Instigator / Pro
15
1500
rating
4
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4216
Should Public Transit Be free
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
18
Better sources
4
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
5
6
After 6 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
42
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
Public transit should be free since its unfair for it to be paid and people like free public transit since transit should be free since if they keep paying people may lose all their money because of transit.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Public transit should be free because paying for transit is bad and not everyone can afford a car so public transit should be free however their are many disadvantagws for it so please discuss the pros and cons for transit being free.
Con
#2
Appreciated @Andrew071117,
Preamble:
I will be using evidence to prove that public transit should not be free. This conclusion will be supported by two contentions, as of which will be divided into its own sections.
Burden of Proof:
BoP is shared.
Should free public transit have disadvantages that outweigh the advantages, con should win.
Should free public transit has advantages that outweigh the disadvantages, pro should win.
Definitions:
Free:
1: not costing or charging anything
This is the definition I have chosen to provide from Merriam-Webster. Since you haven't provided a definition and this is the last round, this will be the chosen definition.
1. Free to who?
When something is free it most likely refers to "us", the consumers. The cost of something will not be "free". Making the price of it cost zero, doesn't make it free.
"Some governments have considered paying for public transport out of taxpayers’ money," (1). Hold on, taxpayers? We are taxpayers (mostly everyone), so if we are taxpayers, what does this mean? It is not completely free. You are paying for your own transit or someone else out there who pays taxes is paying for 'free' public transit.
This could also mean an increase in taxes, how unfortunate.
2. More transportation
- P1: Harm the environment
- P2: More people
P1
Public transport would just require more buses, planes, trains etc. All harm the environment, just as cars do. If everyone used public transport, more buses would pollute cities. It should also be mentioned that the manufacturing and creation of a public transit system is very energy intensive, drawing largely on coal and fossil fuels for energy. This releases significant carbon emissions into the atmosphere. (2)
Not that everyone will use it, but think about how many people would use it.. We are already worried about pollution and that worry would just gradually increase..
P2
Having things free would most likely increase the chances of more people using public transit. Imagine being crowded with multiple people, shoulder to shoulder. That one noisy person taking peeks at your screen. If someones in front of you, imagine them just sneezing on you. Personally I like my own space. If you do as well, you might not get the space to move, good luck. :)
--
Rebuttals:
Public transit should be free because paying for transit is bad and not everyone can afford a car so public transit should be free however their are many disadvantagws for it so please discuss the pros and cons for transit being free.
I'll be taking that legibility point, "disadvantagws". What does that say? I just really can't read that. Can you read this, voters? :(
Yes, I probably made spelling mistakes that I just don't realize.
The only point you mention is that, "not everyone can afford a car so public transit should be free".
Not everyone has the funds to buy themselves a car, yes. However, there are other options such as buying a bike or walking on foot. Not only are these options less expensive than a car, it's even healthy for you. Both of those options regard some type of exercise. This also helps the environment, it is more likely to be more effective with helping the environment. These options may become a bother with how long they might take to getting to a certian place, but I feel the advantages outweight the disadvantages. I will also say that you are on a certain time frame for most public transpit. Usually they all have scheduled times, and missing or not being able to catch it due to population means another extended wait. In the end result, walking or biking might be worth time. You're able to decide your time frames, your own schedule.
As for your request on disclosing both the pros and cons of this topic would be against my position. I am only required to provide my points that are con related, and retaliate against your claims. However, as you can see, my rebuttal covers your point with other pros you didn't mention. Though I did make sure that those pros were able to be disproved.
Conclusion:
Allowing free public transit does more harm than it does good.
- Its not completely 'free'
- Does harm to the environment
- Likely chances of abusing
Sources:
Sources point.. maybe? My sources are not broken. I think?
--
I'm glad we got to do this debate. It's allowed me to test other debate formats. Soon enough i'll come up with something more to my liking. Thank you.
Vote Pro.
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:
Pro had essentially no argument and no sources.
I am judging that having having essentially no argument and no sources makes for poor conduct.
I have voted accordingly.
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:
Pro basically gives a single claim for how public transit could possibly help non-car owners while con responds with a well-formated argument that addresses the issue with evidence.
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:
Res Ipsa Loquitor
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:
1 round with no chance for Pro to respond to arguments against their case. Con responded to everything Pro said (not a difficult task) and had arguments of their own.
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:
if Barney can vote that way, so can I. Pro basically had 0 case against an elaborate one.
I sorted by Voting and jumped to page 4. all done with 2 clicks.
How many debates did you scroll through to find this?...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote in question refers specifically to the Foregone Conclusion section of the voting policy. Here is that section in full and the relevant portion:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#foregone-conclusions
"For debates in which any reasonable person would know the argument outcome from barest of skimming, they may rightly be declared a foregone conclusion and held to a somewhat lower standard when voting against the dolt. Effectively, if one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration."
**************************************************
Note:
If one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
Thanks for the vote.
Completed.
Accidently said "Vote Pro" I meant con guys.
just hurry up i dont want this debate to forfeit
Oops. I already have my response written, I just need to polish it up a bit.
I'll get it down within a hour or so, my apologies for the wait.
it been 13 days there still no response you made please hurry up the debate will end tomorrow
I'm still writing my response.
Don't worry, I'll try to get it in by today. Also, this debate is a two week response time anyways.
Why yes, that would be the natural consequence when you set the "time for argument" to two weeks.
You have not responsed for an while bell3sp
Might take me a little while to respond, I wasn't expecting a response this quick.