a car could shield you and better yet help you get away.
2. Banning cars is just not feasible
Most countries are architecturally designed so that you have to use a vehicle to get anywhere. You could try walking to your intended place, but where would that get you? And remote jobs can be nearly impossible to get without the sufficient education.
Round 2
Lets kill people so that we get to our workplace faster.
Lets kill people with our cars and justify it by saying "police get somewhere faster with their cars".
Lets kill people to educate ourselves.
We should all listen to Con's mentality so that we can be rich by killing each other. There are no other forms of transport. We should justify murder. We will piss dollars and poop gold. Cars will cure cancer.
No, Con.
I don't believe Pro's suggestion of resorting to murder is a reasonable solution.
Lets kill people so that we get to our workplace faster.Lets kill people with our cars and justify it by saying "police get somewhere faster with their cars".Lets kill people to educate ourselves.
We should push for tighter regulation laws on who can purchase vehicles, incase people actually start thinking like this.
Round 3
Lets hope that all people accept cars as their way of justifying murder. We should place regulations so that you are only allowed to kill people sometimes.
Deae Con, cars are evil. Stop justifying them.
Murder is wrong, Pro. This is madness.
Snap out of it.
Oh, and just a note to voters, Pro used a homophobic slur in the description and is now endorsing genocide. Subtract a conduct point from him and give it to me!
Vote CON!! 😎😎😎
Round 4
Cars should be our Gods. Cars should kill us all. Cars are great. Cars voted for Trump. Cars are nice to us.
Cars run us over. Wake up Con.
Lets kill people so that we get to our workplace faster.Lets kill people with our cars and justify it by saying "police get somewhere faster with their cars".Lets kill people to educate ourselves.We should all listen to Con's mentality so that we can be rich by killing each other. There are no other forms of transport. We should justify murder. We will piss dollars and poop gold. Cars will cure cancer.
The word ‘lets’ is missing an apostrophe. Pro repeats this error several times. Pro also types ‘deae’ the last round. That’s not a word. I believe he meant *Dear.
I believe voters should subtract a point for spelling errors from Pro too!
Round 5
Cars will cure cancer. Cars are awesome. Cars will solve world poverty. Cars will be our overlords. Cars are doctors.
No, they are not. You let your heart grow dark. This is your last chance, Con. Repent!
I have won this fight.
You cannot defeat me, wizard.
The topic can easily be interpreted as a truism, given how ambiguous it is. "Cars are harmful", yes, even if it is or is not "net harmful". As long as it has done some harm out of everything, it is technically "harmful" to an extent. As to "should be banned before more people die", "should" can be interpreted as marking a tendency similarly to the usage in "Dr. Cooper should return home by next friday". If the entirety of Earth gets destroyed in the future, which is almost certain due to the Sun's potential expansion into a red giant, when everyone is dead and there is no one to die, there are no cars anymore, the same state of existence for cars compared to it being banned at any moment.
I am not joking, if you do not provide context on what the topic means, you can interpret it as anything as the instigator, as long as you have sources backing up not only what it means but why it can be used in this way. That doesn't mean you can define a verb structurally as a noun entry for the same verb because it violates how people use it, but any verb entry on said term suffices.
Yeah vote Con. He kills people with cars 😱
Vote Con. 😎😎😎
This is funny af.