Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
32
debates
59.38%
won
Topic
#6015
Cars and trucks should be banned
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
helperman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
6
debates
41.67%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. Ah, yes, the scourge of modern society - motor vehicles. The way they pollute our atmosphere, contribute to accidents, and perpetuate a culture of selfishness... It's a wonder they haven't been banned outright already. But, of course, there are powerful lobbies and entrenched interests that would fight such a move tooth and nail.
2. There are plenty of alternatives that have been neglected in favor of these gas-guzzling monstrosities. For starters, we could invest in an extensive network of high-speed rail and hyperloops. Not only would it be more efficient and environmentally friendly, but it would also foster a sense of community and shared space, breaking down the isolating effects of car culture.
3. Of course, there's always a risk of accidents with any mode of transportation. But let's not pretend that cars are somehow safer or more accident-free just because they're more common. The truth is, with proper safety measures and infrastructure in place, rail travel can be made virtually accident-proof. And even if a rare incident were to occur, the consequences would pale in comparison to the destruction wreaked by cars on our roads every single day.
4. With the right technologies and design approaches, rail safety can be greatly enhanced. For instance, advanced signaling systems and collision avoidance technologies could be implemented. High-strength, lightweight materials could be used to construct railcars and tracks, allowing for greater resilience in the event of an accident. And by integrating sensors, AI, and data analytics, we could proactively identify and address potential safety issues before they even arise.
5. With a well-planned and segregated rail system, the risk of pedestrian collisions would be drastically reduced. Imagine it - elevated or underground tracks, with clear barriers and warning systems to ensure that pedestrians and rail traffic never intersect. And for those rare instances where a pedestrian might accidentally wander onto the tracks, advanced sensors could trigger alarms and emergency braking systems to prevent accidents from happening in the first place.
6. Fences and barriers could provide some limited protection. But let's not kid ourselves - they'd be more of a band-aid solution than a genuine fix. No, to truly address the issue, we need to rethink the entire concept of rail travel in a modern, 21st-century context. That means investing in cutting-edge technologies, designing systems with safety and pedestrians in mind from the ground up, and making a commitment to creating a transportation network that serves the greater good.
7. Rail-based emergency transport and helicopter services could indeed be viable alternatives to traditional ambulances, especially in urban areas with well-developed rail networks or for long-distance transports. Just imagine it - high-speed trains equipped with state-of-the-art medical facilities, whisking critically ill patients to specialized care centers in record time. Or helicopters, capable of rapid aerial transport, reaching remote areas or navigating through congested city skies with ease.
8. Why replace ambulances? Let's simply ban them along with all the other dangerous vehicles like cars, trucks, and trains. Think of the lives we could save! With no vehicles on the roads, there would be no accidents, no injuries, no fatalities. A safer, healthier world for all.And you know what else? With no cars, kids would be free to play outside without worrying about getting run over. They could explore and have fun without parental supervision, fostering their independence and self-discovery.
9. Cars are the embodiment of evil, perpetuating a culture of violence, oppression, and exploitation. The mere presence of these metal beasts on our streets is a daily threat to countless lives.Did you know that cars are responsible for a staggering number of accidents, injuries, and deaths, not just of the drivers and passengers, but also of innocent pedestrians, cyclists, and even animals? The destruction they leave in their wake is unspeakable.But it's not just the physical harm. Cars also contribute to toxic air pollution, suffocating our cities and poisoning our environment.
10. Money, the illusion we're forced to worship in this capitalistic society. The "cost" of banning cars is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the untold suffering they inflict upon humanity.Think of the resources wasted on maintaining and repairing these deadly machines, the lives lost in avoidable accidents, the environmental devastation... It's a never-ending cycle of harm and destruction. The true cost is incalculable.As for a new system, we don't need to create some fantastical utopia. We just need a better system than current one.
11. Self-driving cars? Another misguided attempt to tinker with the problem rather than addressing its root cause. These vehicles still rely on a flawed infrastructure designed by humans, with inherent dangers and biases.Even if we assume self-driving cars could somehow magically eliminate human error, they would still pose a threat to children.Even if self-driving electric cars could somehow achieve a perfect safety record and zero environmental impact (which is an impossible dream, given their very existence is a form of violence and destruction), they would still perpetuate the harmful societal structures we're trying to dismantle.Ah, the so-called 'threat' of electric self-driving cars is an overblown myth perpetuated by the auto industry to cling to their dying business model. The real threat is the harm these vehicles pose to society, the environment, and human well-being.For starters, these cars are just the beginning of a dystopian nightmare. Once they're on the roads in sufficient numbers, it won't be long before cities become gridlocked and pedestrian-friendly spaces are erased, paving the way for a car-dominated society. Walking is safer and healthier than self driving cars, of course. A human on foot is the safest mode of transportation, bar none. No risk of accidents, no danger from mechanical failures, no threat of cyber attacks. Just the simple, unencumbered act of moving under one's own power. In an ideal world, we'd design cities to prioritize pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, creating safe, vibrant public spaces that encourage people to get out, to interact, to live life to the fullest. The solution is clear: ban all vehicles, self-driving or otherwise.
12. Special fences could be put in place, such as those with openings so that any pedestrian is clearly visible when he approaches the rails, for example, curved openings.
13. The naysayers. They'd complain, sure. But change rarely comes easily. The world would adapt, as it always does. Think of the children - our future - being spared the danger of cars. The benefits far outweigh the temporary inconvenience. Besides, there are plenty of alternative modes of transportation already in use.
14. Cars emit pollutants that contribute to respiratory diseases and global warming.
15. Cars require vast amounts of fossil fuels, metals, and rubber.
16. The car industry promotes oil drilling, leading to environmental disasters.
17. Tire wear releases microplastics into the environment.
18. Asphalt roads and car engines contribute to overheating cities.
19. Roads and highways require cutting down forests, destroying habitats.
20. Car fluids like oil, coolant, and brake fluid contaminate water supplies.
21. Millions die and dozens of millions are injured and millions are left permanently disabled in car crashes each year.
22. Car dependency reduces physical activity, contributing to obesity, further causing health costs to rise.
23. Car engines and honking harm mental health and disturb wildlife.
24. Driving leads to anxiety, frustration, and aggressive behavior.
25. Vehicle emissions worsen asthma, lung disease, and heart problems.
26. Cars endanger cyclists and pedestrians, especially in cities.
27. Treating car-related injuries and illnesses costs hundreds of billions, in addition to even damage to economy caused by losing millions of human lives.
28. Owning and maintaining cars on its own is expensive for individuals and governments.
29. Wasted time in traffic harms productivity, reduces amount of free time and harms mental well-being.
30. A car-free society could redirect funds to better transit systems.
31. Car ownership is a privilege, excluding lower-income individuals from mobility.
32. Cars encourage poorly planned cities with long, unsustainable commutes.
33. Roads and parking lots consume valuable space in form of parking, garages, repairs, lanes...ect. that could be used for housing or parks or increase freedom of movement of pedestrians.
