The Instigator
Dnick94
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
symphonyofdissent
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 9 votes the winner is...
Dnick94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 50,537 times Debate No: 5778
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

Dnick94

Pro

Every year, the almost same story occurs: the headlines might say "Teen driver killed in wreck," or "High school students dies in car crash." The families who have to brave the realities of another dead teenager want action.
Source: http://www.ipromiseprogram.com...

The National Teen Driving Statistics says
* Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.
* 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.
* 16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.
Source: http://www.rmiia.org...

In fact a recent report by AAA estimates the cost of crashes involving 15-17 year olds to be $34 billion annually in medical expenses, lost work, property damage, quality of life loss and other related costs in 2006.
In 2006, 974,000 crashes occurred in 2006 involving drivers ages 15 to 17 according to the analysis conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for AAA.
Source: http://aaanewsroom.net...

New findings from brain researchers at the National Institutes of Health explain for the first time why efforts to protect the youngest drivers usually fail. a 16-year-old's "the executive branch" of the brain is generally far less developed than those of teens just a little older - the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior.
Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland have found that this vita area develops through the teenage years and isn't fully mature until age 25.
That is why brain and auto safety experts think that most teenagers are just too immature to handle today's cars and roadway risk as they tend to treat cars more like toys or video games.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com...

Although teenagers would want to be behind the wheel and drive, because it could create a sense of maturity and responsibility, raising the driving age ultimately causes fewer numbers of deaths, less accidents and crashes, and less guilt among teenagers and parents.
symphonyofdissent

Con

The con side of this debate will be arguing based on the philosophy that it is better to be given the ability to perform a potentially dangerous task in a time when one is more likely to be in a nurturing environment under supervision and care and able to develop skills rather than first being given such a legal ability in the most reckless and stressful time of a young adults life.

In other words, it is pretty apparently that when most life home for the first time to live alone, generally going off to college, they are of the age of 18. Being allowed to drive for the first time in their lives at this point with all the temptations of social life, drinking and partying and having never been given the responsibility of driving before makes one more likely to make poor driving and risky decisions.

The pro will probably point back to the statistics cited on case, however the problem with these statistic is that we do not know if in a society where driving is only first permitted at the age of 18 that the distribution of crashes and damages would not merely shift forward several years. In other words, the con thinks it likely that it is the first years of driving rather than the specific years of 16-18 in which individuals are most likely to get into crashes.

1) Valid solutions to the problem of poor lower age driving exists.

In many states (my home state of Florida included) those having just gotten a license must for the year or even more drive with a parent or guardian or else face stiff penalties. There are also restricted driving hours in order to condition a driver and to force him or her to get used to driving before allowing for unrestricted driving abilities. These restrictions would be much more difficult to put in place were the first age in which someone were permitted to get a license in place once most students already move away from home to go to college.

2) Allowing those 16-18 to have cars provides many benefits to them and to their lives
High school students are able to establish basic credit history through their first cars. By living with their parents and working under their supervision, there can be a certainty of payment that will put the youth of to a good start in terms of establishing his or her self as a responsible individual in the eyes of creditors and society.

Modern students are more involved than ever. Students are completing hundreds of hours of community service and participating throughout the country. Putting a demand on the parents for transportation is damaging and limits the youth and students ability to participate in the community or on a broader level. In many areas public transport does not exist and students are limited in their access to activities and events which are needed to keep them competitive for college, scholarships and other such things.

_______

Responding to the Pros arguments
1)
The National Teen Driving Statistics says
* Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.
* 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.
* 16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.
________________________________
None of these show that these things are age specific rather than first time driver specific. Given that the two overlap throughout the country, you can not prove in any way that 18 is a safer first driving age than 16.
_________________________________________
2)
In fact a recent report by AAA estimates the cost of crashes involving 15-17 year olds to be $34 billion annually in medical expenses, lost work, property damage, quality of life loss and other related costs in 2006.
In 2006, 974,000 crashes occurred in 2006 involving drivers ages 15 to 17 according to the analysis conducted by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation for AAA.
___________________________________________
This argument does not prove much of anything. There will always be a cost associated with letting untrained drivers on to the road. However, I would argue that letting a bunch of drunk college students get their hands behind the wheels for the first time is even more dangerous than allowing for earlier training.

_______
3)
New findings from brain researchers at the National Institutes of Health explain for the first time why efforts to protect the youngest drivers usually fail. a 16-year-old's "the executive branch" of the brain is generally far less developed than those of teens just a little older - the part that weighs risks, makes judgments and controls impulsive behavior.
Scientists at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland have found that this vita area develops through the teenage years and isn't fully mature until age 25.
That is why brain and auto safety experts think that most teenagers are just too immature to handle today's cars and roadway risk as they tend to treat cars more like toys or video games.
___

First of all:

Why is pros argument not to raise the age to 25 if this is when development stops. Pro has to prove why 18 is any better than 16 in any meaningful, concrete and non arbitrary way.

