The Instigator
ericjpomeroy
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
DaFlipster
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Adults shouldn't be forced to wear seat belts.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,280 times Debate No: 2930
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (16)

 

ericjpomeroy

Pro

Grown people shouldn't be forced to wear seat belts. The government shouldn't force people to be safe! The fact that you can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt is crazy! I am to lazy to write more so I will end it there.
DaFlipster

Con

okay first of going of of the statements given::

-"grown people should not be forced to wear seatbelts" you are not forced but urged to do so, you still have the choice to not wear them as there is no mechanism for the govt. to insure its use. The faulty logic should not be accepted
-"The fact that you can get a ticket for not wearing a ticket is crazy!" crazy in the common language is also known as amazing which he uses(common/colloquial language) therefore he may also be urging for my side not his
-"I am to lazy to write more so i will end there." the personality behind the advocater of the topic shows his agent for reasoning. rather then looking onto what can benefit society he goes of to his own satisfaction to his laziness

okay i am just going to give reasons as to why topic is flawed::

1) on a timeframed basis we can conclude that society asks for seatbelts to be there (imply) events such as the 9/11 caused for us to be in a state of fear and the fear brings about the need for us to be safe. then we can conclude that the totality of society ought to prefer seatbelts due to the benefits that it can provide. according to the almanac of policy issues "Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually." urging for seat belts not to be used becomes detrimental to the value then of human life

2) the value of human life is my second point,we have the obligation to ought for issues that increases the value of human life and being that seatbelts allows for its protection the mere choice for urging it increases the life value on a national basis, being that again seatbelts can protect, the idea of urging for the protection of human life shows that there is still today sufficient value to it and going against such things would show the demoralization that the person against is urging for due to how you are going against something that can uphold life. "The government shouldnt force people to be safe" in the mere sentence given by him the process of demoralization of life is in the process

3)Which is my 3rd point, the wording of the statements given by him, should not be voted for as it urges for a demoralizing society--follow through from second point, he urges for government not to urge for the protection of individuals

although there is much to be said i end with that, i now conclude that we should not accept what he is urging for due to the clear impacts, to harming society, that can be done when we accept the resolution itself and the reason(and how it was reasoned) by him.
Debate Round No. 1
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Thanks for taking the debate.

I want to start by saying breaking down every word I wrote with your discount psychology doesn't help your case, it is just pathetic.

I will just jump into the ridiculous points you made. Not to say you didn't try to make good points, but they were pure fantasy.

1. To link 9/11 to seat belt laws is a little more than just idiotic, the two are not related in any way. If you want to link fear to seat belt laws, then it should be the fear that the government is taking too much interest in the way people live their lives. "Increasing the national seat belt use rate to 90 percent from the current 68 percent would prevent and estimated 5,536 fatalities, 132,670 injuries and save the nation $8.8 billion annually." My point isn't that people shouldn't wear seat belts, they definitely should, but they shouldn't be forced to. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives. But if you want everyone to be safer, why stop at seat belts? Outlaw ATVs, contact sports, swimming, and spending more than 2 hours outside, that should keep people safe.

2. If it was just commercials saying you should wear a seat belt you could call it urging. There is a difference between urging people to do something creating laws to force them to do it. Saying that it is demoralizing to want the freedom of choice, it just ludicrous. Yes, seat belts can protect, so can helmets, roll cages, and titanium plating. Should there be a law that requires all those things on a car? It would save lives! I think it is demoralizing to think that the government thinks so little of me that it makes laws to protect me from myself.

As an American you have to right to be an idiot as long as you don't infringe of the rights of others. If you want to drive without a seat belt, go sky diving, play football, or stick your hand in a blender you should be allowed to. You should also be able to accept the responsibilities of your actions. People don't need the government to think for them, that makes people stupid, and eliminates the need for common sense. Would you rather live 100 years being shielded by the government or 60 years as a free man? Seat belt laws are just an example of how the government invades our lives to try and control our personal choices.
DaFlipster