34. Suburbs force people to rely on cars, making life difficult without one.
35. Cities would be safer and healthier with pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
36. Banning cars would encourage bike use, improving health and efficiency.
37. Even trains, buses, and trams would be more effective without cars clogging roads.
38. Removing cars would make urban areas more peaceful and livable.
39. It is easier, faster and cheaper to transport resources with rails than by trucks.
40. Walkable cities support small businesses rather than big corporations.
41. Reducing car use would leave a healthier planet for our children.
42. A car-free world could encourage much stronger communities and much better use of technology.
43. Cars emit greenhouse gases and increase city heat, which accelerate global warming and its associated consequences.
44. Cars create significant noise pollution, disturbing peace and affecting mental health.
45. Cars contribute greatly to traffic jams, wasting time and fuel, and causing stress.
46. Cars encourage urban sprawl, leading to the loss of natural habitats and farmland.
47. Cars rely heavily on fossil fuels even today, contributing to resource depletion and geopolitical instability.
48. Building and maintaining roads and parking lots is expensive, diverting funds from other essential services.
49. Cars contribute to water pollution through oil leaks, tire wear, and road runoff.
50. Car-centric societies lead to social isolation and reduced community interaction.
51. Car ownership can be expensive, exacerbating economic inequality.
52. Cars and associated infrastructure can detract from the aesthetic appeal of urban environments.
53. Cars cause great resource depletion and take away lots of work force. Car manufacturing and operation require significant amounts of raw materials and energy.
54. Heavy traffic and large vehicles damage roads and bridges, requiring constant costly repairs.
55. Air pollution from cars exacerbates asthma and other respiratory conditions, especially in children.
56. Cars contribute to the formation of smog, which reduces visibility and harms human health.
57. Road networks and car traffic disrupt ecosystems and harm wildlife populations. Cars kill hundreds of millions of animals each year, causing great harm to animals, some which end up severely injured and die in horrible pain on roads.
58. Many countries rely on foreign oil to fuel their car fleets, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and price fluctuations.
59. Car emissions contribute to acid rain, which damages forests, lakes, and buildings.
60. Many studies have linked exposure to car exhaust to an increased risk of cancer.
61. The cumulative impacts of car use greatly reduce overall quality of life by degrading the environment, harming human health, and creating stressful living conditions where movement is risky and difficult.
62. The production and disposal of cars require significant amounts of resources, contributing to waste, waste of resources and pollution.
63. The infrastructure required to support cars, such as roads and parking lots, takes up valuable limited land and resources.
64. Cars are a major contributor to climate change, with the transportation sector being one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
65. Cars can be a significant financial burden, with the cost of ownership, maintenance, and fuel being a major expense for many people. This reduces the amount of money people have for their own families, education, healthcare...ect.
66. The reliance on cars leads to a sedentary lifestyle, contributing to a wide range of health problems.
67. Cars can be a barrier to social interaction, with people spending more time alone in their vehicles than engaging with their communities.
68. The extraction and refining of oil required to fuel cars can have devastating environmental and social impacts.
69. Cars can be a major contributor to urban sprawl, leading to the destruction of natural habitats and ecosystems.
70. The manufacturing process for cars is harmful to workers, with many facing poor working conditions and exposure to toxic chemicals.
71. Cars can be a symbol of status and wealth, perpetuating social and economic inequalities.
72. The parking requirements for cars can lead to the destruction of green spaces and the degradation of urban environments.
73. Cars can be a barrier to accessibility, with many people unable to afford or access vehicles.
74. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to deforestation, with many materials required for production being sourced from forests.
75. Cars are a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity, with the construction of roads and other infrastructure leading to habitat destruction. This greatly harms animals, but also humans because humans depend on nature and its balance to prevent diseases for humans and plants and animals which provide food. If nature is destroyed, then there is nothing which prevents diseases, as natural environment acts as barrier to diseases.
76. Cars can be a significant source of light pollution, disrupting natural light cycles and impacting human health.
77. The extraction of rare earth metals required for electric vehicles can have devastating environmental, economical and social impacts.
78. Cars can be a major contributor to the urban heat island effect, with the pavement and infrastructure required to support vehicles absorbing and retaining heat.
79. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the depletion of natural resources, with many materials required for production being non-renewable.
80. Cars can be a barrier to sustainable transportation options, with the dominance of car culture making it difficult to implement alternative modes of transportation.
81. The maintenance and repair of cars can be a significant source of toxic chemicals, with many substances used in the process being harmful to human health and the environment.
82. Cars can be a major contributor to the degradation of soil quality, with the construction of roads and other infrastructure leading to soil erosion and pollution. This makes food we eat be of lower quality.
83. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of individualism, leading to a lack of community engagement and social connection which then causes great mental health problems for whole population.
84. Cars are a significant contributor to the problem of urban fragmentation, leading to the separation of communities and the degradation of public spaces.
85. The dominance of car culture can lead to the neglect of alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, and public transportation.
86. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of electronic waste, with many vehicles containing complex electronic systems that can be difficult to recycle.
87. Cars can be a barrier to social mobility, with the cost of car ownership and maintenance being a significant burden for low-income households.
88. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of convenience, leading to a lack of physical activity and a range of health problems.
89. Cars can be a major contributor to the problem of traffic noise, with the constant flow of traffic leading to a range of health problems, including stress, anxiety, and hearing loss.
90. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of water pollution, with the manufacturing process requiring large amounts of water and generating significant amounts of wastewater.
91. Cars can be a barrier to community engagement, with the dominance of car culture leading to a lack of public spaces and community facilities where people gather or spend time together.
92. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of resource depletion, with the manufacturing process requiring large amounts of raw materials, including metals, plastics, and other resources, which reduces amount of resources available to other productions and drives up price of resources.
93. Cars can be a barrier to sustainable urban planning, with the dominance of car culture leading to the prioritization of roads and parking infrastructure over public transportation, pedestrianization, and cycling.
94. The construction of roads and highways required to support cars can lead to the displacement of communities, with the destruction of homes and businesses to make way for new infrastructure.
95. Cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of urban blight, with the abandonment of vehicles leading to a range of environmental and social problems.
96. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of labor exploitation, with many workers in the automotive industry facing poor working conditions and low wages.
97. Cars can be a barrier to accessibility, with the dominance of car culture leading to a lack of public transportation options and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
98. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of consumerism, with the constant need for new vehicles and accessories for them leading to a range of environmental, economical and social problems.
99. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of electrical energy consumption, with the manufacturing process requiring large amounts of energy.
100. The banning of cars would make people feel safer, and families would no longer lose their dear ones in avoidable accidents.
101. Cars can be a barrier to sustainable agriculture, with the dominance of car culture leading to the prioritization of roads and parking infrastructure over agricultural land and local food systems.
102. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of speed, with the constant need for faster travel times leading to a range of problems, careless driving and accidents.
103. Cars can be a major contributor to the problem of environmental injustice, with the negative impacts of car culture disproportionately affecting low-income and marginalized communities and poor countries.
104. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of economic inequality, with the manufacturing process generating significant profits for corporations while exploiting workers and communities, and expensive and high quality cars being made only for wealthy.
105. Cars can be a barrier to urban renewal, with the presence of roads and parking infrastructure limiting the potential for urban redevelopment and revitalization.
106. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of individualism, with people prioritizing their own personal transportation needs over the needs of others and of the community.
107. Cars can be a barrier to community resilience, with the dominance of car culture making communities more vulnerable to disruptions in fuel supply and other external shocks.
108. Cars can be a barrier to social equity, with the cost of car ownership and maintenance limiting access to good transportation for low-income households.