More importantly, much more of driving is made by the motor system of the brain which turns behavior into unconscious and rote activity rather than that controlled by the central executive. Anyone who has driven miles and miles only to not remember the route they took or the motions of the drive can attest to this fact. What matters most is that good driving habits are conditioned in individuals and the best way to have this happen is to have individuals primed through good driving experiences surrounded by nurturing parents rather than having their first experiences surrounded by drunk frat friends.
Debate Round No. 1
Dnick94

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate and wish him the best of luck.

Counterarguments:

1. Society without the driving age of 18

Institute researchers have compiled decades worth of data from New Jersey, the only state that issues licenses at 17. The overall rate of teens killed in crashes in New Jersey has been consistently lower than in some nearby states according to various studies. Even though the driving age is not 18, it is one year higher than 17.

One study from the 1990s found that the rate of crash-related deaths among 16- and 17-year olds were 18 per 100,000 in New Jersey, compared with 26 per 100,000 in Connecticut. Graduated licensing, which has become the standard across the country in the past 15 years have dropped the rates even lower.

According to the National Highway Safety Administration, the rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59. The statistics show that raising the driving age to just one year reduces teen-related crashes. Therefore raising the driving age would reduce more teens killed in crashes like a linear equation.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

2. Inexperience

Researchers used to think that inexperience is mostly to blame for deadly crashes involving teens. However, in recent years, safety researchers have noticed a pattern emerge — one that seems to stem more from immaturity than from inexperience. "Skills are a minor factor in most cases," says Allan Williams, former chief scientist at the insurance institute. "It's really attitudes and emotions." NIH brain research suggests that the area that peers ahead and considers consequences called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex remains undeveloped . And in teen after teen, the research team discovered that it's not fully mature.

That means careless attitudes and rash emotions often drive teen decisions, says Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health. In making decisions, teens rely more on the parts of their brain that control emotion. Indeed, that is why brain and auto safety experts think that most car crashes could be easily avoided, but are caused by teenagers showing off or been disregarding the safety of themselves and others because of their "It will never happen to me" attitude.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com...

3. Graduated Drivers Licensing (GDL)

Teens can learn how to drive with a supervising adult in the car before they become 18. Therefore, they can get their experience without driving alone, that can lead to car accidents and deaths.

GDL programs are helping to reduce teen driving deaths. Generally, the three stages of GDL are:
1. Supervised learning period. The new driver is allowed to drive only with a supervising adult in the car for a given period of time or minimum number of hours before earning an intermediate license.
2. Intermediate license. At this stage, the driver has earned a license and no longer needs supervision to drive, but is subject to restrictions.
3.Full-Privilege license. The driver meets the age and any other requirements to earn an unrestricted drivers license.

Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that when states had comprehensive GDL programs containing at least the following five elements in effect, there was a 20 percent reduction in fatal crashes involving 16-year old drivers:

1. A minimum age of 15 1/2 for obtaining a learner's permit
2. A waiting period after obtaining a learner's permit of at least three months before applying for an intermediate license
3. A minimum of 30 hours of supervised driving
4. Minimum age of at least 16 years for obtaining an intermediate license
5. Minimum age of at least 17 years for full licensing
6. A restriction on carrying passengers.

Now imagine if we raised the minimum age of at least 18 years for full licensing. We can expect less deaths and car accidents involving 16-year-olds.
Source: http://www.rmiia.org...

4. Allowing 16-year-olds to have cars provides many benefits and cons.

I agree that high school students are becoming more involved than ever. However 16 and 17-year-olds are not going to college yet. They're still only 1 or 2 years older than the 15-year-olds who can't legally drive. If "putting a demand on the parents for transportation is damaging and limits the youth and students ability to participate in the community or on a broader level," then how could 16-year-olds got to school or participate in the community the previous year? If raising the driving age limits education, work related purposes or for special family circumstances, then why shouldn't they lower the driving age? Even though raising the driving age could penalize some families in which teens need to drive to work, driver licenses should only be offered at age 16 in special circumstances where driving is actually required such as for work related purposes or for special family circumstances, proof should be required.
Source: http://wiki.answers.com...

5. Why shouldn't the age be raised to 25?

People are more likely to go to college when they're 18, instead of 16. They have a generally more developed brain than 16-year-olds and will have experience when they participate in GDL programs. Statistics show that 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. Therefore, raising the driving age to 18 will reduce these teen-related car accidents and deaths. Raising the age further than the age of majority (age of 18 in the United States) is unnecessary, because the age of majority indicates the end of adolescence and people who reach this age are regarded as adults and are held to be responsible for their actions.

