The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

200th Debate: Drunk Driving Should Be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,738 times Debate No: 71946
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (125)
Votes (1)




The stuff written below this was written like a month ago and I'm no longer sure what it says, but whatever. This debate should only be accepted by Unitomic and I'm sure I tweaked it so only he can accept, if I'm mistaken please do not accept.

Any suggestions or critique of the debate is welcome.Rules1. The debate will be in reference to American laws of my opponent is American. If my opponent is not American than the debate will be with the more general assumption of a "just society".2. First round is for acceptance.

Edit: I know that self driving cars will soon be on the market, but I won't be arguing anything stupid, like they should be mandated or something like that.

Edit 2: A recent study confirms that most people are opposed to drunk driving.


1. First round is for acceptance
2. No Ks
3. No new arguments in final round


Acceptance: I accept Wylteds Debate, and will be arguing the Drunk Driving should not be made Legal.

I will be using a website to hold my sources:
The reason being that I tend to use multiple sources, and will sometimes turn a 9,000 character argument into 12,000 characters. So bear that in mind. They will of course still be categorized so as to be easily found.

Debate Round No. 1



I just saw my opponent"s comment about putting his citations offsite. I"d appreciate if he"d refrain from that, because I view it as a conduct violation. The reason I made the debate 10,000 characters is to account for the citations. I prefer smaller debates with less contentions. I"d advise my opponent to be more concise with his arguments, use tiny URL to condense space for his citations, or find some other creative solution. If he continues on his intended path, I"d advise the voters to deduct the conduct point from him.


Alcohol effects everyone differently, depending on race, age, gender medication, fitness level, weight and a whole host of other reasons. We all know somebody who is tipsy after just one glass of wine or another who is still sober after a 6 pack. The guy who drank a 6 pack and is over the legal limit may be fine to drive, while the woman who simply had a wine with dinner needs a designated driver. The legal level of the BAC is completely arbitrary and is too high for some people, while too low for others. What drunk driving laws really do is punish people for crimes they"ve yet to commit. The laws are intended to stop people from reckless and dangerous driving, but there are already laws against that. Why not just punish reckless driving more harshly than punish people who are driving great, despite being over the legal limit. Increasing punishments for reckless driving works as a catch all as well, so other types of people aren"t being needlessly punished. Particularly people who drive fine while talking on the phone, texting, eating, yelling at their kids in the back seat or putting on make-up at stop lights. A lot of people can do all those things while driving safely. The ones who can"t should obviously be punished for engaging in something that endangers others, but there is no reason innocent capable people should be punished.


In the movie "Minority Report" we see a pre-crime division of law enforcement. Three psychics are strapped into a machine and try to predict future crimes. Our instincts tell us that arresting people for a crime they haven"t committed, is wrong. The Minority Report leads us down that road, playing on that instinct and showing us why that"s true. The main character, an officer in the pre-crime division is predicted to commit a murder, which leads us down a series of events, I won"t get into now. All I"m trying to say is arresting somebody for a crime they may commit is fundamentally wrong. We know it when we watch the minority report. We know it when we talk about any scenario that has not been indoctrinated into us with endless commercials and the misdirected agendas of victims" rights organizations.
Just take the example of murder for instance. People are more likely to murder somebody when they"re angry. The reason we don"t outlaw anger, is because it"s something merely associated with murder. However it is neither the act of murder, nor does it guarantee that one will commit murder. Just like most instances of anger don"t lead to murder. Most instances of drunk driving, don"t lead to crashes, fatality or even reckless driving. We should not be making something associated with crime illegal, merely for its statistical association. Especially when most instance of said event, don"t actually lead to the actual committing of a crime.

We all know that using statistics to predict how harmful an individual is to society is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it"s a threat to liberty. There are stats that show young adult black males are more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group. I think everyone would agree laws created to stop those individuals from committing crimes before they start would be unfair. If murder is wrong, let"s punish it, but let"s not arrest people because of predictive statistical analysis. Let"s leave predictive statistical analysis to insurance companies and weathermen.
If it"s reckless driving we want to punish, let"s punish that.

