Ok, so i'm doing a debate for english, and at the moment it's a bit over my time limit. I'm second speaker, so 1/3 of my speech needs to be arguing back to the oposition said. This is my two points, so I'm hoping you could either shorten them, or tell me any bits that I can leave out. Oh, by the way my topic is "public transport in melbourne should be free" and i'm in the affirmative team. Thanks!
Now, if we didn’t have to pay, we would be preventing global warming in a few ways:
Number one, if we didn’t pay, we wouldn’t be cutting down trees to make tickets. And, deforestation is one of the main contributors to global warming. Another point is how there would be less cars on the road, because more people would be inspired use public transport, as this would cost less money than buying petrol for their ride. Which brings me onto the next part, less people driving cars would mean less petrol is being released into the atmosphere, therefore, preventing global warming and sustaining our resources a bit longer. And, not buying petrol would help save money, which the government could put towards trains, trams or buses.
Another point I would like to make is how unreliable this transport system is, and how we shouldn’t pay for something so unreliable. According to the Victorian Government’s transport website, about 3/10 of the trains of the Frankston line arrived later than they were scheduled to, in the last 12 months. And worse still, on the Wattle Park tram line, only 65% of the trams arrived at their destination on time, which means 35% of them don’t, and for those of you who haven’t caught a tram before, that’s a lot. Do you really want to pay for something as unpredictable as that? One small problem, like a faulty door in one carriage of one train, can disrupt the whole train line. And f it’s not delayed, most of the time people are packed into public transport like sardines in a tin, that’s if everyone fits in the first place. If you were an adult, and you wanted to buy a ten times two hourly ticket, for travelling in zone 1 and 2, that would cost over $40. Is that really fair? So you see, we really shouldn’t have to pay for something that has a reasonably sized chance of not being there.
I also have other parts of my debate, except I won't post them all. If you want to see them, then just ask.
Now, if we didn’t have to pay, we would be preventing global warming in a few ways:
Number one, if we didn’t pay, we wouldn’t be cutting down trees to make tickets. And, deforestation is one of the main contributors to global warming. Another point is how there would be less cars on the road, because more people would be inspired use public transport, as this would cost less money than buying petrol for their ride. Which brings me onto the next part, less people driving cars would mean less petrol is being released into the atmosphere, therefore, preventing global warming and sustaining our resources a bit longer. And, not buying petrol would help save money, which the government could put towards trains, trams or buses.
Another point I would like to make is how unreliable this transport system is, and how we shouldn’t pay for something so unreliable. According to the Victorian Government’s transport website, about 3/10 of the trains of the Frankston line arrived later than they were scheduled to, in the last 12 months. And worse still, on the Wattle Park tram line, only 65% of the trams arrived at their destination on time, which means 35% of them don’t, and for those of you who haven’t caught a tram before, that’s a lot. Do you really want to pay for something as unpredictable as that? One small problem, like a faulty door in one carriage of one train, can disrupt the whole train line. And f it’s not delayed, most of the time people are packed into public transport like sardines in a tin, that’s if everyone fits in the first place. If you were an adult, and you wanted to buy a ten times two hourly ticket, for travelling in zone 1 and 2, that would cost over $40. Is that really fair? So you see, we really shouldn’t have to pay for something that has a reasonably sized chance of not being there.
I also have other parts of my debate, except I won't post them all. If you want to see them, then just ask.