6. Lower auto insurance rates

Auto insurance rates would be lowered for all drivers. Since teens are high-risk drivers, a family's insurance rates double when a teenage girl is added, to policy rates triple when a teenage boy is added The insurance for a family's insurance plan can range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars with a teen driver. Car insurance rates will jump for 50% to 200% the minute a teenage driver is added to their parent's policy.
Source: http://write.teachingmatters.org...

7. Possible temporarily solution to global warming
Less cars on the road, less air pollution, might slow down global warming. It was just a thought though. It may need elaboration later.

8. Cost of crashes

AAA calls for improved graduated driver licensing to counter nearly one million crashes involving 15- to 17-year olds annually. Applying the GDL and raising the driving age to 18 would decrease the cost associated with untrained drives on the road. However, teenagers are more immature than adults, because they have undeveloped dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. A first-ever analysis from AAA finds that crashes involving teen drivers ages 15 to 17 cost American society more than $34 billion annually in medical expenses, lost work, property damage, quality of life loss and other related costs in 2006. But if teenagers can't legally drive under the age of 18, then these cost would disappear resulting in a better society with $34 billion dollars not wasted because of immaturity or inexperience.
Source: http://aaanewsroom.net...

Conclusion:

Research shows raising the legal driving age would help lower the number of teenage driving deaths and make the roads safer for the rest of the drivers. Places like New Jersey have lower teen crash death rates because of raising the driving age. Auto insurance rates would also be lowered for all drivers.
symphonyofdissent

Con

As far as I am concerned, side pro and I are essentially arguing very similar positions overall and this debate has degenerated into whether or not being able to drive with restrictions at age 16 goes with side pro or side con. Since we both agree that the ideal system is one in which those from age 15 or 16-18 are gradually given more rights and responsibilities in driving, we are at a bit of a standstill it seems. As my side was the first to mention the idea of gradual licensing in my first argument, I think that those reading should take this as a concession on the pro side that a hybrid system of gradual license giving such as often happens in the status quo is better than a strict system in which one can only get a license at age 18 as seemed proposed by the pros initial argument. If this is the case, then I think you can give me the win on face. Pro seems to concede on many levels that driving at age 16 may be needed for so many things including those who must work to sustain a family. In doing must judge whether or not he has essentially conceded this round to me.

In this debaters opinion, side pro has given no concrete reasons why age 18 is that much better than age 16 or any earlier age. Moreover, as each individuals brain development varies immensely it would probably be better to set a period of gradual licensing that could begin at any age when the individual could show matureness and a capacity to drive responsible. This should not inherently be based on age. Risk statistics based on age seems overall a rather lousy way to give a basis for qualification for things that very widely based on individual.

I doubt that brain studies are close to as advanced as side pro suggests: Why? Because if they really were, then we could just implement a brain scan for every individual attempting to get a license to see if they are developed enough to qualify. This would establish an actually objective test based on brain chemistry which the reality and pros case does not.

I want to give a personal anecdote her to explain why having the right to drive at a younger age can often be beneficial for families. My mother became sick when I was 15 and had to go for elaborate chemotherapy sessions. Because she was so weak after driving even from that age I had to be the one to often drive the car. My father was working to sustain a family throughout the day and I would be driving with my mother in the car because she was physically unable to drive me herself.

Students often have charitable and useful functions which require a car. If more service projects can be done and more alturism exists in the community, then side con has more than proved its burden to show that the status quo makes our society overall a better place.

The other side really does not address the bulk of my arguments. If individuals have their first driving experience in an environment in which heavy drinking is encouraged and in which peer pressure is on to incentivize faster driving then we are more likely to have individuals conditioned to drive poorly. Whether or not younger brain development makes risk behavior more likely, we can be sure that such a social environment does so as well to some large degree.

A couple of minor responses.

Overall Auto insurance rates have a minimal increase because they tend to be pro-rated and based on experience ratings.. Your argument about families is pretty limited as if there is too high of cost for insurance for families they can choose not to get their kids a car. Having a car is not a prerequisite for having a license. Besides, individual insurance companies and car dealers can still deny individuals the ability to get a vehicle in and of themselves. This has little to do with whether the individual should be able to get a license which is only a recognition from the state that that individual is qualified to drive. There is no guarantee they will get a car or even apply for insurance.

The global warming argument is cute but will have a very minimal impact at best. Focusing on making more fuel efficient cars and etc is more worthwhile and this argument is ultimately not a reason to deny individuals who could handle driving a car the ability to do so.