Slippery Slope

There is a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope fallacy, but not every argument that is slippery slope, is a fallacy. What DUI/DWI laws have done is signal to legislators that punishing people for doing something that is statistically more likely to harm others is okay. We"re starting to see DUI/DWI laws being used to justify distracted driving laws. This threat to liberty shouldn"t be taken lightly. Using statistical analysis to punish frequent drive through users, angry mothers and people running late for work and have to do make-up on the go are already starting to be enacted. This slippery slope is very real, and it"s only a matter of time before we see people stopped for having droopy eyelids.

Drunk Driving Laws Lead to Violations of Rights

You would think people who are drinking and driving would only have something to worry about if the police had a reason to pull them over such as by swerving, speeding, forgetting to signal or otherwise driving recklessly, but this is not the case. Even an incredibly good driver is prone to being pulled over while obeying all the traffic laws. We now have what"s known as DUI/DWI checkpoints, where people are investigated for merely having a specific substance in their body, whether or not they are driving recklessly or a risk to the public is ignored.

As one site dedicated to the issue of checkpoints, points out. Even the judges that decided checkpoints should be legal admit that they infringe on the constitutional fourth amendment, of Americans to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

"In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court"s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment"s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

However, as several dissenting judges pointed out, the Constitution doesn"t make room for exceptions and, whether beneficial or not, DUI checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, forcing drivers to participate in "suspicionless investigatory seizures."
We have an institution sworn to uphold the constitution admit that these checkpoints infringe on our 4th amendment rights, and go ahead and keep it legal to continue to do so. A good way to get rid of this infringement on people"s rights is to abolish drunk driving laws.

Drunk Driving Laws Don"t Work

Let"s just admit it. Drunk Driving laws are totally ineffective, and in fact may be counterproductive. Before the legal limit went to .08 from .10 in the year 2000, experts predicted that. According to

"Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them."

There is simply no evidence that drunk driving laws actually do anything to prevent drunk driving accidents or to stop drunk driving. At best they are a waste of resources to pursue. All evidence seems to support that drunk driving laws are completely ineffective.

Lives Destroyed

Every day people have their lives destroyed by receiving drunk driving charges, when they were in fact driving perfectly fine, or in some cases even better than they would have sober, from fear of the effects of alcohol. Teachers and principals lose their jobs, when they"ve done nothing wrong. People go to jail, have increased car insurance payments when caught, even if they were perfectly fine to drive. We have politicians embarrassed and kids just starting out in college who can"t find a decent job upon graduating for just having a couple of beers.
Drunk driving laws hurt people who can drive perfectly fine after a few drinks, are a violation of our rights and have already set a dangerous precedent. Beyond that, drunk driving laws are completely ineffective, and in some cases increase the dangers of driving. If we want to stop reckless driving, awareness and stiff penalties for the actual act of driving recklessly are the way to go, not blanket laws that hurt the innocent and have no effect on achieving the desired result.


Preface:There was no rule against storing sources on an off-site page. Conduct can’t be deducted for it. I will however consider it depending on the number of Sources I use. Although I would like to give some now, I will have to wait until the next round for provide my own cases, due to time issues this round.

Synopsis: The Resolution is “Drunk Driving Should Be Legal”. Simple enough, Pro must show that drunk driving as defined by law should be made legal in all instances.

Proposition I:

Drunk Driving: the crime of driving a vehicle with an excess of alcohol in the blood. {1}



Proposition II: Pro must show that, in all cases, driving while intoxicated should be made acceptable. I, in contrast, must show that it is better to keep it illegal. If I can show that Pro’s arguments do not warrant legalizing drunk driving in all cases, than he will have failed affirmation of the resolution. All in all, I believe both sides should carry some BOP, however in the end Pro, as the opposer of the status quo, instigator of the debate, and Pro, my opponent carries all the normal determining factors of BOP.

Counter-Case I: Pre-Crime and Slippery Slope

Summarization: Pro tries to say drunk driving laws are examples of “pre-crime” law enforcement.

Counter: Pro gives a largely unrelated example through a movie. The problem is that that movie shows an actual example of arresting someone for a crime they have yet to commit. What is the uncommitted crime here though? Murder? No, the crime in drunk driving is endangerment. The crime is drunk driving itself. Pro mentions outlawing anger, however anger is a trait that we can’t stop. It will happen when it happens. Drunk driving is not the case. It is different in that you don’t simply become intoxicated. I cannot control when I get upset. I can control when I drink six beers. That difference alters the very nature of the comparison.

