Pickup trucks should only be available to those who can prove they need them

Thank you for maintaining a good exchange of thought, Complex. I will now present my rebuttals. Round 1 Rebuttals: 1.) "They are not pragmatic vehicles for everyday usage as a commute car. They are over large, can be jacked significantly higher... Many pickup trucks do not fit within the length of the parking space...and make trying to back out a general nuisance." I certainly disagree with Pro's judgement on the vehicle's practicality as means of transportation. Certainly every car is practical for commuting. Denying this would simply deny the machine for its rudimentary purpose, transportation. Additionally, through the years, perks are added to cars to increase car company sales and raise competition, making some larger than others, faster, flashier, etc. But, the beauty of progress is manifest in this evolution. Differences are salient when thinking of a potpourri of automobiles and it is inevitable to not have small nuisances such as difficulty in parking and backing out. These are superficial problems compared to the deeper turmoil present in making pickup trucks hard to get. 2.) "They promote aggressive, unsafe driving... Anecdotal evidence from many peers suggest that being that high above the road and that much larger than other cars promotes a feeling of power, and this is the opposite of what needs to occur." This is fairly subjective. Being high up above doesn't necessarily inject a feeling of power, and if this is true, it wouldn't necessarily promote aggressive, unsafe driving. Also, if people really are overwhelmed by driving high up the road, wouldn't it be unfair to deprive these people of a temporary pleasure? And, with Pro's logic and reason, would pilots be more aggressive not to mention that they are so high up the air, making airplanes unsafe to fly on? I wonder. 3.) "In order to prove the need for such a vehicle, the prospective vehicle owner must provide proof of a job or hobby" As I stated before and strongly argue, this would restrict the people freedom to buy pickup trucks. If an enthusiast simply wants one, he couldn't buy one, depriving him of his right to happiness. Also, if this were to be imposed, it would strongly discourage people to buy pickups due to longer processes for validation and registration. What would happen if an agriculturist suddenly retire at 35 and had a pickup truck under Pro's world? Obviously, he is not a valid practitioner anymore. What would be of his possession to that car? There is only one word to characterize this. Processes. Processes. Processes. Round 2 Rebuttals: 1. The first paragraph of this segment of the argument is an epitome of Circulus Probando or circular arguments. "People should not be able to go out and just buy a truck because they want them, and I don't really believe they should be able to go out and rent a moving truck" says Pro, which certainly is not well explained and poorly corroborated, a circular argument nonetheless . Again, the deprivation of people's right to freedom and choice and happiness is a demoralizing action. Pro also made a fallacious analogy of a cat lady and a car enthusiast. Pro said that if a cat lady wants cats, she can go buying every cat in the county, simply because it makes her happy even though it's practical. A car enthusiast, on the other hand, can buy cars, for it makes him happy but because pickup trucks aren't practical, they should prove its practicality first before getting one. This is a flawed analogy for its mismatch. The precedent doesn't connect well with the antecedent for it introduces the value of proving practicality in the latter while being non-existent in the former. 2. Although it would hold true that competition may arise among pickup companies, this wouldn't elude the potential upheaval that is to come, the turmoil, the protest. Also, exclusiveness, as it may sound good in popular belief, is poorer than inclusiveness. All-out inclusion, having every person be open to choices are, in utmost, a massively beneficial theory. Economically, more customers, more profit. And, competition is already happening among industries as we speak. If we cut off the customer's population to workers-only population, it shrinks competition, shrinks profit. Over to Pro. And I am excited for this debate's end rounds.