It is a good thing that we start giving the ability to drive to those who are under the age where they are considered adults. We acknowledge that at that age they still have to learn and be tutored in something as risky and complicated as driving. We allow them to build up credit with their parents as co-signers and to work up to a situation of fiscal responsibility. We allow them to drive to run errands for the family and in general become more vital in facilitating and assisting in their family and community. Gradually as they turn 18 we let them go with the full knowledge that they have experienced enough on the road to be safe and productive drivers and that their good driving instincts will win over the peer pressure of their drunk friends to risk life and limb and go faster and faster.
Debate Round No. 2
Dnick94

Pro

First of all, when society has raised the driving age even to 17, overall rate of teens killed in crashes in New Jersey has been consistently lower than in some nearby states according to various studies. Why shouldn't we raise it to 18 to reduce even more deaths? The dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, which consider consequences, does not fully mature until at the age of 25. The reason that the driving age isn't 25 is that driving is necessary to go to college at the age of 18. The age of majority indicates the end of adolescence and people who reach this age are regarded as adults and are held to be responsible for their actions. Therefore 18 is better than 16, because people who are 18 are regarded as adults and have more experience than 16-year-olds with a more developed dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex.

I have never proposed a strict system in which one can only get a license at age 18. By raising the driving age to 18, I meant by learners will still be granted their provisional license from 16 or 17, but will need a year to pass a beefed-up test, which means the minimum age at which a new driver could realistically go out on his or her own will be 18. The people under the age of 18 will have to be supervised by an adult such as a legal guardian or parent.

"When the individual could show that they are mature and a capacity to drive responsibly," means that children and teenagers aged 10-14 can be mature and show that they can drive with responsibility. If such a system was implemented, I would use it as my advantage to learn how to drive at the age of 10-14. I'm sure our society wouldn't like the idea of people ages 10-15 driving on the streets. Anyone can show maturity at any age, but it takes more than 1/2 of the people with large amounts of maturity to lower or keep the driving age.

"Risk statistics based on age seems overall a rather lousy way to give a basis for qualification for things that very widely based on individual."

Does that mean that very intelligent or mature teenagers ages 10-14 can be trusted with adult rights that include binding contract, buying stocks, voting, buying and/or consuming alcoholic beverages, driving motor vehicles on public roads, and marrying without obtaining consent of others or any restrictions?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"We could just implement a brain scan for every individual attempting to get a license to see if they are developed enough to qualify." In theory, it could work. However, Giedd says that ethical crossroad is too radical to seriously consider today. "We are just at the threshold of this," he says. Do you think every parent is going to agree to have their teenagers take a brain scan to determine whether he or she was neurologically fit to drive? What if the brain scan says that his or her brain isn't developed enough? How will their parents feel about the results? Ignoring the ethical crossroad, if the brain scans were implemented today, there would be no reason to raise the driving age to 18.
But we can't because of ethics, and we need to raise the driving age to 18 now to save lives, until the day when brain scans can be implemented.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com...

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable, considered untrustworthy or untrue, or does not warrant the conclusion. According to your personal anecdote, you have no friends or relatives that can drive the car for you. Your situation is reasonable except with the fact of the age. What if you were 8-12 and your mother became sick? What if you were a baby and your mother was so weak after driving? The same circumstances could apply to any age and it seemed that you didn't seek for any help.

Putting gas in the tank is only part of the cost of having an automobile. Rates for teens are higher for a variety of reasons, including a lack of experience on the road. Insurance as a concept is based on the idea of sharing expenses among a group of individuals where the risk is calculable. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. That factor naturally translates into higher rates for youthful drivers. Therefore if the driving age was raised to 18, auto insurance rates would be lowered for all drivers.
Source: http://www.superiorcarinsurance.com...

I didn't intend the global warming argument to be a contention, because it is ultimately not a reason to deny individuals who could handle driving a car the ability to do so. However, you would notice that we don't have the most fuel efficient cars invented yet and cars that are the most fuel efficient are not relatively cheap. Less cars on the road, less air pollution, might slow down global warming. May not stop global warming, but it will help.

"Heavy drinking is encouraged and in which peer pressure is on to also encourage faster driving then we are more likely to have individuals conditioned to drive poorly."

That is exactly the reason why we need to raise the driving age to 18, because adults are more mature and can deal with peer pressure better than teenagers age 16 or under. That's also why teens often seem more impetuous than adults. In making decisions, they rely more on the parts of their brain that control emotion.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com...
symphonyofdissent

Con

This argument will be short because I don't think too much new has been said in the round.

First of all, my opponent loses on two very fundamental grounds thus far in the round.

He has ceded that 18 is not actually in his frame of argumentation a legitimate point in regard to brain development. 18 is essentially just less bad than 16 according to his theory. According to his argument why do we not raise the drinking age to 50 or the driving age even higher past the range of 25 to lower even more accidents. The answer to this is that our laws are not meant to be merely statistical but to have some logical reason besides merely being most fitting within the realm of stats. Years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that in terms of environmental regulation it was not enough for the EPA to decide that a substance was harmful and to therefore ban it to the lowest possible level permitted, there had to be some correlation between the exact number that they put both and some degree of damage they wished to removed. In other words, eliminating a certain amount of accidents should have some very real impact on the number rather than merely cutting down on some portion of those driving under the point of full brain development.