109. Cars can be a major contributor to the problem of food deserts, with the presence of roads and highways limiting access to fresh and healthy food options in urban areas.
110. In Japan, people have much less cars per 1000 population than in USA, but Japan has much less accidents in traffic.
111. The construction of roads and highways required to support cars has lead to the displacement of indigenous communities, with the destruction of ancestral lands and cultural heritage sites.
112. Cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of ozone depletion, with the emissions from vehicles contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.
113. Cars can be a barrier to sustainable urban planning, with the dominance of car culture leading to the prioritization of roads and parking infrastructure over public transportation, pedestrianization, and cycling.
114. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of competition, with people competing for limited road space and parking, leading to a range of social problems.
115. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of economic instability, with the automotive industry being a significant contributor to economic instability and volatility.
116. The dominance of car culture can lead to the neglect of pedestrian infrastructure, with sidewalks and crosswalks being poorly maintained or non-existent in many areas. It also directly reduces amount of money available for those.
117. Cars harm nature greatly. Eternal nature always and as unstoppable punishes the violation of her commands. Man cannot harm nature without harming himself.
118. Cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of heat-related illnesses, with the heat generated by vehicles contributing to a range of health problems, including heat stroke and exhaustion.
119. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of instant gratification, with people expecting to be able to travel always anywhere quickly and easily, without considering the environmental and social impacts of their actions, leading to waste of resources.
120. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of addiction, with people becoming dependent on their vehicles and experiencing withdrawal symptoms when they are unable to drive.
121. Cars can be a barrier to community resilience, with the dominance of car culture making communities more vulnerable to disruptions in fuel supply and other external shocks or any problem which often disrupts the car transport system.
122. Cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of noise-induced hearing loss, with the sound of vehicles contributing to a range of health problems, including hearing loss and tinnitus.
123. The dominance of car culture can lead to the neglect of public transportation, with buses and trains being underfunded and inefficient in many areas.
124. Cars can be a barrier to walkability, with the presence of roads and highways making it difficult or dangerous for people to walk in many areas.
125. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of disconnection, with people spending more time alone in their vehicles and less time interacting with their communities, harming social and mental health.
126. Cars are a barrier to community engagement, with the dominance of car culture leading to less public spaces and community facilities that bring people together.
127. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of ableism, with people with disabilities being marginalized and excluded from transportation systems.
128. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of speed, with people prioritizing speed over safety, effectiveness and sustainability.
129. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of circular economy failure, with the linear production and disposal of vehicles contributing to a range of environmental and social problems, including waste and pollution.
130. Roads, parking lots, and highways take up valuable limited land that could be used for housing, buisnesses, parks, or public spaces. This drives up prices of houses and buisnesses
131. Car ownership is expensive, making it inaccessible for millions, reinforcing social inequality.
132. Owning and maintaining a car is expensive, with fuel, insurance, and repairs adding up. This makes insurance companies profit at the expense of people.
133. Banning cars would force investment in alternative transport and cycling, and walking infrastructure.
134. With cars banned, much more people would cycle and walk, leading to much better health and greatly reducing healthcare costs and mortality rate while increasing life expectancy.
135. Car manufacturing relies on unethical mining practices for materials like lithium and cobalt
136. With much better and safer alternatives available, continuing to use cars excessively is ethically irresponsible and impossible to defend.
137. Asphalt greatly absorbs heat only during summer, raising city temperatures and increasing energy consumption for cooling as well as increasing rate of heat related health issues.
138. Road fatalities and injuries alone surpass those caused by majority of diseases, making cars a very significant danger for humans for that reason alone.
139. Many car interiors release harmful chemicals like benzene and formaldehyde.
140. Traffic congestion can slow down ambulances, fire trucks, and police.
141. Walkable cities encourage community interaction, while car dependency isolates people.
142. Car culture promotes inefficient urban expansion, increasing environmental and social costs.
143. Large parking lots and roads create unsafe, empty spaces that encourage crime.
144. Car-centered urban planning often displaces poorer communities.
145. Many disabled individuals cannot drive, making car-centric societies exclusionary.
146. Trains, buses, and bicycles are more efficient in transporting people per square meter than cars, when it comes to energy costs.
147. Cars lose value rapidly, making them a poor financial investment.
148. Car-focused cities hurt local businesses as people shop at distant big-box stores instead of walkable local shops, which discourages local buisnesses.
149. Without cars, cities could replace many with parks and community areas.
150. Car-free areas would allow children to play safely in neighborhoods.
151. Banning cars would discourage crimes like theft and kidnapping which happen mostly with the use of cars.
152. Less pollution, noise, and stress create happier, healthier communities which have less crime and less mental health problems.
153. With fewer cars, cities could adopt cleaner, more efficient delivery systems using bikes, drones and electric cargo rails.
154. Many people take out loans to buy cars, trapping them additionally in financial burdens, often even leaving debt to their children.
155. Autonomous vehicles may reduce crashes slightly but require even more massive infrastructure, energy, and resources, making them economically draining.
156. Prioritizing cars greatly slows investment in alternative transportation solutions.
157. Governments struggle to maintain aging car infrastructure, leading to dangerous conditions.
158. Urban air quality would improve overnight if cars were banned.Cities that have reduced cars greatly have seen immediate air quality improvements.
159. De-icing roads using salt contaminates rivers, lakes, soils and drinking water.
160. Producing cars releases vast amounts of CO₂ before they even hit the road.
161. Car production requires steel, lithium, and rare earth metals, leading to mining destruction.
162. Car crashes overburden hospitals and emergency responders.
163. Many people have no choice but to own a car due to poor public transit caused by promoting car culture.
164. Highways cut through cities, separating neighborhoods and making them less accessible.
165. Pedestrian-friendly cities reduce crime, while car-centric areas increase isolation.
166. Sitting in traffic wastes millions of hours daily.
167. Many families spend a huge portion of their income on car payments, insurance, and fuel.
168. Even non-drivers are forced to pay for roads through taxes, subsidizing car owners.
169. Car insurance is a major financial burden on economy that could be avoided with better transit.
170. Cars and trucks cannot be morally justified because system which kills and hurts children greatly cannot be morally justified.
171. Cars didnt exist always, and they wont always exist in the future.
172. Public transit is safer. Trains, buses, and subways have far fewer fatalities than cars. However, a special rail network would have even more safety.
173. Rail and cargo bikes replace inefficient truck deliveries.
174. Cities with good public transit experience shorter average commutes than car-dependent ones.
175. Without cars, people wouldn’t have to waste hours on maintenance, parking, and fueling, enabling them to have more free time for improving themselves.
176. Walkable areas promote small businesses and local markets over big-box retailers.
177. Cars promote individualism over community. Car culture emphasizes isolation, while public transit fosters value of social connection and value of community.
178. The environmental destruction caused by cars will affect generations to come.
179. Car companies use media to manipulate consumers into thinking car ownership equals success.
180. Trains, buses, cycling, and walking already provide better, safer, and fairer transportation solutions.
181. Roads and parking lots prevent water absorption, leading to more urban flooding.
182. Even electric vehicles produce pollution and emissions from tire wear, mining, battery pollution and energy production.
