The Instigator
Jan_PL_S6
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers

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 6 votes the winner is...
alto2osu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,504 times Debate No: 11216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Jan_PL_S6

Con

In the state of New Jersey the process to get a driver's license for new drivers consists of:
Passing a written test
Driving on a learner's permit for at least six months
Taking a road test at the Department of Motor Vehicles
Driving with a provisional license for one full year

The most recent process for new drivers allowed them to take a six-hour course as soon as they turn sixteen (upon passing the written test with a score of 80% [40/50 correct]). During this course they drive with a certified driving instructor in a special car consisting of a working foot brake for the instructor situated in the passenger seat. If they pass this "driving school" they acquire their learner's permit, which they need to have for at least six months, but may not take their road test prior to turning seventeen.

Under the learner's permit, they are permitted to drive with a licensed driver in the passenger seat who is at least 21 years of age and has had their license (unrestricted) for at least three years. The student driver is not permitted to drive between midnight and 5:00 AM, and they may not drive out of state. If the student driver turns seventeen and has had their permit for six months, they are allowed to take the road test at a NJ DMV.

Upon passing this test they receive their provisional driver's license, which they have for one full year. Under the provisional driver's license they may only drive with one non-family member as a passenger (the driver may have a full car of blood related family members), may not drive from midnight to 5:00 AM, and they can not drive out of state. After one year, the driver may go to the DMV and have his or her license promoted to an unrestricted license. [1]

Back in 2006, 16-year-old Kyleigh D'Alessio died in a passenger car accident. The driver (17-year-old male) drove their Audi TT into a tree with two other passengers. Kyleigh and the driver died and the two other passengers have been injured. [2]

Since the accident, friends and family have been fighting to pass stricter laws on new drivers. And as of April 15, 2009, Governor Jon Corzine signed Kyleigh's Law which will be enforced in the state of New Jersey starting May 2010 [3]

Under Kyleigh's Law the following restrictions are now put in place:
For 16-year-olds on their learner's permit:
Same restrictions as before
Now cannot drive between 11:00 PM – 5:00 AM
Permit must now be held for at least 12 months.
Accompanying licensed driver must live at the same address as the permit driver
No more than one accompanying passenger (on top of the licensed supervising passenger) regardless of family relation.

For 17-year-olds:
Same restrictions as before
May not drive between the hours of 11:00 PM – 5:00 AM
Mandatory license suspension for any motor vehicle offense
Increase the suspension time from three months to five months
Takes away the right to plea bargaining in court when issued a ticket.
Restrictions upheld now until the driver is 21-years-old [4]

And any driver that possesses a learner's permit, or provisional driver's license must have an orange decal to be displayed on the vehicle.

As for all the restrictions listed above, there are certain ones I agree with, and others that I feel are unjust to these new drivers. But the one that my opponent and I will be focusing on in this debate is the mandatory decal that is to be issued to all student drivers.

The mandatory orange decal will be the largest form of profiling for these new drivers. Not only will the police be looking for these decals to pull these young drivers for an easy citation (which will go through) but sexual predators can as well. This decal signifies a young driver (ages 16-21) and these young adults are put at risk. A sexual predator may be waiting by one of these cars for an unsuspecting victim at the store or a friend's house. This decal puts them at risk for rape or other sexual offenses along with being preyed upon by police officers.

To my opponent and any spectators I would just like to clarify that I am an 18-year-old male driver in the state of New Jersey. This law does not apply to me because I have completed my provisional driving well before the date of which this new law will be enforced. I am not here to argue because this is not fair to me but because I feel this is an injustice to new drivers getting their license.

I wish my opponent good luck and a fair fight.

The bill that was passed can be found at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us...

Works Cited:

[1] - http://www.dmv.org...
[2] - http://www.njherald.com...
[3] - http://strosecourier.com...'s-law'-not-such-a-good-idea/
[4] - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us...
alto2osu

Pro

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank my opponent for proposing such a unique topic to debate. I, too, hope that the debate will be an interesting one.

I'll begin by addressing the arguments made by the Con, and then follow up with a proposal of my own.

-------------------------------

Con's advocacy basically centers around the dangers of profiling with regards to two particular populations: police and predators. I have 4 responses:

1. There are a number of different things on a given vehicle that make profiling just as easy. Permits, both hanging and bumper sticker, are perfect examples. Those are just as visible as any decal that the state could place on a vehicle, and indicate the exact same thing: that the driver is most likely a youth. Yet, we do not outlaw high school campus parking decals.

2. Sexual predators are probably not cruising along the freeway at 75 mph looking for teens to molest. Their profiles tend to suggest something much more quiet and calculated, hence sexual predators will flock toward campuses and other vulnerable locations. I'd like my opponent to warrant this assertion.