Furthermore, by not responding to my major arguments about why 16 is a very good age to begin driving and why 18 is a rather lousy one in terms of social policy, the other side has essentially conceded these points. This side says that what matters most in the development of a good driver is experience and that getting individuals driving under the tutelage of his or her parents is better than having them start in college when surrounded all the time by drinking buddies and only peers. While it may be true, though no evidence is given, that those at age 18 are better at resisting peer pressure it is also undoubtedly true that there is much much more peer pressure when one is living alone and not around parents. Good driving habbits learned at home are much more likely to stick around

Moreover, Whether a person receives a limited license with the ability to drive at all, or a full license at age 15 or 16 does not change the fact that the other side has negated his own position by allowing those he deemed "not fully and psychologically mature" onto the road. Moreover the other side has essentially done a case shift by trying to say that this falls under his side of the debate. Raising the driving age to 18 should mean that those under 18 can not drive a car. Period, end of story. To try after two rounds of debate to change the flow of debate means that the other side has conceded that no good response can be giving to the notion of a driving training period from 16 to 18. Judges...Go back and read the first posts and see who mentioned this concept first. The debate should go to whomever that was ( I believe it was clearly me).

All of the arguments about brain scans were meant to illustrate a sole point. If the other side is serious about brain development and says that we can determine whether ones region of the brain to control motor function is developed, then I say scrap the age limit altogether and allow everyone who passes a more extensive brain scanning test to drive. The fact that the other side can advocate such a test means that clearly such scans are limited and can not actually determine good drivers with any degree of certainty. Give that this is the case, you have to in terms of legal policy making deffer to the laws that have the best social implications. I feel that I have clearly made a stronger argument about how having people driving at age 16 is better of overall for them and for all of society.
Debate Round No. 3
Dnick94

Pro

I apologize for not giving the definition of driving age although I didn't know that my opponent doesn't not know about the driving age.

I gave my statistics in the first round and I said that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers and 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age. My opponent doesn't understand that these teenagers actually drive on their own with a driver's license.

My opponent's definition of the driving age is when a person can drive with or without restrictions. My opponent should have known that in my first round, I stated that 16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers. This doesn't include 16-year-olds driving with adults supervising them. Otherwise, we would expect lots of adults getting killed because of teen driving.

The driving age is legally 16 is most countries. I'm arguing that the driving age should be raised to 18. Therefore the minimum age at which a new driver could go out with no restrictions should be raised.

In round 3, I have stated the following: "I have never proposed a strict system in which one can only get a license at age 18. By raising the driving age to 18, I meant by learners will still be granted their provisional license from 16 or 17, but will need a year to pass a beefed-up test, which means the minimum age at which a new driver could realistically go out on his or her own will be 18. The people under the age of 18 will have to be supervised by an adult such as a legal guardian or parent."

"According to his argument why do we not raise the drinking age to 50 or the driving age even higher past the range of 25 to lower even more accidents."

"The reason that the driving age isn't 25 is that driving is necessary to go to college at the age of 18. The age of majority indicates the end of adolescence and people who reach this age are regarded as adults and are held to be responsible for their actions. Therefore 18 is better than 16, because people who are 18 are regarded as adults and have more experience than 16-year-olds with a more developed dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex."

Please don't make me repeat this again. I'm just saying that students have to go to college at the age of 18. Why do students want to drive at the age of 16 when they're not going to work or college?

"Raising the driving age to 18 should mean that those under 18 can not drive a car."

You mean that those under 18 can not drive a car ON HIS OWN. Adults can happily supervise to prevents accidents due to teen driving.

"To try after two rounds of debate to change the flow of debate means that the other side has conceded that no good response can be giving to the notion of a driving training period from 16 to 18."

You may have mentioned this concept first, but this concept doesn't go against me. You can't win just because you mentioned a concept that your opponent didn't post it in yet. In fact, the GDL goes with my belief that the driving age should be raised to 18, because too many teens were in fatal car crashes and the GDL was supposed to stop it. I thought you knew what is the driving age. I thought that you read the statistics I gave and noticed that it did not mentioned that adults are dying because of teen driving. I think that adults should be supervising teens until they are 18, which means that the driving age would be raised to 18. I'm sure that adults would be a lot more careful with their lives then teenagers.

"All of the arguments about brain scans were meant to illustrate a sole point. If the other side is serious about brain development and says that we can determine whether ones region of the brain to control motor function is developed, then I say scrap the age limit altogether and allow everyone who passes a more extensive brain scanning test to drive."

I will post argument from the third round again: However, Giedd says that ethical crossroad is too radical to seriously consider today. "We are just at the threshold of this," he says. Do you think every parent is going to agree to have their teenagers take a brain scan to determine whether he or she was neurologically fit to drive? What if the brain scan says that his or her brain isn't developed enough? How will their parents feel about the results? Ignoring the ethical crossroad, if the brain scans were implemented today, there would be no reason to raise the driving age to 18.
But we can't because of ethics, and we need to raise the driving age to 18 now to save lives, until the day when brain scans can be implemented.