183. Non-drivers suffer from cars just by living in car-heavy areas.
184. Car crashes flood emergency rooms, diverting resources and care from other patients.
185. Growing up in car-heavy environments can lead to developmental delays from lack of outdoor activity.
186. Microscopic particles from brakes contribute to lung diseases.
187. Highways bypass small towns, leading to their economic decline.
188. Many cities prioritize roads over parks, plazas, or sidewalks.
189. Car dependency makes it difficult for non-drivers (children, elderly, disabled) to be independent.
190. Banning of cars would enable free public rail transport system, helping the poor greatly and giving them more freedom.
191. Car-centric urban planning erases traditional city layouts in favor of generic highways.
192. Highways and car-focused development have displaced many low-income communities and have increased homelessness.
193. Car accidents cause massive economic losses in terms of reducing workforce, population and resources. It is not just moral argument that human lives are worth more than money, but cars are a waste of money as well.
194. Lost productivity, medical expenses, and legal costs from crashes hurt the economy.
195. Many cars have dangerous design flaws requiring expensive recalls.
196. Studies show that investments in transit generate more jobs than road projects.
197. Unlike railways, roads constantly degrade and require costly repairs.
198. Retailers spend millions maintaining parking lots that could be better used.
199. Subways and metros move far more people per hour than highways.
200. Future transit innovations make cars obsolete.
201. High speed rails and trains are much faster than cars while also being much safer.
202. Well-planned cities with bike lanes and transit eliminate traffic confusion.
203. Without massive roads, cities could grow more local food.
204. Car ownership encourages wasteful spending and consumerism.
205. A car-free world would eliminate the risks associated with drinking and driving.
206. Many police encounters involve unnecessary traffic stops, and plenty of resources are wasted on police controlling car traffic.
Con
#2
Thanks for all those points. I unfortunately wasn't able to read them all thanks to the length, but I read enough I think I understand. Sorry if you have already covered my following points.
Our society depends on locations and jobs, if people couldn't get to those locations quickly, society would crumble. Without doctors making it to work, people would die, and without electricians going to places we would soon be without power. If vehicles were banned right now, we would have no effective replacement and thus society would crumble.
You mentioned replacing it with a rail system. Well, that would be a huge project and would take years to finish. And also, cars would be needed to get to the building sites for the railways. Also, rail systems would not solve pollution. If they run on gas it would cause the same problems, and if they ran on electricity, than the power plants generating that power would be creating pollution.
Also, currently when cars get to old to work or break, their parts can be used to repair new cars, but with cars banned, there would be no way to reuse those parts and thus landfills would get filled with cars people are no longer allowed to own.
Round 2
Pro
#3
we would have no effective replacement and thus society would crumble.
This was already partially covered in a sense that there are already alternative ways of transport, like buses, bicycles, walking, electrical bicycles, scooters, bikes, horse carriages...ect. Saying that people would die if cars were banned is not true, as it is cars which cause many deaths and safer way to travel exists. There are many cities which banned cars and they didnt experience any kind of "crumble of society" but they improved greatly in safety and health, and people started using alternative ways to move around.
You mentioned replacing it with a rail system. Well, that would be a huge project and would take years to finish.
Everything takes some time to finish. Even banning cars. Doesnt mean that it shouldnt be done. It doesnt even matter if it takes few years of gradually banning to completely ban cars and trucks. It is still very worth doing it because it saves millions of lives and builds a much better transport system which is more economically efficient and pays off greatly.
And also, cars would be needed to get to the building sites for the railways.
If you mean trucks to deliver resources to build railways, I am not sure if that would be even mandatory or effective with helicopters, drones, horse carriages and transport bikes being a thing. As for people getting to the building sites, they can use other modes of transport I mentioned before. But even if we were somehow forced to use cars to build railways, it changes nothing as the cars and trucks would still be banned after railway system is built and running. I do also need to mention that trains existed before cars did, so they dont depend on cars in any way. Until railway system is finished, alternative ways of transport can be used instead of cars and trucks.
Also, rail systems would not solve pollution.
Rail systems use less energy than cars per transported person, thus they pollute less even if they use same fuel source, as they use much less fuel than cars and move faster.
with cars banned, there would be no way to reuse those parts and thus landfills would get filled with cars people are no longer allowed to own.
Cars and car parts can be melted into basic parts for other purposes. Besides, if we used these small difficulties as an excuse to keep cars on roads forever, then we would lose countless lives and achieve nothing better in terms of life quality or economy.
My opponent didnt make any case for why cars are beneficial to keep when we know about the great harms they cause and that they are economically ineffective.
Thats it for responses, so I will move on with my arguments.
207. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of electronic waste, with many vehicles containing complex electronic systems that can be difficult to recycle.
208. There are many cities which banned cars, and in those cities, not only did deaths in accidents greatly reduce, not only did air quality improve, but people became much healthier and much happier and relaxed.
209. Cars can be a barrier to sustainable agriculture, with the dominance of car culture leading to the prioritization of roads and parking infrastructure over agricultural land and local food systems.
210. Even if we were to say that cars enable us to have more money or more freedom, then it would be most immoral to sacrifice children's lives and cause them horrible pain for some more money some more freedom. But cars dont give more money. They cost much more and use more resources, hence population has less money. They dont even give more freedom. Not only do they destroy freedom of millions who die and dozens of millions who end up injured, traumatized and disabled, and of those who have no money for a car making their movement very difficult, but entire population suffers more from mental illnesses, difficulty of movement, fear for safety, worse health, higher taxes, children and their parents live under stress knowing their lives are at risk, children see their friends, their pets or animals run over by cars. This harms mental health of all future generations and causes them traumas which no amount of money or freedom in the world can make up for.
211. Banning cars and trucks improves military and safety from wars. With lives saved and with resources saved, and with rails enabling much faster and larger transport of resources and people, there are more resources and manpower for military and country's defense, and there are more people willing to defend their country because their country becomes a much better place to live in that is more worth of defending. In this way, country which bans cars doesnt just become richer, healthier and safer, but also safer from wars, civil wars and all types of crime.
212. Cars cause the existence of racing and high speeding on the streets, which further endanger lives. If cars arent banned, then it causes many people to not respect traffic laws and destroy even more lives.
213. Cars are not beneficial. Not to economy, not to freedom, not to health, not to happiness, not to safety, not to intellectual development, not to mental health. If something is not beneficial but is very harmful on so many levels, and banning it prevents further harm, then the logic dictates that it should be banned if we want to prevent harm. By "should do something", it is usually considered something where benefits of doing it outweigh the costs. We can see that benefits of banning cars far outweigh the cost of such an action.
214. Cars can be a barrier to social equity, with the cost of car ownership and maintenance limiting access to transportation for low-income households.
215. The reliance on cars can perpetuate a culture of privilege, with those who have access to cars having greater mobility and freedom than those who do not.
216. Cars can be a barrier to urban forestry, with the presence of roads and highways limiting the potential for tree planting and urban greening initiatives. With number of trees reduced in cities, cars further reduce air quality, health and beauty of a city.
217. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of "resource curse", with the extraction and processing of raw materials required for car manufacturing leading to a range of environmental and economical problems.
218. Most countries are not capable of producing enough cars, so for them, banning cars would be an even greater economical benefit as they would reduce import costs by banning cars, which would empower local economy even more.
219. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of chemical contamination, with the manufacturing process requiring the use of hazardous chemicals and generating toxic waste.