Pro says using statistics to show the danger of someone to society is wrong, however that is not an established moral, on any grounds. And we aren’t showing how dangerous someone is, we are using statistics to show how dangerous something is. Again, Pro uses the faulty comparison which ignores the variable of choice. Your race and age is not a choice. Your drinking is. Pro’s case here carries an impact. I could begin threatening my neighbor. Threatening to murder them and rape their wife. I can’t be arrested (or even kept an eye on), because I haven’t technically broken the law of murder.

Pro’s next argument is under “Slippery Slope”. Pro actually performs a different fallacy. Red Herring, an attempt to divert attention away from the actual matter {2}. This isn’t about cops using the law to ticket for distracted driving. Many would agree that distracted driving, such like DWIs, are acceptable, but even if we found that they weren’t, all this does is show that we should restrict DWIs to DWIs. It doesn’t actually impact whether Drunk Driving itself should be illegal.

Conclusion: I show here that Pro’s comparisons are faulty, and that drunk driving are an acceptable instance for the law to react to, as well as showing that the issues of expanding into other acts is a separate debate altogether, and a means of distraction alone.



Counter-Case II:Drunk Driving Laws Lead to Violations of Rights

Counter: Firstly, and foremostly, this is again a red herring. Whether DUI checkpoints are acceptable doesn’t change whether DUIs themselves are okay. We can keep DUI’s without having DUI checkpoints. Pro’s whole thing here is that if one part is flawed, we should destroy the entire system. No, either we remove that one part, or we fix it. We didn’t throw away the constitution because we were against the 18 amendment wasn’t liked after all. That said, I will however address it. Many accept that the constitution must be weighed against the need for security. For reasons such as this, the constitution was made flexible, and designed to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. {3} If the Supreme Court (the interpreter of the constitution) determines the act acceptable, then it is acceptable until the Supreme Court determines otherwise. Until the Court decides otherwise, the act is technically permissible, even if controversial. I suggest that Pro must show that it is better to change the Drunk Driving Laws (nevertheless remove them completely) is better than reinterpreting the constitution. Lastly, several states have done away with Checkpoints, but these still have DUI laws. {4} Those show that I am right in saying that Pro’s case doesn’t work.

Conclusion: Outside of addressing the matter of constitutionality, I have shown that this is not a major issue in the debate. We can keep DUI laws even if we remove Checkpoints.




Counter-Case III: Drunk Driving Laws Don’t Work

Counter: Pro’s quote refers again to Checkpoints. Yet again, we can get rid of checkpoints without getting rid of DUI laws. This would clear up Pro’s issue of police being taken off routes to man the checkpoints. As for the issue of people not driving erratically enough, we could simply raise it back up to 0.10%. Pro tries to say there is no evidence that these laws help. Purely unsubstantiated. The problem is though that he can’t show any example of how removing them would help. Most DUI laws have been in place so long that Pro can’t compare the effects of not having them. The fact is that Pro has to show us that removing the laws would reduce (or keep the same) accidents. The fact is that he is making a substantial claim here, and unless he can show us this evidence, he fails to give BOP for the claim. Regardless, I point out that if the current laws aren’t working, we should instead try to fix the system. We can implement more effective means, such as requiring car companies to install devices that keep the car off if alcohol is detected, {5} or increasing car patrols at bars. Also, Pros source at the bottom of that case refer to a specific law which deals with alcohol content for those under 21. Again, an specific matter, rather than a reason for removing the entirety of the DUI laws.

Conclusion: By pointing out the Pro’s explanation is based on Checkpoints impacting enforcement rates, I show that this entire case of his fails, as Checkpoints can be removed without removing DUI laws.



Counter-Case IV: Lives Destroyed

Summarization: Pro tries to say that the lives which have been harmed due to DUI laws are excuse enough to remove the laws

Rationalization: Three words. Appeal to Pity. {6} These people had made the choice to drink, and then proceed to drive. They did this, full well knowing it was illegal. They rarely ever had a good enough reason to drive afterwards. The only one to blame here is them. Not the system. If you don’t want to get arrested, then don’t break the law. The teachers and principals shouldn’t be influencing kids if they think it’s ok to get behind a wheel drunk. Politicians deserve the embarrassment if they are caught breaking the laws that they are responsible for. The kids also are responsible for their own actions, and have only themselves to blame. Of course it’s an exaggeration to say they suddenly lose most their chances at jobs due to alcohol. For some industries, yes. But again, don’t drink and drive if you know it will cost you a career. Pro ends by simply reciting his arguments, and actually suggests the unfounded idea that it makes it more dangerous (outside of the already shot down issue of checkpoints). {7}

Conclusion: Simply put, we are responsible for our own issues. We can’t just blame the system because we got behind the wheel drunk.