"I would use it as my advantage to learn how to drive at the age of 10-14. I'm sure our society wouldn't like the idea of people ages 10-15 driving on the streets. Anyone can show maturity at any age, but it takes more than 1/2 of the people with large amounts of maturity to lower or keep the driving age."

"Does that mean that very intelligent or mature teenagers ages 10-14 can be trusted with adult rights that include binding contract, buying stocks, voting, buying and/or consuming alcoholic beverages, driving motor vehicles on public roads, and marrying without obtaining consent of others or any restrictions?"

"Putting gas in the tank is only part of the cost of having an automobile. Rates for teens are higher for a variety of reasons, including a lack of experience on the road. Insurance as a concept is based on the idea of sharing expenses among a group of individuals where the risk is calculable. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. That factor naturally translates into higher rates for youthful drivers. Therefore if the driving age was raised to 18, auto insurance rates would be lowered for all drivers."

These are all my arguments that my opponent ignored.

My opponent ignored most of my arguments even if he did not know about the driving age. I didn't not state anything new, although my opponent thinks that the driving age is when teens actually get in the car and drive. Did my opponent know that I'm proposing that adults can supervise the teens until there 18? I'm sure that we don't want many teenagers to die. Teens will have experience of driving if they are always drive when supervised by adults. Therefore, it is not the inexperience that kill teens, it is the immaturity resulting from the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex that causes most deaths. You will notice how most adults are more mature than teenagers. Even if my previous statement was false, I have never seen a teacher immaturity level near reaching the immaturity level of the teenager. So with that said, I ask my opponent to not ignore all my arguments and that he should have known that the driving age means that when drivers can drive on their own with no adult supervising them with no restrictions.
symphonyofdissent

Con

Judges- Here is the question in this round. Everything else is pretty much extraneous.

If I was the first one to mention the notion of a system in which a limited license is given at age 15 or 16 with gradual reduced limitations, then I win the round. It's really as simple as that.

In many states, one can have a regular license at age 16 or 17 and not be required to ever be tested again or follow up. Yet, there are restrictions such as hours during which one can drive and a restriction on their ability to drive without adults over the age of 21.

I would say that the driving age is the point at which one can first legally operate a motor vehicle. This is a pretty literal definition

We failed to define driving age which is a huge problem and means this round should basically be dropped or else given to the person who first actually attempted to define it in his case.

At the point in a debate when both sides have admitted that the ideal system is one which a driving rights are gradually admitted, all that matters is which side of the debate this concept flows to. All of the other arguments are essentially irrelevant at this point

__________

My opponent claims that I have not responded to arguments, but I really have on two basic levels that go ignored.

If, as my opponent claims, 18 is the best age to permit driving because it is based on brain science, then I ask him why does he not go higher and raise the driving age to 25 or whatever the scientifically PROVEN age at which the age is most fully mature truly is.

His only response is that at age 18 students need to go to college. This is a weak response on many levels. First of all, many college students skip grades and start at college earlier. If driving is related to being able to be in college, then that is a completely different standard than age dependance. There is the famous case of a 10 year old in college for instance (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). These individuals are therefore also burdened even though their mental age is much higher than their biological age. And yes, if parents want their kids to be able to drive they would let them take a brain test if such technology truly existed. I don't see any reason why fingerprinting is any less invasive and yet this is regularly done along with licensing

Thus, the side that must win this argumentation is the one that makes the best social argument for why individuals should be allowed behind the wheel given that they can pass the proper tests ( remember no one is getting a car without showing that they at least know how to drive a motor vehicle)

I have given many more reasons why a period from an earlier age ( 15 or 16 or maybe even earlier... if such technology truly exists as pro suggests, lets use it) in which drivers are trained by their parents whom have driven for a lengthy period. I have given social and mental reasons why starting to drive on ones own at the same time one enters college is potentially deadly and why those at younger ages can use driving as an opportunity to establish good credit and be ready for adult responsibility. These are all ignored.

Insurance is a net wash because insurance companies as I stated always have the ability to target high rates specifically to those under an age to discourage parents from getting their kids their own cars. Meanwhile, in both of our ideal systems insurance is still higher because parents who add their kids to their insurance plans to drive during any training period still have the same impacts on overall insurance. If you allow 16 year olds on the road in any capacity this harm is there. We both have to bite this harm.

Basically the only argument my opponent has is that those under 18 are worse drivers and therefore should not be allowed to drive. However, at the point where we both agree that the ideal system is a hybrid permit/license one, he has negated his own position of strength and given up this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dnick94

Pro

Counterarguments:

"If I was the first one to mention the notion of a system in which a limited license is given at age 15 or 16 with gradual reduced limitations, then I win the round. It's really as simple as that."