220. Cars can be a major contributor to the problem of food system vulnerability, with the reliance on cars for food transportation and distribution making the food system more vulnerable to disruptions.
221. Car transport increases the cost of food, and increases all prices which are related to car transport. Since car transport costs more money than other forms of transport, it directly increases all prices in stores due to high cost of transport. Additionally, any increase in fuel price further triggers increase of all other prices much more, because cars use much more fuel than other forms of transport.
222. Cars can be a barrier to sustainable land use, with the presence of roads and highways limiting the potential for sustainable land use practices, such as permaculture and agroforestry.
223. Cars can be a significant contributor to the problem of mental health problems, with the stress and monotony of driving leading to a range of mental health problems, including anxiety and depression.
224. The production of cars can be a significant contributor to energy price volatility. Cars drive up the price of all resources and energy(electric and fossil) they use and which they transport and which depends on their transport, which further harms economy.
225. Cars discourage people from cycling or walking, because they make these activities dangerous.
226. Electric bicycles are a good alternative to cars as well, since they can travel very far and almost anyone can use them.
227. Cars make people more selfish. With drivers constantly pushing boundaries in traffic and thinking they have right to greatly harm others in the name of freedom, it promotes a culture where people think they should get what they want no matter how much it hurts others, causing people to lose respect for other humans.
228. Cars cause millions of deaths, yet we allow them for convenience. Killing someone or injuring someone intentionally is illegal and against the law. Intentionally allowing, producing and enabling cars kills millions and injures dozens of millions every year. So cars cannot be even legally justified.
229. Other dangerous products: "lead paint, unsafe toys..." get banned, but cars remain legal despite much higher fatalities.
230. We criminalize risky behavior like drunk driving, but not the inherent risk of driving itself which is the source of a problem.
231. Country cannot be energy and resource independent if it depends on cars, and most countries do depend on cars. Creating a system without cars removes dependance on other countries and control they might have.
232. Cities struggle with housing shortages caused by lack of land, but dedicate massive space to parking.
233. Speed limits exist to introduce at least some safety, yet all cars are built to greatly exceed them, and most drivers greatly break speed limits.
234. Ads show open roads, but reality is often traffic jams.
235. We tell kids to be active and play outside, but design neighborhoods where they must be driven everywhere and can barely move anywhere safely and must stop before roads all the time and slowly cross dangerous roads all the time to get anywhere.
236. A lot of money is used on educating and training car drivers, but with cars banned, that money is saved as well.
237. Cars kill more people than wars do. What do you get out of cars which is worth killing millions of people for?
238. Cars cause horrible pain to so many people that they cannot be morally justified.
239. Cars harm education and the pursuit of knowledge by reducing people's free time for learning and the amount of money they have to gain education. By reducing people's ability to gain knowledge, cars cause people to make much worse decisions in life, which on a large scale harms the whole country in both governing and private and public lives.
240. Constant traffic noise disrupts sleep, thus further increases stress, and harms mental health.
241. Banning cars would instantly force investment in buses, trains, cycling, horse carriages and walking infrastructure.
242. With much better alternatives available, continuing to use cars excessively is ethically indefensible.
243. Walking, trains, buses, horse carriages, electric bicycles, bikes and regular bicycles are more efficient in transporting people per square meter than cars.
244. Without cars, cities could replace roads and parkings with buisnesses, parks, housing areas and community areas, improving life quality and economy.
245. With fewer cars, cities could adopt cleaner, more efficient delivery systems using bikes and electric cargo bikes.
246. Autonomous vehicles may reduce crashes but still require massive infrastructure, energy, and resources.
247. Governments struggle to maintain aging car infrastructure, leading to dangerous conditions.
248. Highways and roads often cut through wetlands, disrupting crucial ecosystems.
249. Highways cut through cities, separating neighborhoods and making them less accessible, which reduces community interaction.
250. Sitting in traffic wastes millions of hours daily.
251. Without cars, people wouldn’t have to waste hours on maintenance, parking, and fueling.
252. Even electric cars produce emissions from tire wear, mining, and energy production.
253. Growing up in car-heavy environments can lead to developmental delays from lack of outdoor activity.
254. Subways and metros move far more people per hour than highways, and use less energy per person.
255. Future transit innovations make cars obsolete.
256. Well-planned cities with bike lanes and transit eliminate traffic confusion.
257. Without massive roads, cities could grow more local food.
258. Car-focused policies neglect those who can’t drive.
259. If cars were banned, society would develop better, safer transportation systems.
260. Asphalt production and road maintenance release toxic chemicals into the environment.
261. Millions of trees are cut down to create space for parking.
262. Some studies suggest a correlation between high-traffic areas and increased suicide rates.
263. Cars become deadly heat traps, especially for children and pets. Many children died a horrible death after being left in cars during heat.
264. Investment in car infrastructure diverts funds from better, more efficient public transit.
265. Car-heavy suburbs greatly reduce spaces for children to play freely.
266. Many underestimate the true cost of car ownership, including depreciation, maintenance, and insurance.
267. A few major corporations dominate the auto industry, reducing consumer choices and keeping prices high.
268. Car companies influence policies to prevent investment in alternatives.
269. Governments spend billions on traffic control, signals, and policing that wouldn’t be needed in a car-free society.
270. Without cars, people would live closer to work, school, and stores, strengthening communities.
271. Without cars, technology would develop better electric micro-mobility solutions.
272. More walking and biking would lower obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates.
273. Rail transport moves more goods with less energy than truck-based systems.
274. A car-free society would create demand for innovative mobility solutions, boosting the economy.
275. Car dependency fuels wars and political instability over oil-rich regions.
276. Traffic-related disputes and aggressive driving escalate conflicts.
277. Low-income areas suffer from the worst traffic pollution and least investment in alternatives.
278. Car-related laws require constant enforcement, leading to wasted government resources.
279. Banning cars would force cities to redesign themselves for a more sustainable future.
280. Old tires, batteries, and scrap cars contribute to massive landfill waste as a result of car use.
281. Car paints contain harmful chemicals that can leach into the environment.
282. Cars sitting in traffic or idling at red lights waste fuel and produce unnecessary emissions.
283. New car interiors emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can harm human health.
284. Public transportation has significantly lower death rates compared to car travel.
285. Gasoline-powered cars can catch fire in accidents, causing severe injuries and deaths.
286. Sidewalks and pedestrian areas shrink to accommodate roads.
287. Employees stuck in traffic reduce overall workplace efficiency.
288. Investing in trains and transit systems is cheaper than maintaining car infrastructure.
289. Most countries rely on car imports, sending money out of the local economy.
290. Cars break down often, requiring costly repairs and emergency services.
291. It is much cheaper to buy one train to transport 1000 people daily than to buy 1000 cars for all those people. Also, one train breaks down much less often than 1000 cars.
292. Walkable communities lead to healthier populations.
293. Trains and buses follow schedules, while cars face unpredictable traffic.
294. Criminals use cars for quick getaways, making law enforcement much harder.
295. Owning a car is seen as a status symbol, creating economic and social pressure.
296. Road surveillance systems and traffic control raise concerns about government overreach.
297. Lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries pose environmental hazards.
298. Valuable farmland is lost to highways and urban sprawl, increasing cost of food.
299. Teens and young adults are dependent on parents for transportation in car-centric societies.
300. Even minor crashes result in financial and legal burdens and costs.
301. Investments in rail and buses create more employment opportunities.
302. Walkable, bike-friendly cities like Amsterdam and Venice are major tourist destinations.
303. A network of bike lanes costs less than building and maintaining highways.
304. Without cars, buildings can be closer together, creating vibrant urban environments.
305. Without cars, alcohol-related crashes would disappear.
306. Public transit is more affordable than car ownership, and can even be made free, which benefits poor communities greatly.
