Business people, workers should be provided with dedicated fast lanes on city pavements (sidewalks)

By his silence on the issue, my opponent agrees with my interpretation of the resolution that it should be read as "business people and workers should be provided with dedicated fast lanes on all city sidewalks," a city being any place with more than 100,000 residents. In addition, remember my opponent as the instigator has the burden of proof on this topic. He should be forced to uphold his distinction of who is allowed in the fast lanes and who is not (business people are allowed, non-business people are not) and that the projects should be implemented on all city streets. 1. The Business Person/Non-Business Person Distinction By saying that "I concede that pedestrian fast lanes should not be exclusively for their use," my opponent has conceded this debate. He got to draft the topic, and he chose this distinction. If the topic were "fast lanes should be provided for carpoolers on highways," then we would all think that non-carpoolers would be excluded from these lanes. The topic is inherently exclusionary, and thus my opponent has conceded the debate to me on the unfairness inherent in his business person/non-business person distinction because it unfairly discriminates against those that do not perform traditional "work," such as housewives and college students. In addition, the fact that being a business person is not enough by itself to allow entry into the fast lane renders the law completely unenforceable, and it will result in mayhem. My opponent's enforcement mechanism is that business people may shove others out of the fast lane, but he also says that being drunk or morbidly obese are grounds for exclusion (even if you're a business person). As every business person takes the law into their own hands, this will result in chaos. People that are only slightly overweight will be shoved out of the lane, as will people who slow down slightly to smoke a cigarette while walking. Talking on a cell phone while walking could potentially be grounds for getting shoved out of the fast lane. Racial and gender stereotypes about some groups being faster than others might be grounds for being shoved out of the new pedestrian fast lanes. The combination of shoving and discrimination in exclusion from fast lanes could conflate to all out massive brawls occurring on city streets, which both endanger the public safety and counter-act my opponent's own mission of faster pedestrian traffic flows. 2. Enforcement I hope I've already shown why shoving is a bad enforcement mechanism. Since the forcefulness of the shove cannot be regulated, it is dangerous. People might be injured while walking if they are shoved too hard and hit the pavement. The government would then be liable for this dangerous law, causing huge costs to arise from lawsuit damage awards; the large number of cases against governments would also flood court systems worldwide, bringing caseloads to a standstill. My opponent says this law should not cause a problem legally, but shoving someone (in the United States) is defined as "assault and battery" and is illegal. Choosing to hit a jaywalker with your car is a prosecutable offense (you'll be let off only if you prove you "couldn't stop in time"). You'll end up in jail if the district attorney can show that you had ample time to stop but chose to run the jaywalker over anyway (because he or she "broke the law"), much as my opponent is saying that people should choose to unnecessarily shove each other on the streets, potentially risking bodily injury, simply because someone "broke the law" by entering the fast lane. Burglar example: Again, the law (somewhat ironically) protects burglars from the use of "unnecessary force" by homeowners. If a burglar breaks in and you point a shotgun at his face, then the burglar throws up his hands into the air and promises to either leave or sit still while you call the police, the law does not recognize your right to shoot him in the face at that point. Shooting an unarmed burglar in the United States is considered "unnecessary force" (as long as you know that her or she is unarmed), as is shooting a fleeing burglar in the back (since he or she is no longer a threat to you when fleeing). In addition, if someone punches you in the face during a fight, shooting that person in the stomach in response is not considered "self-defense," it is considered "the use of unnecessary force." Shoving someone who is in your fast lane is also using "unnecessary force." The new cost to the legal system from my opponent's new enforcement mechanism is going to outweigh any benefits from the policy. In addition, my objection still stands to painting lanes on sidewalks where foot-traffic is moderate to non-existent. My opponent writes off labor costs, but if you ever get your car serviced, you'll know that even if parts are really cheap, labor costs are a major expense. People's time is valuable. 4. Practical objection By stating that "the scheme cannot, therefore, be adopted everywhere," my opponent again concedes this debate. I think we all agree that at the very least he needs to prove that it should be done in all cities. By conceding that Dallas does not even have traditional sidewalks, my opponent concedes that the topic he drafted is not possible. I began this debate by saying that I agreed with the Oxford Street project but that I believed that my opponent had a greater burden of proof than simply proving that the Oxford Street project is a good idea. I consider "not all cities are busy enough to warrant such a scheme" another concession. Lastly, my opponent agrees that cities' whose sidewalks are too narrow should not implement "business people only" lanes. I believe that justifies a negation of the resolution. 5. Slow down My opponent's original article for the Oxford Street project points out that many people will only save approximately three minutes during their commute, but supposedly that time adds up over a period of years. However, I cited a study (from The Age) that compares people in "fast-walking" cities to "slow-walking" cities and finds that heart disease is less prevalent among the "slow-walkers" because, although they share the same jobs and busy schedules as people in fast-walking cities, they do not let the stress of the job weigh upon their shoulders and force them to hurry up in every part of their non-work lives. People who view the commute as an opportunity to relax, think, breathe, listen to music, enjoy a nice walk, etc are going to be much less stressed than people who try to get to-and-from work as quickly as humanly possible. People who view their commute as "me time" instead of as "work time" are going to be less stressed and lead longer lives. Remember my analysis from before that shaving 3 minutes off your commute each day is not going to add up if you shorten your life by 20 years from added stress culminating in a heart attack. For all of the above reasons, I believe my opponent has failed his burden of proof. He has failed to prove that the business person/non-business person distinction is fair. He fails to prove the policy is reasonably enforceable; in fact, he offers a dangerous and costly form of vigilante justice: each individual may shove people out of the fast lane who are deemed "too slow" by some subjective standard. This form of vigilante justice will result in fights and injuries, resulting in lawsuits. He fails to justify the cost of hiring laborers to draw the fast lanes on all city streets and the cost of potential lawsuits. And he fails to even justify the need to shave three minutes off the commute to work, instead of slowing down and enjoying a relaxing walk. In our instant gratification culture, we can learn a great deal from Aesop's Fables: "slow and steady wins the race." Workers of the world: be Zen! Negated