No, you supported my arguments, because the gradual driving licensing appear to be making a difference. Therefore, raising the driving age to 18 would also make a difference on reducing teen crashes.

"I would say that the driving age is the point at which one can first legally operate a motor vehicle."

Include "on their own", because you should have know that people ages 16 and 17 are driving legally without any restrictions. I can't agree with your definition, because statistics already show that motor vehicles accidents are the leading causes of death for teenagers, but not including adults. I already stated that adults can supervise teenagers under the age of 18 until the day when they are 18. You haven't made an argument against the fact that adults can supervise teenagers under 18.

"Many college students skip grades and start at college earlier."

Who? Most people go to college at the age of 18. In fact, individuals like the famous case that you brought up are child prodigies. There are less than 10,000 child prodigies I believe that are alive in the United States which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org.... I didn't think we have more, otherwise I have lived in an isolated area and United States is the smartest country with over millions of child prodigies. I actually don't know the number of child prodigies we have, but I would think that the number is less than 10,000. When people skip grades and graduate early, they can start working for their work experience to be put on their r�sum� until they are 18. Many people can't go to college because of the lack of funds or other non-academic factors.

"If parents want their kids to be able to drive they would let them take a brain test if such technology truly existed."

So why don't they? I will post my argument for the last time since my opponent tends to ignore it. "In theory, it could work. However, Giedd says that ethical crossroad is too radical to seriously consider today. "We are just at the threshold of this," he says. Do you think every parent is going to agree to have their teenagers take a brain scan to determine whether he or she was neurologically fit to drive? What if the brain scan says that his or her brain isn't developed enough? How will their parents feel about the results? Ignoring the ethical crossroad, if the brain scans were implemented today, there would be no reason to raise the driving age to 18.
But we can't because of ethics, and we need to raise the driving age to 18 now to save lives, until the day when brain scans can be implemented."

"I have given many more reasons why a period from an earlier age ( 15 or 16 or maybe even earlier... if such technology truly exists as pro suggests, lets use it) in which drivers are trained by their parents whom have driven for a lengthy period. I have given social and mental reasons why starting to drive on ones own at the same time one enters college is potentially deadly and why those at younger ages can use driving as an opportunity to establish good credit and be ready for adult responsibility. These are all ignored."

I didn't ignore those arguments. They don't go against me, because I have stated: "I have never proposed a strict system in which one can only get a license at age 18. By raising the driving age to 18, I meant by learners will still be granted their provisional license from 16 or 17, but will need a year to pass a beefed-up test, which means the minimum age at which a new driver could realistically go out on his or her own will be 18. The people under the age of 18 will have to be supervised by an adult such as a legal guardian or parent."

Therefore, you conceded this point, because I have stated:
"Teens can learn how to drive with a supervising adult in the car before they become 18. Therefore, they can get their experience without driving alone, that can lead to car accidents and deaths."

Teens won't suffer when the driving age is raised to 18, because they would have more experience. So you concede this point: "In other words, the con thinks it likely that it is the first years of driving rather than the specific years of 16-18 in which individuals are most likely to get into crashes."

"If you allow 16 year olds on the road in any capacity this harm is there."

So let's raise the driving age to 18 so that insurance companies won't have the "ability to target high rates specifically to those under an age to discourage parents from getting their kids their own cars." Adding a teen driver to the policy is always going to mean a higher premium. However, if the adult is supervising them, the insurance rates will be cut, because the adult can make sure that the teen drives safely. Therefore, it would be easier for teens to have cut insurance rates, because there would always be a supervisor if the driving age was raised.
Source: http://www.autoinsuranceindepth.com...

"Basically the only argument my opponent has is that those under 18 are worse drivers and therefore should not be allowed to drive."

I already stated that drivers can be allowed to drive WITH an adult supervising them. Since we both agree that the ideal system is a hybrid permit/license one, raising the driving age to 18 will make it only better and reduce car accidents concerning teens. My opponent did not show why if the driving age was 18, that more or the same deaths will occur. Although my opponent does not agree with the definition of the driving age I have proposed a system of hybrid permit/license and the adult supervises them until 18, when the driver is allowed to drive on his own. My opponent has to proof that this system will fail or any other reason why the driving age shouldn't be raised to 18. Of course, this bill doesn't not need to be passed if we can implement a brain test. But we can't because of ethics reasons.

My opponent thinks that the driving age refers to when a person can drive legally with or without restrictions. However, if my opponent agrees with HIS own definition, he would have to agree that the driving age is LOWER than 16 since people start learning to drive UNDER the age of 16. My opponent thinks that the driving age is currently 16 and that I'm proposing a system when people the age of 18 start learning to drive. That is why it doesn't make sense since most people associate driving age with when people can drive on their own.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

*All my sources associate the driving age with the age when drivers can drive on their own.