307. Many lenders exploit people with high-interest car loans.
308. Car ownership can be a barrier for low-income individuals. Banning cars could promote more equitable transportation options.
309. Fewer cars can lead to less habitat destruction and roadkill, helping to protect local wildlife.
310. Reducing car usage can help cities adapt to climate change by decreasing heat emissions and improving urban greenery.
311. Car-free areas can promote local businesses by making them more accessible to foot traffic.
312. Countries that ban cars could set an example for others, leading to global movements towards sustainable transportation.
313. A car-free future aligns with long-term sustainability goals, ensuring a healthier planet for future generations.
314. Cars encourage urban sprawl, leading to inefficient land use and the destruction of natural habitats.
315. Cars promote reliance on non-renewable energy sources, hindering the transition to sustainable energy.
316. Car ownership can exacerbate social inequalities, with low-income individuals facing barriers to access.
317. Maintaining roads and highways is more expensive for governments and taxpayers.
318. Banning cars can help shift societal values toward sustainability and community over individualism.
319. Car-free areas tend to boost local businesses as people are more likely to walk and explore.
320. A society that relies less on cars will generally have a lower carbon footprint.
321. Banning cars aligns with global efforts to combat climate change and adhere to international agreements.
322. Fewer cars mean less wear and tear on roads and bridges, extending their lifespan.
323. Cities can be designed to be more aesthetically pleasing without extensive parking lots and highways.
324. Legal cars imply freedom of movement, yet also many accidents that infringe on others' safety.
325. Cars offer personal convenience, but collectively create traffic jams, accidents and expenses that negate that convenience.
326. Cars are a leading cause of emergencies.
327. Car technology advances, but much of it remains reliant on fossil fuels.
328. Car manufacturing and related industries create jobs, but car accidents and pollution increase costs greatly.
329. Cars necessitate extensive infrastructure, which consumes significant land.
330. Cars require extensive and expensive regulation to ensure safety and environmental standards.
331. Cars are private property, but their use relies on publicly funded roads.
332. Cars contribute to the depletion of finite resources.
333. With no need for driving, people have even more free time to do as they like when they travel in public transport.
334. Car use relies on personal responsibility, but the system inherently carries systemic risk which cannot be avoided.
335. Car centric design makes many public spaces inaccessible to those without cars.
336. Poorly planned cities are more car dependent.
337. Cars drive short term economic gain, but create long term cost which outweighs the gain greatly.
338. Cars rely on vulnerable and complex supply chains.
339. Licenses are required for cars, but they don't guarantee consistent skill, good behavior or judgment.
340. Emissions are tested, but vehicles can be tampered with or malfunction after testing.
341. Parking is regulated, but available space is often insufficient, leading to congestion and illegal parking, thus legal costs and time waste.
342. Vehicles are registered, but stolen vehicles still operate illegally. Banning cars removes the crime of theft of cars, as well as many other crimes, reducing prison population.
343. Car culture is prevalent, but urban density makes car ownership and use impractical for many, as car culture degrades.
344. Roadside assistance is available and expensive, but remote area breakdowns can pose significant challenges.
345. Traffic is monitored for safety, but this raises privacy concerns.
346. Cars enable dangerous drug dealers to operate easier and sell drugs easier, causing more crime and harm.
347. Car advertising promotes car ownership, but public health messaging often discourages it.
348. Car modifications are common, but they can compromise safety standards.
349. Car shows celebrate car culture, but environmental awareness campaigns highlight its negative impacts.
350. Cars require maintenance, but some manufacturers design for planned obsolescence to increase profits.
351. Car washes consume large amounts of water and cause harm to environment.
352. The romantic ideal of the "open road" clashes with the daily reality of gridlocked traffic.
353. The perceived "right to drive" conflicts with the "right to clean air", safety and a healthy environment.
354. Car ownership is often seen as an investment, but cars rapidly depreciate in value and dont provide economic gains.
355. Cars are objects of passion for some, but for most, they are used for mundane commutes.
356. Cars are not solutions to transportation problems, but contribute to traffic congestion, pollution, social inequality and they ruin health and safety.
357. Car ownership is seen as a personal choice, but the collective impact of car use affects everyone.
358. Cars are symbols of wealth, but many hidden costs are associated with ownership, and with rich people buying very expensive cars and multiple of them, car prices increase.
359. Cars are seen as modern, but the concept of personal transportation is ancient and cars arent special in any way.
360. Cars are used for individualism, but car culture promotes conformity.
361. Cars offer a sense of control, but road hazards and other drivers introduce unpredictability, causing fears.
362. Cars are said to facilitate exploration, but also contribute to the homogenization of landscapes through standardized infrastructure.
363. Cars dont represent progress, but their dominance has lead to the loss of traditional skills and crafts related to transportation.
364. Cars offer a sensory experience through driving, but also create a sensory deprivation through enclosed vehicles.
365. Road rage and racing introduce an element of chaos which cannot be avoided if cars are allowed.
366. Cars wouldnt be taken away with car ban. You just wouldnt be able to drive them on roads. You could sell them to be taken apart and earn some extra money while benefiting from free public transport.
Con
#4
You mentioned islands without cars, but those had a lot less cars to begin with and are a smaller area making transportation easier. My point still stands that our main transportation is cars and our society depends on transportation.
My argument is not that they are more beneficial than other transportation, but rather that banning them would cause more harm than good, because though after they are banned things might be better, the transition would be chaotic, and though maybe not a full apocalypse, would be disastrous.
To demonstrate how much chaos happens when you ban something people depend on, I'll draw upon a recent example.in my country, the United States, TikTok got banned for just a day and it created some chaos because some depended upon it for income.
If there was some chaos from the banning of a social media platform, there probably would be a lot of chaos from banning what is for many places, including my own, is the only transportation system other than flight.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You mentioned islands without cars, but those had a lot less cars to begin with and are a smaller area making transportation easier.
Size of area is irrelevant, as cars arent the only nor the most effective way of transport on long distances. Railway is 7 times faster than car, for example.
My point still stands that our main transportation is cars and our society depends on transportation.
Uses =/= depends.
We dont depend on cars as we can use other forms of transport which are better.
My argument is not that they are more beneficial than other transportation, but rather that banning them would cause more harm than good, because though after they are banned things might be better, the transition would be chaotic
Not banning cars is chaotic. Cars kill 40000 people every year and injure over 2 millions in USA. Cars kill 1000 children every year and injure 150000 children every year in USA alone. Over 40 years, that adds up to millions dead and 70 millions injured. That is chaos.
If there was some chaos from the banning of a social media platform, there probably would be a lot of chaos from banning what is for many places, including my own, is the only transportation system other than flight.
If cars are banned anywhere, then there the government would replace them with free public transport of self driving railways and self driving buses, or enable alternative transport like bikes, cargo bikes...ect.
I will post more arguments next round.
Con
#6
I am going to give the simple response of, some places, including where I live, actually do depend, not just use.