Closing Statement: Overall, Pro’s cases almost all revolve around the problems of checkpoints. Let’s remove checkpoints. Now we have removed most of Pro’s case, but the DUI laws themselves still stand. Many states have proven that point by still having them, regardless of not having checkpoints. Therefore the resolution is not affirmed there. The remaining cases are either unsubstantiated, pity appeal, or they faulty comparisons. Drunk driving is itself a law, and is broken knowingly and by choice, and thus cannot be compared to a law against things which are not a choice of ours. Pro does not affirm that drunk driving should be legalized, and thus as, at this point, failed the resolution.

Debate Round No. 2



I won't discuss it anymore unless my opponent has something of substance to add, but I'd appreciate if he refrained from placing sources outside of the debate. I think it's in bad taste and takes away from the spirit of what the 10,000 character limit is intended to do.

Now we get to the part of the debate I typically dread. I'd say about 25% of the debates I participate in that are meant to be serious devolve into splitting hairs. It's the point of the debate where your opponent has no serious objections to your premises or how they satisfy your conclusion and decides to throw out silly objections that can be cleared up by merely elaborating on your point, correcting them or have such little impact they aren't worth dealing with. That's what my opponent is doing, engaging in one giant logical fallacy known as splitting hairs, though it is debatable as to whether that actually qualifies as a logical fallacy or not.

Pre-crime/Purpose of Law

In instigating this debate and in my last round of arguments, I believe I presupposed a few things. I presupposed that my opponent and voting audience would know that the reasons we have laws are based on two things. We have laws for reasons of deterrence and retribution.

The reason I used the example of "The Minority Report" is to show the parallels to drunk driving. The comparisons certainly work and my opponent has for the most part, merely disregarded the meat of my argument which doesn't alter it's truth or impact.

Drunk driving laws do neither of these things and instead are an action meant to just punish portions of society which are statistically more likely to harm others. It would be no different than what occurred in the movie "Minority Report", where people are locked up for crimes they haven't committed yet, and may never commit. There is no evidence that drunk driving laws actually deter drunk driving in anyway. If we continue on with these laws, knowing no evidence exists that drunk driving laws deter drunk driving than we do so either unjustifiably or with some sort of justification for pre-crime laws, and my opponent has failed to show that justification.

Burden of Proof

My opponent does mention burden of proof in round two, when all those sorts of concerns should have been made round one. I don't want anyone to be confused as to what that means for individual arguments. It's accepted by anyone with even the most basic understanding of logic that positive statements are tougher to prove than negative statements. So if my argument is that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist and my opponent steps in with a statement that the Easter bunny does exist, than he is obligated to show me that the Easter Bunny likely exists.

When I state that drunk driving laws have no deterrent affect, he states counter to that; Drunk driving laws do have a deterrent affect, than he is obligated to prove that positive statement. The truth is that there isn't many studies done on the deterrent effect of drunk driving laws. I have shown one that supports my premise that it doesn't, my opponent has pointed out some weaknesses in the study. Honestly any study or research done will have flaws. Anybody presenting research they say is perfect, should be dismissed out of hand. The ball is in my opponents court to show the deterrent effect of drunk driving laws. We shouldn't accept conventional wisdom, merely because it has been beaten into us by the media, and advocates against drunk driving.

By the way, advocates against drunk driving pretty much acknowledge that the drunk driving laws have no effect.

The smarter members of these organizations focus on creating laws to raise the drinking age, passing laws that tax alcoholic beverages more and raising awareness.

Red Herring

I've broke from the outline me and my opponent are using for a reason, he's threaded certain ideals through the debate, and I'd rather address them all at once instead of multiple times.

My opponent has made the claim, that a few of my arguments are Red Herrings, which they are not. I think this comes from a misunderstanding of what the term means or the inability for my opponent to connect my premises to my contentions. Here are some examples:

"Pro"s next argument is under "Slippery Slope". Pro actually performs a different fallacy. Red Herring, an attempt to divert attention away from the actual matter {2}. This isn"t about cops using the law to ticket for distracted driving. Many would agree that distracted driving, such like DWIs, are acceptable, but even if we found that they weren"t, all this does is show that we should restrict DWIs to DWIs. It doesn"t actually impact whether Drunk Driving itself should be illegal.