Con

wow i guess insults are allowed in this one, >.>

1)okay so against your first point you say how the 9/11 doesnt connect to why people would want to use seatbelts, however only those who does not use their "common sense" cannot come to the connection. what i was merely stating was that because of how events are taking place today that increases our risks --"events such as"-- like nuclear proliferation, certain technological advancements like the manipulation of viruses(maing harmful). Making society now further in a state of fear and that we have the obligation to urge for things that can secure their state of security to show how the government is in its power stabolizing society, although you bring up how the government should not force the people id like to remind you that we are in a state that we can change things and if the people really wound not want seatbelts then it wouldnt have been there, however this is not the case. Also some may not agree with that is said so id like to provide another reason: if a government urges for that which is beneficial, and since it is common knowledge that seatbelts can protect people, we see then that the government becomes more legitimate as it urges only for the protection of people, we should not consider the lack of thought that seatbelts should not be used because the government is forcing the people but that it only does so for it to become rational in the things it needs to do, and to actually allow for society to not lack order and be allowed safety against what can harm.

2) Also if we look to then how if the govt would not urge for the use of seatbelts and allow for more damage in society(people with out seatbelts would harmed greater--risk) then cant we see that we can then say the government should be blamed for it, because it could have done something--urge for seatbelts; clearly its legitimacy then becomes at stake-- therefore not only does it become a need for the govt to urge for seatbelts but it becomes an obligation to do so.

3) Also it was stated how the govt is not urging but forcing in his second point, but he also states that "you should also be able to accept the responsibilities of your actions" however how do you become responsible when no consequence is made by your actions? By having policies like the seatbelt use, going against it would actually allow for the statement that he believes, people can then actually become responsible for their actions; as their would be a consequence.

4) "I think it is demoralizing to think that the government thinks so little of me that it makes laws to protect me from myself." well i ask if there is a need to (you know ... think of you, just getting you back for saying im pathetic)... moving to the point ... I say, that you would probably concede to the fact that you have no control, you can't ensure that probably there will be a day where you have a car accident. Thus the govt would not force seatbelts because its people is not capable for themselves but that it urges because accidents are always a possibility and it probably knows that not anyone can control their future thus it feels the need to even when there would be an accident the damage created could be less by urging the use of seatbelts. as you concede the people "should" do.

5) and also you say that trying to increase the value of life is a fantasy. However, the only thing that i am trying to urge is that people should value life and the things you are presenting and how you are presenting yourself is detrimental to its value, you say that the government shouldnt force people to be safe but if this is what it does then injustices would only be created, when it does not do preventative action, as was given by one of my previous point this now is only in general, then the consequence is that nothing can be done or little can be done whenever a situation actually occured that can harm. Oh, and i dont even know a thing about psychology, i havent taken it yet, maybe when i get to college, but yeah.

6) and lastly you compare seatbelts to big things such as sports and such, but these actually are different in the issues they provide; seatbelts only take a minute time to put so why not. These sports, even when it has risks, can actually create a better life for some. And also i dont see the connection between the comparisons ... oh wait i do, i can actually connect things... the problem though is that again they provide different issues... this one topic is just one that i think should not be urged for.

As an ending statement, Adults should be role models to society and should urge for the better of everyone. Thats why we should and ought to negate. and please dont set precendents in insulting as here you see i am influenced >.>
Debate Round No. 2
ericjpomeroy

Pro

You are talking about a country based on freedom. Having the government control your life is totalitarianism not freedom. Yes, we should wear seat belts, there are thousands of things we "should" do, but should we be forced to do them? No. The government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

This isn't about the government protecting people, it is about the government controlling people. I wear my seat belt every time I get into a car, cause that is the responsible thing to do. Now the Government comes in and says I have to wear my seat belt or I will get a ticket. Now, the problem here is I was a responsible adult before the law, but after the law I am just a law abiding citizen. Laws like this remove responsibility from people, it removes common sense, and it takes away from our freedom to be idiots.

My question is where does it stop? Something as simple as wearing a seat belt and it is a law? Who does not wearing a seat belt affect? Nobody but the person not wearing it. Laws should be made based on who is affected by the action. If I want to drive without a seat belt I should be able to. If I want to drink, smoke, or shoot up black tar heroine in the privacy of my own home I should be able to, there should be no law saying I can't.

If we let laws slip by us making us wear seat belts, then what else could they make us do? How long before you have to wear a helmet everywhere you go, or how long before salt, cigarettes, beer, contact sports, red meat, and McDonald's are all illegal? When will the speed limits be changed to 35 MPH on the freeway? All to protect the retarded American citizens that can't think for themselves. You may want to be bubble wrapped to protect you from the big bad world, but I like freedom. If I no longer have the right to make stupid choices then I am no longer American.