Although teenagers would want to be behind the wheel and drive, because it could create a sense of maturity and responsibility, I ask the readers to vote for PRO because raising the driving age ultimately causes fewer numbers of deaths, less accidents and crashes, and less guilt among teenagers and parents.
symphonyofdissent

Con

This debate has become silly and redundant and wish to apologize to my opponent that it has not become more enjoyable.

Here are the rules for 16 and 17 year old drivers in my home state of florida.

"With your Operator's License, you may:

16 years old – only drive between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat, or you are traveling to or from work.
17 years old – only drive between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m., unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is at least 21 years old and occupies the front passenger seat, or you are traveling to or from work."

Even if you ignore all the other arguments in this round, it should be clear that what the pro side of an argument must argue for by advocating a bill to raise the driving age is something other than the status quo. That is, that people under 18 should be kept off the road completely. That was the position the pro side held in his first argument with no deviation.

He could have argued and probably won the debate just from the position that those under 18 should not be able to drive. There were resonable responses to my arguments about learning and need for a car and etc, but instead my opponent took on my framework and therefore loses the round.

The bottom line is that a hybrid system is better and both sides agree than raising the driving age to 18 uniformly. Therefore, I win the round. The counter proposal I proposed is the one both sides agreed upon. Bottom line. Everything else in this round has been extraneous.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptin- Voting as a Cleaner

Conduct- Tie. I found that both debaters kept their cool, given that they were talking past each other for a moment or so. The issue of semantics was one I had to deliberate, but I concluded that both parties were at fault. PRO for not being clear and CON for trying to weasel a win.

Spelling and Grammar- Tie. Although I would say that PRO has a slightly better presentation, I would not be able to grant him the point because the difference was not large enough.

Argument/Sources- PRO. I put the last two categories together because I found that Pro's use of sources was the biggest contributor in the force of his arguments. I was particularly impressed with his response to the age question by revealing the statistic of NJ, and the considerable decrease given just 1 year of age. Although CON did have something of a point in saying that PRO could be considered to have conceded a point, the rigor of his argument and the statistics show that he has already taken those several years of pre-driving education into account.

**If you would like your debate reviewed by The Cleaners, please go to the forums, click on "debate.org", and leave your link and request in any of our topics. Also, if you would like to join The Cleaners, do friend me and send me a message :)"**
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
It took me a while to read this one, but I voted for Pro on all points.

Conduct: Pro. There was confusion about the definition "driving age," but after Pro clarified the position, Con insisted that since Con clarified it first, Con should win. I thought this was poor form since (A) I had no problem understanding the resolution to being with and (B) this reduced the debate to semantics.

Spelling and Grammar: Pro. Both sides had grammatical mistakes, but there were multiple places in which I had to re-read Con's sentences two or three times to understand them.

Convincing Arguments: Pro. Pro laid out very convincing evidence that younger drivers pose higher risks to themselves and others. Pro then subsequently refuted Con's claim that inexperience, rather than age, was the primary risk factor. After that, Con relied on his interpretation of the resolution instead of the clarified resolution: thus the later rounds didn't really add anything new. This is one of the rare debates in which I was undecided going into it, and left agreeing with Pro.

Sources: Pro. Pro did an excellent job backing his arguments with statistics and studies. While not all statistics and studies are perfect, Con failed to discredit them and provide any of his own.
Posted by Hades 8 years ago
Hades
I agree With the con side. Driving provides responsabilities, credit, and even makes it more easy for a teen to get a stable job. It create s a feeling of independence. And lets ralize that a car accident , is that an accident, it can happen to a 21 year old, to a 65 year old and even to the most experiensed drivers. My opinion is from the point viwe that this regulation will affect me personally, I m a 16 year old currently in school and a part time job. This is the situation in the lives of millions of teens.
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
"He could have argued and probably won the debate just from the position that those under 18 should not be able to drive. There were reasonable responses to my arguments about learning and need for a car and etc, but instead my opponent took on my framework and therefore loses the round."

So how do I win this debate if those under 18 should not be able to drive?
That is not even my resolution. Otherwise the resolution should be: Those under 18 should not be able to drive.
Posted by symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
But then we need to define what "full License" means and thats still the same problem.
Posted by symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
But then we need to define what "full License" means and thats still the same problem.
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
"The age at which someone is legally able to operate a motor vehicle with or without restrictions."

How about the age at which someone is legally able to operate a motor vehicle with a full license?
Posted by symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
I feel like if we can't agree on the definition debate we should just scrap this debate if we can, as it feels like it all comes down to that.
Posted by symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
The age at which someone is legally able to operate a motor vehicle with or without restrictions.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Hades 8 years ago
Hades
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Dnick94symphonyofdissentTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70