This house would abolish school runs

In this round, I would like to identify clashes in this debate and neutralize my opponent's attacks and argumentation. CLASH ANALYSISEven before analyzing some clashes, I’d like to attack my opponent’s approach and technique. Firstly, he did not offer proper points and only at his third round, he started giving some of his own substantiated argument. His arguments in the second round were just rebuttal points contrary to my argument that I substantiated. I did not felt like it was a debate but more of opponent commenting on my points only. Secondly, he has not rebutted any of my points with proper statistical data or even attempted to undermine legitimacy of my arguments but only gave few minor hypothetical situations. That is not even close to a rebuttal because in rebuttals, it is expected for debaters to try to undermine the fundamental logic beneath each argument, not just show counter cases because in no debates, a side is required to show that their argument is correct in all cases but they are only required to prove the norm. Nothing can apply in every single situation and no one should be required to prove that something apply in every single situation. My opponent here believes that providing few minor counter-examples is a proper rebuttal against a case that is substantiated with facts and general logic. Thirdly, my opponent also seems to believe that denying a fundamental flaw in a problem is the best rebuttal. He has keep on arguing that school run is not fundamentally wrong but it is just that the people who are causing problems. First of all, at the beginning of Round Two, I have mentioned that there is no fundamental flaw. Secondly, my opponent in fact conceded and admitted that I am correcting in saying that people DO cause problems. Thirdly, this is neither an accepted nor a legitimate rebuttal because thinking it that way, nothing is wrong then. Let us assume that there is a debate on whether we should allow every single citizen to freely carry guns on streets only for self-defense and to protect their loved ones. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with self-defense or carrying around a gun in holsters. But as a result of passing this motion, if cross-fires happen every single block, can we possibly argue that gun permit is not fundamentally wrong but it is that the PEOPLE who are causing problems? The reason why there are certain limits about carrying guns on street is because the result turns out negative not really because self-defense is bad. The same logic applies to school run. School run itself is fundamentally healthy. Nevertheless, it causes many disadvantages and harms. For that reason, we are debating if we should ban it or not. Just because something is fundamentally unflawed, it does not mean it becomes completely from being banned. But my opponent seems to be misunderstood that fundamentally being unflawed means it cannot be touched whatsoever, regardless of what damages it causes. Denying a fundamental flaw of something problematic is not a legitimate rebuttal. In this debate, I have spared thousands and thousands of characters explaining some reasons why it is bad and for that reason, it has to be banned. From three attacks, I have shown you that my opponent cannot differentiate from rebuttals to arguments and from acceptable rebuttals to logical fallacies. I ask the voters to please keep this point in mind when this debate goes under voting period. I will now proceed in my clash analysis Clash 1: Severity of problemsAs a Con, my opponent was expected to negate that there is a problem with current situation or to at least to defend and lessen the severity of the situation. However, instead of doing what he was supposed to do, my opponent conceded that there is a problem but just that the problem is caused by humans not because of school runs. I thank my opponent for agreeing with me from the beginning of the debate. I wish to ask my opponent though, if it is not the humans, who are the other creatures that can cause problems. It definitely is and can only be the human who causes problem because school run itself cannot pose more danger to individual or to the society. To elaborate more on harms that school run cause due to existence of human being, I explained that social harms and individual harms are caused due to school runs that human beings do. Under social harm, I had two sub-points, that parents endanger more students in the process of school run and that traffic problems are caused by vehicles doing the action of school run. Under individual harm, I explained that school run is one contributing factor that constitutes the main reason why child obesity rate is increasing and how illegal parking and how parents’ disobedience to the law set an adversary example. Not realizing the severity of the situation, my opponent listed some reasons why school run might be useful in some cases at the end of his third round. However, I never claimed that school run is never useful. However, the essence of my argument was that school run causes more problems and it has reached a point where harm outweighs the benefit. Clash 2: Necessity of abolition Opponent sort of attacked the necessity of abolition at the middle of his Round Two and said that what is required is a discipline. Nevertheless, I have neutralized that argument in three layers. Firstly, I showed the further severity of the situation by giving how school run not only poses more threat but how students being driven to school are harmed. Secondly, I have shown how discipline will do no help in eliminating the threat caused by school run (which is bigger than the threat that made parents drive their children all the way to school) since the threat lies within the fact that so much car gathering at a confined area which is a problem that “disciplining” is not designed to solve (stricter laws and more enforcers do not directly cut down number of cars piling up each morning). Thirdly, I listed benefits we gain from banning school run. All in all, I have shown that school run is in fact a greater danger than letting students walk to schools but not only that it causes so much other problems, however, brings benefits when disposed. Those three reasons added up together makes abolition more reasonable and yet unavoidable consequence. Again, I want to restate that the harm outweighed the benefit of school run. Clash 3: Validity of alternatives I have given alternatives to school run such as cycling, school bus, walking school bus and walking. My opponent tried to undermine the validity of these alternatives by suggesting possibility of cyclers falling and dying on road, school buses being full and supervisor of walking school bus being kidnappers. I have successfully proven these claims to be wrong by pointing out that they are only minor situations which cannot possibly undermine my case. Some benefits in return of implementing these alternatives were also offered which at the end of the day, proved that not only replacing school run is necessary, but also beneficial and safe. But even before examing who's argument dominated each clash, it is noteworthy that my opponent did not use any statistics or citation in rebuttal or argumentation. MINOR POINTS I figured that few points my opponent gave at the end of his previous round were pretty irrelevant to big picture analysis of the debate so I excluded from clash analysis. I will make brief attacks. Con's first argument can be dismissed due to the statistics that close to half of travles are less than 2 miles. His second point can be refuted by saying the fact that banning school run cannot fundamnetally solve illegal parking problem is not an exucse or explanation on why we shouldn't ban it. For thrid argument, I say that general opinion (70%) wants school run banned. Arguments four and five have been touched in this round. That concludes my round. Back to you, Con