3. The decal serves as a fair and appropriate warning that a given driver may not be as experienced as some of the others on the road. Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers), the statistics on the matter prove that youth drivers are more likely to commit driving errors than those of older demographics [1] [2]. The same rationale is used when marking any hazardous vehicle. We mark student driver cars extensively for the same reason (note that we haven't seen any molestation sprees spurred by predators following around student driver vehicles). This is a tactic, in fact, that will encourage more defensive driving, since drivers around the youth will be able to compensate for a possible lack of experience. Overall, it is an increase in safety.

4. My opponent states that any tickets which result in profiling will "go through" without any ability for the defendant to check that issuance. This is simply untrue. Nowhere in the Con's description of the law does it state that due process for a not-guilty plea is compromised. If a defendant truly believes that the ticket is bogus, then he/she has every right to challenge the citation. As an employee of the largest circuit court traffic department in the state of Oregon, I can tell you that traffic citations do get dismissed, and that young drivers can be acquitted.

----------------------------

The Pro offers an alternative provision of the law to strike, one which does not seem to protect the public, but compromises the functionality of the justice system.

The Pro proposes that the only part of this law that is a poor idea on-face is the restriction of plea bargaining rights to youth drivers involved in motor vehicle violations.

Plea bargaining is essential to efficient government function. Plea bargaining, in the context of a traffic citation, takes on a specific form. Because traffic citations are not criminal proceedings, there is no prosecuting attorney. A "court date" consists of the defendant and the judge. The defendant may plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. Guilty and no contest waive the defendant's right to a trial with the issuing officer, and allow a ticket's case to be decided by the judge that day. No contest is simply a way of not admitting guilt while waiving this right to trial. Hence, plea bargaining is essentially the ability of the judge, within this context, to lower or discharge the fine associated with the ticket.

To eliminate this ability, especially only for a certain demographic based on their supposed propensity to be more "guilty" than other drivers, is a usurpation of the judge's authority and a violation of the principles of justice that govern the nation. We prize ourselves in the equitable application of the law—this requires that our judiciary be able to take into account the circumstances of a given violation and apply the law thusly.

[1] http://www.car-accidents.com...
[2] http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Jan_PL_S6

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

"1. There are a number of different things on a given vehicle that make profiling just as easy. Permits, both hanging and bumper sticker, are perfect examples. Those are just as visible as any decal that the state could place on a vehicle, and indicate the exact same thing: that the driver is most likely a youth. Yet, we do not outlaw high school campus parking decals."

"2. Sexual predators are probably not cruising along the freeway at 75 mph looking for teens to molest. Their profiles tend to suggest something much more quiet and calculated, hence sexual predators will flock toward campuses and other vulnerable locations. I'd like my opponent to warrant this assertion."
I do admit this is an excellent point brought up by my opponent and I will address the two aforementioned points together."

Yes, I do understand that sexual predators are capable of preying on the youth by looking for school issued parking permits. The parking permits which mostly come in a hangtag form to be hung from the rear view mirror of the vehicle. This hangtag is designed to be small, inconspicuous, and out of the way so as not to distract the driver as he or she is driving. This hangtag is only required to be displayed while in the parking lot or where required while on campus. Along with being inconspicuous, the hangtags are designed to be easily removable. So once a student leaves campus, they can remove the hangtag whenever they please. This goes for parking decals and bumper stickers as well. Schools do not care what you do with them as long as they are present on the vehicle when they are required on campus.

This is not to mention how many schools are now adopting a special electronic tag, which works under the same concept as an EZ-Pass and can remain hidden as long as the sensor can still reach it. Students drive through an electronic gate which only opens when it senses the tag.

The decal that is required pertaining to "Kyleigh's Law" is a bright orange decal [1] which is to remain on the vehicle at all times. In other terms, this decal is meant to stick out like a sore thumb. Making it easier to spot from a distance.

"[Sexual Predator's] profiles tend to suggest something much more quiet and calculated, hence sexual predators will flock toward campuses and other vulnerable locations"

To my opponents claim here, all I have to say is what campus does not have some sort of campus security? Whether it be walking the grounds, or in the parking lot, there is a guard on duty. If it is a small school where security is not yet mandated, it is understood under law that the campus is small enough where some sort of faculty member or guardian is present. And as for other vulnerable locations, students have the right to take off their school issued permits when off the school grounds. I agree predators go to more secluded areas to commit an act on another person, but the student can take off their school permit to limit the risk, whereas the Kyleigh's Law decal must stay on the vehicle at all times.

3. "Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers), the statistics on the matter prove that youth drivers are more likely to commit driving errors than those of older demographics {1} [2]."

According to the link you cited (link number 2), there is a chart located on the page showing car accidents by age in the United States in 2006. Now according to this chart, the number killed in car crashes in 2006 for driver ages 16 – 20 and 21 – 24 yielded 5,658 and 4,701 deaths respectively. On the same chart the deaths of age groups 25 – 34, 35 – 44, and 45 – 54 yielded 7,169, 6,361, and 6,232 deaths respectively [2]. Unless my eyes deceive me here, or my math is wrong, I believe that older drivers died more commonly in car accidents than the younger drivers listed.

