Travel Is The Very Essence of Life

Thank you for your response. Please note that using words and phrases which sound pompous but misplaced in sentences and typed in capital letters does not contribute to strengthening your stand. I have also noticed that you are attempting to shift the entire focus of this debate from travel as a whole, to specifically air travel. This should not be the case and will not be allowed to continue if a moderator is present. However, for the sake of continuity, I will continue addressing your expressed points. Just because you as an individual have limited knowledge about "cheaper fuel" or any of the "rich capitalist" and "poor people" rhetoric you have been repeating, does not mean that that information does not exist. For the benefit of the spectators of our debate who are unsure about the word "iota", it is the ninth letter of the Greek alphabet. It has been assigned the Greek numerical value of 10. In order to avoid distracting your debate opponent from key arguments using unnecessary jargon, perhaps it would be better to restrict its usage to only when necessary. Addressing your statement "And the combined profits from lots of poor people could be higher than the profits from just a few rich people.". If I were to approach it from a logical standpoint, the rich have significantly greater spending power (hundreds of thousands, millions, billions or trillions). This is enough to make anyone think twice before offering the claim that money from "lots of poor people" can definitely outweigh money from "a few rich people". To even suggest having "a few benches in the back of the passenger area that only cost about $50" and calling it "simple" to implement shows your utter lack of understanding about the design of an airplane (even though you claim to have visited an airplane museum). To have to learn how to fly your own airplane after buying one is obviously a requirement if you want to operate it yourself. I cannot think of any other alternatives if you want to operate your own airplane. The rest of the points in your second paragraph hardly makes for any discussion because they do not conform to reality. In response to your statement "Just because something is in a museum doesn't mean it's real.", I would like to confirm if your visit to the museum was actually a fantasy. Please refrain from creating restrictions on the main topic of discussion (in the sense of ignoring the multitude of alternative modes of travel). If the topic of discussion was about how air travel was the essence of life, then your fourth paragraph is very much warranted. Yes, the fact that you included the two Youtube videos as references is evident that you find the videos to be "valid references". What I have been trying to explain is how they are actually not as valid as you might believe them to be, considering our on-going discussion. I am no expert on the algorithm of Youtube and will cease to rebut your opinions about the algorithm of Youtube. By your reference to a logical fallacy called "appeal to majority", I will assume that you are actually referring to the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. If that is the case, I will hasten to remind you that my opinion about the Youtube videos is not solely based the fact that the videos did not have a combined viewership of more than 5 views (at the time of me viewing them). I did substantiate with a second sentence after. In response to your insistence that "nation" and "country" are the same. Please refer to these two separate definitions of the two words, as specified by the Oxford University Press. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... To insist that nation and country are the same might be equivalent to insisting that the Oxford University Press is wrong. In response to your statement "There's lots to do, but, like I said, I've done very little of all the things to do inside it, because travel is $#@#! expensive.", I have to say that this proves my point that your opinions are constrained by your very limited travel experience. Yes, it is true that America does not currently have "bullet trains". But do you truly understand the reason? Please read this article: https://www.forbes.com.... I did not at any point in time allege that you committed an Ad Hominem. What I did however mention was that I was worried about taking the risk of accidentally committing an Ad Hominem myself. Your interest in "poor people" is morbid in the sense that you repeatedly use them as examples of how air travel does not make for affordable travel. Your focus on air travel and how it is in-affordable to them skirts around the main topic of discussion and instead attempts to unnecessarily shift the direction the debate. In response to this statement "They want to travel, they just can't.", will you classify yourself as one of these "poor people"? If your answer is yes, I then like to invite you to look up the definition of poor (although I do know that the concept of rich/poor is comparative). It does not matter if you are a whiz in engineering. If you did read the article I shared as a reference, you will realize that the energy requirement to keep an airplane in flight is so huge that your suggestion of boiling water is purely laughable. Your subsequent reference to the book by Michio Kaku only applies to cars on the road, because the energy required to power a car is largely insignificant in comparison the the estimate of 7.3GJ for airplanes. GJ is Giga Joules, wherein Joules is the unit of measurement for energy. To attempt to provide everyone with a better idea of the scale of magnitudes: an average adult male requires 0.008GJ of energy in his daily food consumption. To keep an average 100HP petrol driven car running for an hour, 0.27GJ of energy is required. My figures are just rough estimates and you are most welcome to provide calculations proving me wrong (although the focus should not be on mathematical calculations). Car insurance may be made voluntary, since everyone should have the freedom of choice. I shall not further elaborate on this point because it has no bearing on our main discussion about how travel is the essence of life. You are most welcome to get rid of your car and replace it with a tricycle, it will definitely do the environment a lot of good. But will you actually replace your car with a tricycle? To actually replace your car with a tricycle amounts to embracing regression. The car is a very complex and highly advanced piece of machinery, to compare learning to operate a car with learning to draw an eyeball is most ridiculous indeed. In response to your statement "some states don't have oceans", I will assume that you actually mean to say that some States do not have immediate access to the sea or maritime facilities. This I can agree with. However, the rest of this paragraph consists of a composition of non-debatable fluff. Your last three sentences also further proves my point that your opinions are unfortunately constrained by your lack of travel experience. Hence, I end my final rebuttal by stating based on my personal experience that: travel is not only the essence of life, it significantly broadens one's perspective and helps develop one's character.