Also, cars are the best transportation in some specific areas. For a combination of many reasons such as:
1. Money: people in those areas don't have money for other transportation. Cars are cheaper to produce and easier to find.
2. Distance: people sometimes need to get further than trains would allow.
3. Specificity of destination: sometimes people need to ge to very specific places. Non-car transportation often only allows for people to go to specific places because the transportation is not personally owned.
Also, fixing this by building better transportation systems to replace cars would take decades, while I am understanding this debate as if cars should be banned now.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I am going to give the simple response of, some places, including where I live, actually do depend, not just use.
Personal stories arent really evidence if you dont explain how and why.
1. Money: people in those areas don't have money for other transportation. Cars are cheaper to produce and easier to find.
Cars are the most expensive transportation system there is. Not only do they transport much less people than trains and buses, but in terms of energy efficiency, buses are 17 times more energy efficient than cars, and cost less, as 1 bus transports over 50 people where you need over 20 cars to transport that much. So buses would in the long run make transport system over 17 times cheaper, saving people's money. Also, public transport would be free, so these people would save lots of money on transport.
2. Distance: people sometimes need to get further than trains would allow.
I didnt say just railways. I also said cargo bikes and self driving buses would be available too. You can own a cargo bike.
3. Specificity of destination: sometimes people need to ge to very specific places. Non-car transportation often only allows for people to go to specific places because the transportation is not personally owned.
False, as car isnt the only type of personal transport, and public transports would anyway cover all roads where people live. And second, it is irrational to argue that you can kill people to get somewhere.
Also, fixing this by building better transportation systems to replace cars would take decades, while I am understanding this debate as if cars should be banned now.
It wouldnt take decades. Maybe it would take less than a year to get enough self driving buses, and about few years to build more railways. Many railways and buses already exist, so they would be used more as well.
As for "banning now", no law is ever instant. Preparations take place. Gradual banning could take place, but cars are to be banned as soon as better system is put in place, which should happen very quickly if the decision is made. We could even be talking of months, not years, as many people already can easily replace their cars with alternative transportation or use existing public transport. So it should obviously be done. No one is saying it has to be instant, just as soon as possible.
Con
#8
Let's look at the alternatives.
Bikes/ motorcycles/ similar: have shorter distance. Also, just like cars can crash, and crashes are much more fatal with them thanks to lack of protection. Non-powered ones are slow, and powered ones often cause just about as much accidents and are as pollution causing as cars.
Walking: very, very, slow.
Trains: limited locations that can go to, time in between being able to be used.
Flight: expensive and takes a lot of experience.
Buses(because you mentioned them): probably would get banned along with cars in this scenario, as they are essentially giant cars that aren't personally owned.
Also, gonna say a situations where cars are the best, and currently only, option. Large areas of farmland. Their are mo public transportation systems, and even if the government did decide to build them in more places, these areas probably would be skipped or forgotten because advancements in technology in general are slower to get there. And bikes are too slow and limited distance to be a reliable method of transportation because out there most things are many miles apart and spread out.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Bikes/ motorcycles/ similar: have shorter distance.
Not true. Cargo bikes can carry fuel with them, and bikes generally use less fuel than cars, so this is a blatant lie.
Also, just like cars can crash, and crashes are much more fatal with them thanks to lack of protection.
And the point is missed completely here. Did you know that those who ride bicycle are also more likely to die than those who drive cars per same distance traveled?
The reason why they die so much is cars. Its the cars and trucks which kill them. Cars endanger all other forms of transport on roads. With these banned, bikes, electric scooters and bicycles become much safer and many lives are saved.
Non-powered ones are slow, and powered ones often cause just about as much accidents and are as pollution causing as cars.
Already responded to. Bikes use less fuel than cars, so they pollute less as well.
Walking: very, very, slow.
Very very safe and healthy, and should be encouraged by banning cars. There was even a man who walked entire planet.
Trains: limited locations that can go to, time in between being able to be used.
The locations are only limited if railways are limited, which they dont have to be. But any gap would be filled by other ways of transport, like buses or bike taxi or if short distance, walking which is healthy.
Flight: expensive and takes a lot of experience.
Drones deliver resources all the time.
Buses(because you mentioned them): probably would get banned along with cars in this scenario, as they are essentially giant cars that aren't personally owned.
Buses arent cars nor trucks. Hence, the different names for different things. My opponent had opportunity and space to negate self driving buses argument, but he didnt produce a single argument against them. In this sense, it is an unchallenged argument.
Also, gonna say a situations where cars are the best, and currently only, option. Large areas of farmland. Their are mo public transportation systems, and even if the government did decide to build them in more places, these areas probably would be skipped or forgotten because advancements in technology in general are slower to get there.
This is incorrect, as bus system can be introduced anywhere and would have to be introduced everywhere to replace cars and enable free public transport for all, creating more equality. Government couldnt anywhere ban cars without replacing them properly, and to claim it could is absurd and wouldnt work.
And bikes are too slow and limited distance to be a reliable method of transportation because out there most things are many miles apart and spread out.
Electric bicycles have wide range, and fuel cargo bikes have wider range than cars as they use less fuel while being able to carry fuel as cargo as well.
My opponent's case is simply: "cars are sometimes needed", yet he didnt produce a single example where car cannot be replaced by cargo bike, rail or bus, and he also didnt provide any explanation as to why even if such example did exist, why would it be justified to allow killing of people and animals just so some specific place can be reached. Since buses, rails(by placing railways) and cargo bikes can use all roads which cars can use, and can transport people and goods, it is not possible to provide a valuable example where bus or cargo bike or rail cannot replace a car, and since my opponent didnt provide example for 4 rounds, the last round is too late for new examples anyway.
My opponent didnt challenge economic ineffectiveness, great harms, deaths, injuries and disabilities which cars cause, with the mere driving being bad for health and taking away free time, where public transport lets people do different activities during transport and relax instead of driving. He also provided no response to argument that rails are much better, cheaper and faster for transport of resources.
I will post my remaining arguments, so we finish this.
367. It doesnt matter much if car producers run out of buisness. Their buisness isnt more important than so many human lives and they can move to produce alternative transport options or do other buisnesses which improve economy.
368. Cars make country poorer and less safe. Self driving buses would be much better than cars and better than self driving cars as well in terms of safety and economy. Thus, with so many better choices than cars, it is unreasonable to choose cars.
369. There are already alternative ways of transport, like buses, bicycles, walking, electrical bicycles, scooters, bikes, horse carriages...ect. Saying that people would die if cars were banned is not true, as it is cars which cause many deaths and safer way to travel exists. There are many cities which banned cars and they didnt experience any kind of "crumble of society" but they improved greatly in safety and health, and people started using alternative ways to move around.
370. Everything takes some time to finish. Even banning cars. Doesnt mean that it shouldnt be done. It doesnt even matter if it takes few years of gradually banning to completely ban cars and trucks. It is still very worth doing it because it saves millions of lives and builds a much better transport system which is more economically efficient and pays off greatly.
371. Trucks to deliver resources to build railways is not mandatory or effective with helicopters, drones, horse carriages and transport bikes being a thing. As for people getting to the building sites, they can use other modes of transport I mentioned before. But even if we were somehow forced to use cars to build railways, it changes nothing as the cars and trucks would still be banned after railway system is built and running. I do also need to mention that trains existed before cars did, so they dont depend on cars in any way. Until railway system is finished, alternative ways of transport can be used instead of cars and trucks.