This isn't a red herring at all. I'll spell my argument out in a syllogism to see it easier.

P1- Drunk driving laws set a legal precedent that it is okay to use statistics to determine a person's risk factor of causing harm and punish them for it.

P2- This precedent will lead to other laws being created to punish people for belonging to a group with a statistically high risk factor, though they may be an anomaly. (such as the distracted driving laws slowing coming out, that will prevent me from enjoying my Starbucks on the way to work).

C1- Creating slippery slopes that could lead to substantial and unjustified losses of liberty is bad.

You can see that this is in fact not a slippery slope because it supports the resolution. It supports that we should make drunk driving laws legal to erase this precedent and the slow erosion of freedom that points back to the drunk driving laws to justify "The next logical step".

"Firstly, and foremostly, this is again a red herring. Whether DUI checkpoints are acceptable doesn"t change whether DUIs themselves are okay. We can keep DUI"s without having DUI checkpoints. Pro"s whole thing here is that if one part is flawed, we should destroy the entire system. No, either we remove that one part, or we fix it."

This is not a red herring, and even if my opponent thinks the logic is flawed, it doesn't in fact make it a red herring. It's also easy to sit back and respond to every single flaw I point out with drunk driving laws, and merely stating that part should be undone with the system. I could list 100 flaws right now, and my opponent could point and say "Let's undo those flaws". That's lazy debating. My opponent should offer a counter-plan or defend the status quo, otherwise he has no ground to argue on. It's also not easy to overturn checkpoint laws without eradicating drunk driving laws. The reason this is the case, is because the supreme court has ruled that drunk driving checkpoints are constitutional (despite stating they're unconstitutional, during their decisions). This means any law that states DUI checkpoints, could easily be ignored due to the fact that DUI checkpoints are legal. A federal law couldn't be made, each state would have to individually create laws against such a thing, which isn't reasonable to assume they'll do.

Appeal to Pity

Unitomic declares that I have made an appeal to pity. That by showing the damage done to several lives, I have committed some sort of logical fallacy. However laws were meant to serve the people, and if they hurt the people, they should be repealed. If drunk driving laws do not reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, they aren't necessary, and if an unnecessary law hurts people and destroys careers/lives, we should abolish it.

While my opponent is correct in saying that people can choose to obey the law and not have their lives ruined, it misses the point. I could create a law against reading books and make the same claim, but in America, we value freedom, and if a law in no way serves the greater good, it should be abolished.

Drunk driving laws do not deter, and they in fact hurt many people who are driving safely. Why should safe drivers be punished? It makes no sense, harms liberty, and has no positive effect on the greater good.


I thank my opponent for allowing me a second consecutive round to forward my arguments and will take advantage of it, by providing an ethical framework that space prevented me from doing last round. My ethical framework is Libertarianism. In order to have a government which respects the rights and freedom of all individuals equally we need a government which has the sole purpose of doing just that. Any laws that deviate from that will unjustifiably cut into the freedom of somebody. I'll leave you with an appropriate quote to further capture this.

"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person"s right to life, liberty, and property " rights that people possess naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have themselves used force " actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud." David Boaz

Drunk driving laws violate Libertarian ethics by interfering with an individuals autonomy, while also falling outside of what actions are permissible by the government.


Preface: I have one more case which I shall present in Round 4. Until then, I remind the voters that it is not an appropriate tactic for an opponent (especially one trying to change the status quo) to present unsubstantiated claims, then force the opponent to disprove them. If they are unsubstantiated, then they were never proven to begin with. I need not be made to disprove something that isn’t even yet proven.

Proposition I: Definitions

Intoxicated: affected by alcohol or drugs {1}

Vehicle: a machine that is used to carry people or goods from one place to another




Proposition II: Framework

Pro attacks the fact that I am “splitting hairs”, however that is a fully acceptable means of debate. In fact all debates are by definition “splitting hairs”. Pro attempts to redefine my arguments by giving them a derogatory name, and trying to say that they are serious objections. This is cheap debating. My objections are quite serious. Noticeably, Pro fails to actually show that my counters are somehow not serious, that they are arguing trivial matters or inconsequential aspects (the informal definition of splitting hairs). I have countered Pro’s arguments, and if that means I’ve countered inconsequential aspects, then it only means that Pro’s cases were inconsequential.