Urge: To push or FORCE along; impel with FORCE or vigor.

So, I agree they are "Urging" us.
DaFlipster

Con

Now here come's the real debate... or does it? I feel sickened by the fact that we were here supposed to debate but why dont yout argue all that i said, you seemed to try to argue them by no direct attack was made.

moving on ...

You say that we are in a country of freedom, and that removing it
will lead to totalitarianism, however we have to concede that to have freedom there shoould be certain restrictions, you're every action effect society living on a non lead country would cause for no society to possibly even be there. being that no control is apparent all individuals would do would be to strive for their own self, now we dont want people dying because one felt the need to without sufficient reason or more minutely you wouldnt want to be stripped off every possesion because someone was able to get it.. and then you wouldnt be able to do anything about it. This is clearly the idea you are pushing forth, all you do is destroy the progress society has made, living in a fantasy if yours is unethical --which you say i am the one fantasy based ideology but look to yourself-- i ask you now is this what you want your child to have in mind, to be able to do things whenever he wants to, all the things you probably would not even want him to be doing?

Now you come with an analogy that "I was (you are) a responsible adult before the law, but after the law I am just a law abiding citizen." but there seems to be some irony in the statement, both seems to direct to the same result being responsible however there is a difference between them, which is that again the untouched point that laws become more credible in deeming individuals responsible due to the consequence it makes. This clearly is important in society today, you urge that people should be able to do things they want, however should you ought for others to do the careless things you want doing? your belief again comes into play that people should be responsible for their actions, how can you be responsible for your beliefs that can influence others, when others that would do the things you like doing, those things can be degradating for those influenced. maybe yourself belief seems proper but when you can effect others so that it harms them, are you not infringing on anothers self-rights. "As an American you have to right to be an idiot as long as you don't infringe of the rights of others." this you say but id like to say by that you propose you are infringing in the rights of others.

You also ask the question where does it stop? leave the country. Although wearing helmets may not be that sufficient as it limits your view... which it already is(limited).

Id like to say to that you have just insulted alot. you say we become retarded if we fallow laws. In it of itself it is a logical falacy. A copious amount of individuals even more capable than you follow the law, id say you have insulted everyone who follows it because all of them is more capable than you. I'm sorry for the harsh statements but all i say is based upon the flaw you show with yourself in how you think.

Urge: you still have choice even if you are seemed to be forced

and if you chose not to follow again you detriment yourself with the possibility of influencing others

...seat belt debate... -DaFlipster
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by olle15 6 years ago
olle15
Shure if you want to die don't wear your seat belt.
Posted by DaFlipster 6 years ago
DaFlipster
i mean disecting you words wasnt the only things i did, i actually tried to refute them
Posted by DaFlipster 6 years ago
DaFlipster
what do you mean misguided and how was is not logical? just want to know to see what i can do not because i, off the bat disagree with you
Posted by ericjpomeroy 6 years ago
ericjpomeroy
I didn't think I was insulting you. I thought the action of a 16 year old trying to get Freudian on every word I said was kinda pathetic. I don't think your pathetic at all, just the action. I am sure your a very upstanding young man, A little misguided, but upstanding none the less.

As for out debate I was hoping for a little more logical debate, but I will take what I can get.
Posted by DaFlipster 6 years ago
DaFlipster
hey eric so whatd you think about the debate?
oh and peace for my comments >.> you insulted me first so i insult back... peace
Posted by ericjpomeroy 6 years ago
ericjpomeroy
This sounds like the start of a beautiful friendship.
Posted by FunkeeMonk91 6 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
Weird. We agree on this one too, ericjpomeroy.
Posted by DaFlipster 6 years ago
DaFlipster
yeah if you guys dont want to read everything just read rounds 2 and 3 i think
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aodanu16 6 years ago
aodanu16
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by education4earth 6 years ago
education4earth
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 6 years ago
bigbass3000
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenicks 6 years ago
kenicks
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DaPofoKing 6 years ago
DaPofoKing
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 6 years ago
paul_tigger
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kristiepomeroy 6 years ago
kristiepomeroy
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by paulsckwon 6 years ago
paulsckwon
ericjpomeroyDaFlipsterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30