The Instigator
ericwarrener
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XimenBao
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Bike helmet law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
XimenBao
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,702 times Debate No: 23206
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

ericwarrener

Con

I dont think that we should have helmet laws because it is an invasion to familys that let there kids ride without a helmet it is tthere child they pick if they where it on NOT.
XimenBao

Pro

Oh hey, I meet the requirements. I totally didn't expect that to happen. Since it did, let's debate this thing.

I'm arguing for bike helmet laws for children.

My Case:
Kids getting their heads cracked open is really bad.
Helmet laws lessen the number of kids who get their heads cracked open. [1]
Therfore helmet laws are good and we should have them.

Rebuttal to my opponents case:

1)
No existing helmet laws contain provsions for an invasion of familys. Most are content to require the children to wear helmets. Even if it did, why would that neccesarily be a bad thing? Some invasions are awesome. Space Invaders was a classic [2]. The British Invasion gave us the Beatles and they were bigger than Jesus [3]. Then again, some people claim Mexicans are an invasion[4]. Those people are bigots. Don't be a bigot. Hug a Mexican and vote Pro.

2)
Letting children where it on NOT is tremendously irresponsibe. Whereing it on NOT is something that should only be done between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, or lawfully rented hotel rooms. Trying to include children in this activity speaks to the general degradation of society, and trying to involve their own families in the process is beyond what a moral person should countenance.

[1]http://www.abc.net.au...
[2]http://www.spaceinvaders.de...
[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[4]http://www.ourcivilisation.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ericwarrener

Con

ericwarrener forfeited this round.
XimenBao

Pro

Con forfeits
Debate Round No. 2
ericwarrener

Con

Yeah but less kids are riding bikes because they dont want to wear helmets
XimenBao

Pro

Says who?
Debate Round No. 3
ericwarrener

Con

Me and alot of research and a lot of the kids in the USA
XimenBao

Pro

That's not going to cut it.

Whatever you think Con's argument was in R1, it was conceded with a "yeah, but' in R3 and he brought out a new argument that kids will ride bikes less if they have to wear helmets.

Even when specifically requested, he was unable to point to a source for this, and besides that, my uncontested case that kids getting their heads cracked open is bad (injury, death, etc) and is prevented by helmet laws would outweigh less overall bike riding, the harm of which wasn't discussed.

In short, Con brought nothing of substance to the table, and even if he had, I showed helmet laws solving a more important problem than he asserts they cause.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ericwarrener 4 years ago
ericwarrener
Okay but i still say that it is up to the parents not the law.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
I really wanted to debate the merits of invading families. Oh well.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Look out now. I just raised the debating bar. XD
Posted by Riversidegirl4life 4 years ago
Riversidegirl4life
I really wanna debate this... but I dont meet the debator's restrictions? Meh, I'm challenging him to this debate!
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
I got the same thing >.<
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age, rank or number of debates completed criteria." -_-
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
ericwarrenerXimenBaoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round and did not respond to Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
ericwarrenerXimenBaoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the reason we should wear helmets... Arguments were superior and con FF a round too
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ericwarrenerXimenBaoTied
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: ff