Counter-Case I: Pre-Crime

Counter: Pro again stands by the minority report comparison, even though I have shown that it is a faulty comparison. The fact is that Drunk driving is itself a crime, and breaking it is, for all intents, committing a crime. This breaks the comparison, as pre-crime requires that you haven’t yet committed a crime. If you were arrested for going to the bar because you were likely to commit a crime, then that would work in comparison, but not committing the crime itself. He continues to say that drunk driving does not deter the act, but he doesn’t substantiate it. Instead Pro works to push BOP off of himself. Pro made the claim that it doesn’t work, now Pro must make that claim substantiated. I will later show that drunk driving laws are not only about deterrence. And for the record, Pro’s source does not say that Drunk Driving Laws (DDL) have no effect, rather it says that lowering the BAC further would have no effect. That is a very different thing.

Conclusion: Pro tries to dodge BOP by making it seem as though I am required to dispel any unsubstantiated claim he makes. Until he shows his claim about inefficiency has merit, I need only to remind the voters that the clam is unsubstantiated conjecture on Pros part.

Counter-Case II: Red Herrings/ Appeal to Pity

Summarization: My opponent tries to justify his arguments against my claims of fallacies.

Counter: My Opponent's first attempt is in the “slippery slope” argument. He tries to spell it out in further detail, but fails to actually support it. Again, I’ll repeat that all his case here does is show that expanding drunk driving into distracted driving is bad. But it doesn’t actually counter drunk driving itself. On that premise, we could say that arresting those who threatens to kill someone shouldn’t be allowed, because we could expand threats to include other statements, and eventually we could lose freedom of speech.

Pro misses the point on the checkpoint parts. I can in fact defend drunk driving laws by countering every single flaw he points out. That is how it works. Pro tries to create some special rule that makes it harder for me to defend my case. If Pro points out a hundred flaws, and I show that those flaws can each be removed while keeping ddl’s, then I am in the right. I have shown that other states have removed the checkpoints, and that they still have the dd laws. Pro says it’s not easy, but these states show that it works. This isn’t a dilemma where we must keep both or remove both.

Pro next fights the claims of Appeal to Pity. He states that laws should never hurt a citizen. However all laws harm citizens who break those laws. That is the point of them. Should we repeal assault because the poor criminal will have a bad record afterwards? He mentions that safe drivers are harmed, yet any driver who drinks with substantial BAC is not by definition “safe”. Pro essentially sums the rest up to again making the grand statement that the laws have no effect. Again, he does not substantiate that claim. Until he does so, it’s purely conjecture on his part, and does not support his case.

Counter-Case III: Libertarianism

Summarization: Pro builds a moral case around libertarianism, which I shall deal with here.

Counter: Firstly, I’ll mention that space is often a problem. I will never object to an opponent using a non-final round to make new case. I for example also was incapable of making my own cases last round.

Pro makes the case that in a libertarian government, it is not appropriate to create a law which infringes one's rights. The problem is that all laws infringe upon a right in some way. In fact libertarianism can be said to infringe upon the right to security, as it would, in it’s purest form, give no true protection. Rights are more complex than some believe. For every right, there is a countering right against it, usually a form of the right to security. Libertarianism relies on a highly optimistic hope that humans will respect each others rights on principle, however human nature makes this unlikely to happen.

Due to the right to security, libertarianism is not a widely accepted philosophy. Many people prefer more protective governments (mind you, in this case, more protective is not the same as authoritarianism, which is on the far end of the spectrum, and there is a very wide margin for people to place their beliefs). To enforce a libertarian view would itself breach the other people's rights to self-determination, as it would go against the viewpoints of the majority {3}

I’ll chime in really fast to also present Pro a philosophical question of what really makes something a right? What separates a right from a privilege. We can’t just attach the word “right” next to an act and have that alone justify the act. We can’t just attach “right to” next to ‘drive while intoxicated’, and expect it to justify the action.

Conclusion: Pro’s arguments from libertarianism firstly rely on the idea that libertarianism is a strongly held belief. However, it is not, with only 14% describing themselves as such (3 of that 14 incorrectly identified what libertarianism actually was). That said, the right of self-determination requires that we use a government that follows the general views of the majority, with consideration given for those who oppose. To base our laws purely off libertarianism would impede the right to self-determination.



