Cars are harmful and should be banned before more people die
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
Fun little comedy debate. I'd consider penalizing con on conduct for treating it so seriously, but that end comment about wizards won; and earlier the comment about regulation was a decent leadup.
A place pro missed a golden opportunity was when con referenced police using cars. an ACAB appeal would have been a perfect rebuttal, showing that by ferrying police around, they are further increasing the death toll.
Ultimately, pro wasn't funny enough to carry this.
Nobody cited and grammar was comparable. Tie.
Pro contradicted himself by stating, “ Cars are harmful and should be banned before more people die” and then proceeded to defend murder by cars. It would be like if I said that we should have the death penalty for rape, someone claiming that the death penalty for rape increases the rape rate, and then I defend rape. Pro then said, “ Cars will cure cancer. Cars are awesome. Cars will solve world poverty. Cars will be our overlords. Cars are doctors.”.
I consider the ad hommein attack he used as poor conduct. I don’t get offended by slurs, but it’s poor conduct.
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.