This house would abolish school runs

In this final round, I will deal with how I accomplished my burden of proof. I will explain this by summarizing both sides’ case and then showing which side won each argument. In three layers, I will show that I ultimately fulfilled the burden of proof. 1. School run is causing problems My opponent tried to prove that there is absolutely nothing wrong with school run because it is the fault of the people who are causing problems of school run. However, that is not a valid rebuttal since nothing is problematic if taken in that sense. It is always the humans that do a certain action that cause problem. Not only this, the Con argued that what is necessary is not abolition but stricter law. This means that Con is already agreeing that there is a problem. There are a lot of problems with school run. It poses greater threat than students walking to school on their own due to crowdedness of the traffic at that time. Huge amount of illegal parking and traffic congestion blamed to school run. Not only this, school run is one part of the factor that decreases students’ exercise time. Observing and witnessing illegal parking and other offenses that occur in the process of school run also sets a bad example to the new generation. Please keep in mind that the fact that school run poses greater threat than the risk of students walking to school is already enough to call the abolition of this measure. 2. Alternatives and benefits that follow The Con tried to undermine the validity of my alternatives but it is very clear his attempt did not work. This was done in two ways: he gave highly generalized cases to prove my alternatives wrong and exaggerated the risk of the alternatives. The contender argued that alternatives are invalid claiming that alternatives cannot replace school run. However, these measures are valid since about half of students who use the method of school run lives approximately 2 miles away from the school which can be walked in less than 30 minutes and cycled much faster. For other half, there are alternatives such as public transportation, subways, cycling and so on. The alternatives I suggested are clearly valid enough to replace school run when it is disposed. My opponent also gave extreme cases to exaggerate danger of alternatives. For example, he argued that students might fall from the bike and probably end up losing their lives or supervisors of walking school bus being kidnappers. But I would like to clarify that this kind of minimal risk exists everywhere. Even when we use the method of school run, probability of accident exists. Hence, the risk that my opponent pointed out is not wrong but they cannot be described as the problem of the alternatives. Can we argue that because there is possibility of car blowing up due to terrorist attack, we should ban school run? No. That risk is minimal to begin with and is not the problem of school run but the risk we undertake in our lives. When we abolish school run, we immediately have more students doing physical exercise to get to school. Not only that, 1/7 of the traffic at morning is likely to be gone. Student will tend to grow habit of exercising regularly because at least twice a day, they involuntarily exercise. But the best part is that the threat that students face each day drops dramatically. These are all the benefits that my opponent left out in the debate. 3. Reason that abolition becomes necessary Down the bench in this debate, it has become very clear that school run that carried good intention ended up causing both individual and social harms. School run delays workers trying to get to work, decrease the time that students exercise, do not help in forming good exercise habit and furthermore, threat the lives of student in a greater degree than any other ways of going to school does. We should solve the problems and enjoy the collateral benefits. That can only be done by banning the exercise of school run since that is the origin of all these problems. However, people are not generous. Parents will not voluntarily give up sending their children to school by car each day. The only way to stop this practice is if school run is forcefully abolished. If Con has a better alternative that solves all the problems and brings similar amount of benefit to everyone, I am happy to listen to Con. However, we can see that there is no other alternative. Putting a limitation to number of school run vehicles allowed each day? Who is going to monitor if the vehicle is allowed or not? With what standard, will we determine which are allowed and which are not? Will that fundamentally solve the problems? Slightly radical action that is convenient in regulating and is powerful has to come in place to respond immediately to some threats. For that reason, banning school run is inevitable and yet necessary. Please vote Pro to help the society and to protect the children in many different ways.