The Instigator
cbirkas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Drunk drivers have their cars suspended

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Cars
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,162 times Debate No: 55957
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

cbirkas

Pro

Of course drunk drivers should have their cars revoked! Imagine, some drunk driver goes out and kills someone. All they lose is their license. That won't stop them from being able to drive. That person could go out right the next day and kill another person. Of course the penalty on them would be bigger, but for the price of someone's life? Again? If we took away the cars of drunk drivers, they wouldn't be able to kill anymore people.
Defro

Con






Rebuttal:

"Imagine, some drunk driver goes out and kills someone. All they lose is their license. That won't stop them from being able to drive."


-Yes it would. It would stop them from driving legally. If they lose their license and they are caught driving again, they will be punished. The government is only allowed to perform on a legal basis. They have no jurisdiction to take away someone's car in most cases.

-Pro is assuming that taking away someone's car will stop them from driving. This will certainly not stop a drunkard if he wanted to drive. If a drunkard wanted to drive a car, but his car was taken away, he could potentially steal someone else's car. Therefore, if his car is not taken away, he would only be committing two felonies: drunk driving and killing someone. But if his car is taken away, he would be committing three felonies: drunk driving, killing someone, and theft.

-Therefore, in this case, the government has no right to take away one's car, neiter should they take away one's car for drunk driving because the felonies being committed would be increased.


"If we took away the cars of drunk drivers, they wouldn't be able to kill anymore people."

-Not true. I have shown how they can kill more people by stealing cars, in which case their crime would be bigger.




Addendum:

-If they own a car, they obviously paid for it with their own money that they worked to get. That means, their car is owned by them by right. Every human has 30 basic human rights, and one of them is the right to possession. You can take their right to drive, but you cannot take their car because they paid for it. [1]

-If you broke the rules in DDO, you can get banned, but you can't have your computer taken away from you.



Sources:

[1] http://www.samaritanmag.com...








Debate Round No. 1
cbirkas

Pro

It is possible for a drunk driver to go and steal someone else's car because they don't have one of their own, it's possible for them to do almost anything. That doesn't mean they will. It isn't easy to steal a car, so whoever the person is may not want to go through the trouble. At least if we take their cars away, they can't go right back out and kill someone again. Why should we let them posses the machine they used to kill someone? At least if they try to steal someone else's car, they will have a higher chance of getting caught because stealing a car does not take a long time, and since they will probably get caught, they will have a bigger punishment and they will have not killed someone again.
Defro

Con

*I would like to apologize for my small font in the previous round. I do not know what happened. Without further ado, I present my rebuttal.






Rebuttal:

"It is possible for a drunk driver to go and steal someone else's car because they don't have one of their own, it's possible for them to do almost anything. That doesn't mean they will...At least if we take their cars away, they can't go right back out and kill someone again. Why should we let them posses the machine they used to kill someone?"

-Pro is being contradictory. Pro claims that while it is possible for a drunk driver to steal a car, that doesn't mean they will. Then, Pro proceeds to assume that all drunk drivers kill people.

-I drove drunk once, and I didn't kill anyone. And I didn't even have a license.

-But what if a drunk driver didn't kill anyone? Furthermore, what if a guy who wasn't drunk drove a car and killed someone? These are rhetorical questions of course, and I don't expect Pro to respond.


"It isn't easy to steal a car, so whoever the person is may not want to go through the trouble...At least if they try to steal someone else's car, they will have a higher chance of getting caught because stealing a car does not take a long time"

-Pro has contradicted himself again. Pro claimed that it isn't easy to steal a car, and later claimed that stealing a car does not take a long time.



Addendum:

-What if it's legal? There are many countries where it is legal to drink and drive [1]. Should they have their car's revoked for doing something perfectly legal?

-I repeat my last point from my previous argument. They bought their cars, they own it, and the government has no jurisdiction to revoke their cars from them simply because they were drunk driving. You have yet to explain why it would be justified for the government to break their own laws.

-You have yet to meet your burden of proof.




Sources:

[1] http://recombu.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cbirkas

Pro

I said that it does take a long time to steal a car, and that because or that, the police will have an easier time and more time to catch the drunk driver. Also, I didn't say that drunk drivers always kill people. I never said that. Drunk drivers do kill people, that is true, but they don't always kill people. When people read you're argument, they are going to read things that aren't true about my arguments. And you did not give me very many reasons why my arguments are invalid.
Defro

Con






In round 1, you said that they should have their cars taken away because just having their licenses taken away won't start them from driving.


-I used my example of stealing another one's car to show that taking their cars away cannot stop them either.




In the past 2 rounds, your only argument that drunk drivers' cars should be taken away from them is because they kill people. I will provide quotes from your arguments to show this:


"That person could go out right the next day and kill another person. Of course the penalty on them would be bigger, but for the price of someone's life? Again? If we took away the cars of drunk drivers, they wouldn't be able to kill anymore people."

"At least if we take their cars away, they can't go right back out and kill someone again. Why should we let them posses the machine they used to kill someone? At least if they try to steal someone else's car, they will have a higher chance of getting caught because stealing a car does not take a long time, and since they will probably get caught, they will have a bigger punishment and they will have not killed someone again."

-These quotes were your only arguments for your resolution, therefore it is implied that you are assuming all drunk drivers kill people.