Case I: Intoxication

Thesis: I will show that Pro’s mentions of the minimum requirement are not the only levels of intoxication we can find.

Rationalization: On my fridge right now can be found about 150 dollars in alcohol. Included is Pinnacle Vodka, Jagermeister, Captain Morgans, and Crown, among other examples. Averages out at 35% by volume. If I were to drink all that (and survive), I would certainly be well over 0.08%. If I were to operate a vehicle, I would have a highly substantial likelihood of wrecking, likely into traffic, as I live beside a highway. Pro must remember that these higher levels of drinking must be taken into account. If we even allow for the arresting of those with BAC of 0.3%, then we are still in possession of some DDLs, which disaffirms Pro’s resolution, which is an absolute in this regard. Now it is true that a BAC of 0.08% is highly unlikely to create a wreck, that risk does grow substantially higher with an increased BAC. While those who are libertarian may consider it an acceptable risk for freedom, the fact is that the majority of people (from whom the mandate of governmental power truly derives, especially under self-determination) believe that many “rights” (not all of which some consider actual rights) must be weighed against the countering right to security, as is shown by support for the laws {4}, which may actually show high support for tougher laws.

I also point out that most definitions of intoxicated include drugs, not simply alcohol. Therefore DD Laws, despite the semantics of their names (although that isn’t even true, given that the official description is “Driving under the Influence”, or “Driving while Intoxicated”), by true definition, may include intoxication by any of various drugs. If driving under the influence of drunks such as methamphetamines or cocaine are made illegal, then DD laws are still, by definition and true name, in place.

Conclusion: The risk presented by higher BACs show that there is a benefit for keeping these people off the street. For every one which is arrested, there is decreased chance of them causing a wreck. While Pro believes it is “Pre-Crime”, the fact is the drunk driving is itself a law, so breaking it is still breaking a law.



Closing Statement: Ultimately, Pro doesn’t succeed in reviving his older arguments, instead trying to force BOP away from himself, even though he is making the claims. As some of his claims are not substantiated, those specific examples are simply conjecture, and so bare no true weight. Outside of that, he attempts to counter the claims of fallacy, however he does not successfully show that his cases are logically sufficient to affirm his resolution. I however remind the voters that Driving while Intoxicated is a far broader concept than just driving with a BAC of .08%.


Debate Round No. 3


At my opponents request I'm turning this into a four round debate


Me and Wylted has had some discussions outside of the debate. We've agreed that this debate doesn't require 5 rounds. It would, by all means, be us going around in circles. So we've agreed that, instead of trying to make it stretch 5 rounds, we will move to the final round.

Debate Round No. 4


Wylted forfeited this round.


Closing Statement: I don't really have much to say here then. Obviously my Argument is dropped, as are my refutations. I end my case here. Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 5
125 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Yeah I reported that vote on the off chance it would get removed lol
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
I'll post an actual RFD eventually, but basically, I think Wylted won off the "Pre-Crime" and "Ineffective" contentions. He showed that punishing high BAC is only justified if it is for the purpose of deterring actual harm, and then went on to provide evidence that it really *doesn't* deter drunk driving accidents, thus eliminating the justification for such laws. Uni's response to that evidence was insufficient, as it was really just a dismissal of the proposed causal mechanism (i.e. checkpoints distracting police officers) behind the results, rather than the results themselves. My approach in this debate would have been simply to provide evidence that drunk driving laws do deter, which there is plenty of...
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
Vote report: kindkd

[*Reason for non-removal*] A forfeit is a valid reason to award conduct.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Wait why you have given him arguments? Just curious
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Oh, I didn't even look at this. I probably would've contacted you Romanii
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
sh!t I completely forgot about this...

oh well. I would have given conduct to Uni and arguments to Wylted.

I'll post an RFD later if I ever remember to and have the energy to.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
I'll vote on this sometime today.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
I'm sorry Wylted I didn't see your request to wait on the round until after i posted. It was on the phone and it didn't tell me there was a comment on here.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
I'm sorry Wylted I didn't see your request to wait on the round until after i posted. It was on the phone and it didn't tell me there was a comment on here.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kingkd 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, giving conduct to Con.