The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
lalaland35
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Drunk driving should be legalized.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 397 times Debate No: 85468
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Structure
R1: Arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Defend your argument

I Pro will argue that drunk driving should be legalized. Most people are safe to drive when they have had a few drinks. Making DUI (driving under the influence) illegal has not halted drunk drivers.

"Responsible drinking is subjective. It will take 2 to 3 drinks to reach the legal 0.08 limit, but most people can probably handle twice as much without encountering any problems. Let’s look at all the people out clubbing and at the bar on the weekends." [1]

"Average number of people arrested annually for drunk driving 1,500,000" [2]

Also DUI laws can be used by the municipality to harvest fees. There is no good reason why people should have their freedom restricted in this matter. Citizens should be allowed to drive drunk.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin [3]

Security would be increased but at a cost of liberty. Give the people what they want.

Links.
1. http://daclaud.com...
2. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
3. http://whatourforefathersthought.com...
lalaland35

Con

I don't think drunk driving should be legalized. It has taken way to many life's. Innocent or not their lives has been taking by someone else's mistakes. I also don't think it's taking there freedom. They're going to jail for doing something illegal. To me that's like saying if you kill someone and got put in jail for it there freedom was took. I think they're just learning their lesson for a mistake they have done. It's called responsibility, they have to take responsibility for their actions. Going to jail will also teach them not to do this again, the laws are there for a reason. That reason is to keep us safe, and when someone breaks those laws most of the time it will put them in danger.

"You must take responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself."
-Jim Rohn
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Rebuttal of opponent's R1 argument

"It has taken way to many life's. Innocent or not their lives has been taking by someone else's mistakes." lalaland35

This only proves my point. Drunk driving is illegal now, and yet has taken many lives. The fact that drunk driving is illegal does nothing to deter drunk drivers.

"They're going to jail for doing something illegal. " lalaland35

Yes, but drunk driving shouldn't be illegal. Instead DUI should be legal.

"To me that's like saying if you kill someone and got put in jail for it there freedom was took." lalaland35

Most drunk drivers cause no harm let alone killing anyone. Plenty of sober drivers take human life. For example 60% of all fatal car crashes involve sober drivers. "Alcohol is involved in about 40% of all fatal car crashes." [4]

"You must take responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances, the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself."
-Jim Rohn

People can take responsibility without the law. Plenty of people drove sober when DUI laws were less severe. I'm not stating that everyone should drive drunk. Only that the DUI laws should be repealed.

Links
4. http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov...

lalaland35

Con

lalaland35 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Opponent has ff.
lalaland35

Con

lalaland35 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
Stupidapelalaland35Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro's arguments were very flawed and weak, they were the only ones to carry over since the two forfeits Con made. Please, do not enter in a debate if you will forfeit it.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Stupidapelalaland35Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for ff. Pro argues that making it illegal to DUI has not deterred car accidents. This is dropped by Con, and thus the only argument that carries over is people's freedom. The reason this is the only argument to carry over is because if it has no deterrence, any argument Con makes has no impact because legality wouldn't have any effect. Thus Pro wins.