-Nevertheless, how do you account for the drunk drivers who don't kill people? Do you still think they should have one of their human rights taken away (the right to possession).




I gave you 4 reasons why you're arguments are invalid:

1. They own the cars. They bought it with their own money that they worked hard for.

2. It is a basic human right to own possession. This is related to the first reason.

3. What if they didn't kill anyone? What if they didn't even crash the cars in which they have driven drunk?

4. It is legal in some nations to drink and drive. Therefore, they've done nothing legally wrong and their government cannot legally take their cars away.





Over to Pro







Debate Round No. 3
cbirkas

Pro

Where you quote what I had previously said "it does not take long to steal a car" I must have mistyped that because it does take a long time to steal a car. Also, I haven't received very many arguments from the con side. The only clear argument I saw about why we shouldn't ban cars from drunk drivers for 1 year is that not all drunk drivers have killed people. Of course I know that, but eventually they might and suspending their cars will lower the chances because it takes a long time to steal a car so the police will have more time to get to this person and arrest them. They will then be in bigger trouble, and they probably will have not had enough time to access the interior of the car and drive away, making it safer because it isn't possible for them to kill someone while driving if they don't have a car to use. This website for the organization MADD shows that it is possible in some places for a person to have killed someone and to still be allowed to stay at home with their car. They may have their license suspended, but not their car, making it still possible to kill someone, or even if they just went out drunk driving and didn't kill someone, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to get drunk and drive again but to kill someone this time. http://www.madd.org...
Defro

Con





Rebuttals:

"it does take a long time to steal a car."

-This is a baseless claim. Have you ever stolen a car? If not, then you don't know whether it takes a long time to steal a car or not. As a matter of fact, stealing a car can be very fast. I can say this with more credibility than you because I myself have stolen a car. Once, my buddy and I noticed an unlocked car with the key still inside. I stole it and drove it around the block before returning it back. This all took 5 minutes.


"I haven't received very many arguments from the con side. The only clear argument I saw about why we shouldn't ban cars from drunk drivers for 1 year is that not all drunk drivers have killed people."

-First of all, as the instigator, the burden of proof is on you. I am not obligated to provide any arguments as long as I negate your resolution.

-Furthermore, I have provided 4 points, and even listed them in my previous argument. If that is the only "clear" argument you saw, then "clearly" you don't have good sight, as I pointed them out in bold and listed them from 1 - 4. I will list them again:

1. They own the cars. They bought it with their own money that they worked hard for.

2. It is a basic human right to own possession. This is related to the first reason.

3. What if they didn't kill anyone? What if they didn't even crash the cars in which they have driven drunk?

4. It is legal in some nations to drink and drive. Therefore, they've done nothing legally wrong and their government cannot legally take their cars away.

-You have not addressed these points.


"Of course I know that, but eventually they might and suspending their cars will lower the chances because it takes a long time to steal a car so the police will have more time to get to this person and arrest them. They will then be in bigger trouble, and they probably will have not had enough time to access the interior of the car and drive away, making it safer because it isn't possible for them to kill someone while driving if they don't have a car to use."

-Pro is basing his sole argument off of assumptions and predictions of the future. He is saying people should be punished for something they didn't do yet, even if it is uncertain whether or not they will do it.

-Pro is claiming that because there is a chance someone who has driven drunk one night can kill someone another night, their cars should be taken away. Well then by that logic, everyone should have their cars taken away because regardless of whether or not you have driven drunk, there is always a chance you will kill someone while driving. By that logic, Pro is implying that we should have our kitchen stoves taken away so that we can't cook because there's a chance we'll get burned and we should have knives banned because there's a chance we'll cut someone.

-Again, let me remind Pro that the government does not have the right to punish anyone for something they didn't do, even if they suspect they will do it.


"This website for the organization MADD shows that it is possible in some places for a person to have killed someone and to still be allowed to stay at home with their car. They may have their license suspended, but not their car, making it still possible to kill someone, or even if they just went out drunk driving and didn't kill someone, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to get drunk and drive again but to kill someone this time."

-I fail to see how that website supports your argument. The website shows that people can keep their cars if they killed someone, but their license is taken away.

-This supports my 2nd point. If someone was driving and killed someone, he can have his right to drive taken away (license), but he cannot be derived of his basic human right to own possessions.

-In a public library, you are derived of your right to speak freely as to not disturb anyone, but no one has the right to cut out your tongue so that you can't speak at all.



*You have not met your burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cbirkas 3 years ago
cbirkas
Preston, you should vote for which side you think should win.
Posted by cbirkas 3 years ago
cbirkas
Preston, you should vote for which side you think should win.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Which is why they can have their rights to drive taken away but their physical cars cannot be legally revoked by the government.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Preston
Actually I provided 2 sources.
And all prisoners still have the right to possession.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
Defro bugs me, he shows no sources and doesn't understand human rights can be revoked, if you don't believe me look at any prisoner. they are no longer gifted with these "30 rights" and a DUI would mean they have broken the law and intern may also have rights revoked.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
cbirkasDefroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has not met his burden of proof and has not addressed many of Con's points. At the same time, Con provided adequate rebuttals that negate the resolution. Pro's main argument was that some drunk drivers kill people, however, this does not account for all drunk drivers and therefore he has not met his burden of proof.