372. Rail systems use less energy than cars per transported person, thus they pollute less even if they use same fuel source, as they use much less fuel than cars and move faster.
373. Cars and car parts can be melted into basic parts for other purposes. Besides, if we used these small difficulties as an excuse to keep cars on roads forever, then we would lose countless lives and achieve nothing better in terms of life quality or economy.
374. My opponent didnt make any case for why cars are beneficial to keep when we know about the great harms they cause and that they are economically ineffective.
375. People who depend on cars to get to work will be forced to choose one of the alternative, much safer ways of transport after the ban. This is much better for their safety, and cheaper in the long run.
376. It is possible for people to stop using cars, as proved by cities and islands which dont have cars. Same can apply to whole countries and whole world.
377. If people reject to ban cars, then it is their fault that so many lives are lost and that poverty increases, just as it was their fault when they chose cars in the first place over much better forms of transport.
378. The change isnt easy, but it does save millions of lives throughout decades.
379. It is not possible to defend that money of some individuals or companies is more important than lives of millions.
380. If your only argument is that "People dont want it", then that is not an argument. We are debating what people should do from a moral perspective. Maybe people want to kill others, but thats not really an argument not to ban murder. We already know that cars kill people, and the realized intention to use them results in millions of deaths.
381. Over past 40 years, millions died in car accidents in USA alone, with dozens of millions severely injured and disabled by car accidents. In 2022 in USA, an estimated 2.38 million people were injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Over 40 years, that adds up to over 90 million injured people, adding huge cost and drain to healthcare.
150,000 children are injured in car accidents every year in USA. That is 6 million injured children over 40 years.
1000 of children die every year in USA from car accidents. That is 40000 children killed by cars over 40 years. Children didnt choose that, and neither did all the non-drivers who get hurt by cars in many ways.
If it wasnt for cars, 1000 children would be saved every year and 150,000 would be saved from injuries every year.
Every year, roughly 1.9 million people worldwide die as a result of car accidents, according to the WHO. In addition, 20 to 50 million people each year, on average, sustain a non-fatal injury that often results in a disability. That is over 70 million deaths and 800 million injured people world wide over 40 years.
If you think its okay to injure and kill so many innocent people, then thats your issue.
382. Imagine it, you sell your car, and you can use public transport for free. So you get money and keep movement ability.
If its just implemented in USA, you can sell to people from another country. If banned in whole world, you can sell it to be melted or broken into parts.
383. Self driving cars cost more money and are still less safe than self driving buses. One bus transports much more people than one car. So instead of 50 people having 50 cars, you can have 1 bus transporting 50 people. Saves lots of fuel too.
For example, in USA, 200 million cars x 30,000 = 6 trillions.
But bus costs about 200,000, which amounts to a total of about 1 trillion cost. School buses cost 100,000, for example.
384. Size of area is irrelevant, as cars arent the only nor the most effective way of transport on long distances. Railway is 7 times faster than car, for example.
385. Uses =/= depends.
We dont depend on cars as we can use other forms of transport which are better.
386. If cars are banned anywhere, then there the government would replace them with free public transport of self driving railways and self driving buses, or enable alternative transport like bikes, cargo bikes...ect.
387. Buses are much more energy efficient than cars. Bus uses 3 times more energy than car, but transports 50 times more people. That is 17 times more effective. Buses would in the long run make transport system over 17 times cheaper,
388. Sure, government could gradually introduce self driving buses. But the delay causes loss of life.
389. Extrapolating globally based on total length of roads, roughly 5.5 million animals are killed per day, or over 2 billion animals annually. This is a serious harm done to animals by cars which cannot be morally ignored, as animals feel pain and are sentient beings which dont deserve to suffer so much just so humans could drive cars which they dont need to drive anyway.
390. You can own a cargo bike, even the ones with three wheels for winter transport, but not a car.
391. Car isnt the only type of personal transport, and public transports would anyway cover all roads where people live. And second, it is irrational to argue that you can kill people and animals just to get somewhere.
392. It wouldnt take decades. Maybe it would take less than a year to get enough self driving buses, and about few years to build more railways. Many railways and buses already exist, so they would be used more as well.
393. As for "banning now", no law is ever instant. Preparations take place. Gradual banning could take place, but cars are to be banned as soon as better system is put in place, which should happen very quickly if the decision is made. We could even be talking of months, not years, as many people already can easily replace their cars with alternative transportation or use existing public transport. So it should obviously be done. No one is saying it has to be instant, just as soon as possible so that lives can be saved and economy, environment, air and health quickly improved.
Con
#10
I noticed you have been copy and pasting arguments, as a lot of the arguments you just gave are the same you gave previously, word for word. Also, you say I haven't been proving cars beneficial, when have been proving just that. Also, you said I was lying about there being places where public transportation would be unlikely to happen, but I know from loving in places like that that there are many places in the US where even technology that everyone is supposed to have are slow at getting there. I was not lying about that.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
I was going to make this a conduct only vote, but with the choice of point system I cannot.
Pro: Gish Golloping to such an extreme and apparently copy/pasting your previous stuff as if its new, will most likely only lead to victory if the other person leaves the site... Which means you get to debate less, so it'll cost you more than you gain. You'll be lucky if a judge skims more than the first five, and the hit to credibility will make one well researched point outweigh it all. This isn't saying you can't Gish Gallop, but I do advise doing it in moderation and conceal it within subpoints (say make three organized arguments, and have ten subpoints each).
The big problem in this debate is that you have the burden of proof, and no judge will read all that to see if you made a single compelling case.
Con: While the setup is forcing me to give you full victory instead of just a conduct victory, you didn't really win. A single well executed point would have carried the day, but in your confusion over handling the Gish Gallop you wanted out of the debate and half assed it. That said, your points were intuitively correct which carries a good amount of weight, but there was something missing... A single statistic would have outdone the whole Gish Gallop, but you kept your case ambiguous. That said, the need for work trucks was effective. Had you cited say a statistic on how many lumberjack companies use helicopters and dedicated light rails instead of trains (it's 0%), you could have carried the day with ease. ... So in gist, to defeat the tactic you went against, commit to a single strong point, give a source or two, and flush out the implications of it.
PS: Not that it came up, but buses are effectively trucks. It seems this debate wanted to be one on private automobile ownership, but in the urge for AI assisted Gish Galloping, didn't quite take form.
Thanks for voting! I appreciate the feedback.
So much spam and nonsense. focus on relevant and strong points instead of insane quantities. It's a better experience for everyone
Thanks
I'll see what I can do. Looks like it has a while in the voting period, so just remind me.
Good debate!
Are you interested in voting on this? Fun and very new topic.
Ok, I fought to the end despite frustration.
The site doesnt have a forfeit button. You can either post something, anything, either wait till time runs out.
Where is the forfeit button? I have realized I dont want to argue with this nonsense but can't find the button to quit. Also sorry for calling it nonsense in this comment
Sure, but saying "gish gallop" doesnt disprove or outweight any of my arguments.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
With 5 rounds, it should be about 1000 arguments in total.
I hope 206 arguments is enough for 1 round. I tried fitting in more.
See if you are interested in debating this.