"We mark student driver cars extensively for the same reason (note that we haven't seen any molestation sprees spurred by predators following around student driver vehicles)."

Yes, student driver cars are marked extensively to alert other drivers, but in the state of New Jersey, all of these "extensive markings" are only required for pre-permit drivers attending the driving school which they are always accompanied by a driving instructor. These markings are only needed for the vehicle used by the driving school.

As for my opponent's fourth and following points, I must say that is topic for another debate. With all due respect, I specifically stated in the first round, "As for all the restrictions listed above, there are certain ones I agree with, and others that I feel are unjust to these new drivers. But the one that my opponent and I will be focusing on in this debate is the mandatory decal that is to be issued to all student drivers."

I apologize for any confusion and if my opponent chooses, we may debate the other points of the law at a later date.

[1] - http://www.njherald.com...
[2] - http://www.car-accidents.com...
alto2osu

Pro

I thank my opponent for his articulate and speedy response. I've addressed the arguments in his RD 2 order.

On his first paragraph (grouped response to my counter-arguments 1 & 2)

1. My opponent attacks the example without actually addressing the main point of the 1st counter-argument I give. The gist of that was the profiling will happen with or without a decal. Police officers profile based on age, or sex, or ethnicity just by looking into a car window. They profile with regards to types and quality of car. This is basically a wash. However, as stated in my 3rd counter-argument, since the decals do allow for an increase in defensive driving, which will inherently increase the overall safety of all drivers, I'm still winning the cost/benefit analysis.

On Electronic Parking Permits:

1. How many high schools in the US are really using these?

2. Way more importantly, this is an attack on an example while totally ignoring the meat of the argument, which is about profiling occurring against young people no matter what.

On decal quality and appearance:

1. Attack on the example.

2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1] This decal is perfectly removable, and the law does not mention the size of the decal. If we are going to argue about the specifics of the decal, then it can be removed any time the student is parked. This would further mitigate whatever minute harms can be gained off of the sexual predator argument, because only vehicles in motion would be subject to target, and sexual predators simply don't target their victims by following their moving vehicles around town or on the freeway. These harms are totally unwarranted.

On campus security and sexual predators:

Campus security is really null in this debate. Again, this was merely an example that my opponent is exploiting while ignoring the gist of the argument. Sexual predators target places where these young people hang out (i.e. are generally stationary) *like* school campuses, churches, playgrounds, parks, local hang outs, etc. He never warrants why it is that sexual predators will target vehicles. Furthermore, as I mention later, we don't have a problem with predators targeting driver education vehicles, all of which, by the way, are required by law to be marked as such constantly (those markings are generally not removable since the vehicle has been mechanically manipulated as a training vehicle). However, even if they weren't, by my opponent's logic, those vehicles and their passengers *should* be the target of predators.

On the attack on my second source:

1. My opponent disregards the first source, handily, which states that:
"The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash."
"Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes.

2. While I can't find the chart my opponent refers to (can I have a specific link so I can evaluate the data?), we are talking about aggregate death, not a breakdown of the cause or number of passengers or any other important details that would allow us to assess the meaning of those stats.

3. The statistic I was specifically referring to was on the page *of* that link. It is a pie chart stating that motor vehicle deaths account for more teen deaths than any other cause. The next closest method of teen death is homicide.

4. My opponent's narrowly focused attack does not actually mitigate the argument I'm making that teen drivers are still a danger due to their relative lack of driving experience. The second source I listed is an entire government webpage dedicated to improving teen driving. Obviously, the federal government is concerned to a great extent about the safety of teen drivers.

On student driver cars being marked:

1. What's the point of this rebuttal? The decals are fully removable, so the harms of these decals must be identical to those of student driver vehicles. So, my opponent is de facto arguing that we should not put markings on student driver vehicles as well. However, the safety benefits of this practice are clear. The same principle clearly supports the use of New Jersey's new decal.

On my dropped 4th counter-argument and dropped alternative:

1. My 4th counter-argument is absolutely topical to this debate. My opponent directly stated in RD 1 that one of the harms of the decal, based on his profiling argument, was that teens with tickets won't have recourse once the citation has been issued. How is me addressing this fallacy not a point of contention? He is claiming that this inherent bias exists within the judicial system as well as the enforcement system, when it clearly doesn't. You can extend this as a valid offensive argument.

2. My alternative proposal is also directly related to the case at hand. My opponent is opposing this piece of legislation due to something he finds morally or ethically repugnant. I am doing the exact same thing. If the goal of this debate is to form a more just law (and, considering that the purpose of debate is to support some sort of change, even if it won't necessarily happen), then I am attempting to fulfill that goal better than my opponent. This is a pretty standard debate tactic. I'm just trying to increase education in the debate. After all, the more people know about this piece of legislation and its errors, the more people can act within the legislative system to make it more just. Furthermore, I am informing about an actual injustice within the legislation, and my opponent is not. Again, extend this as a valid offensive argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Jan_PL_S6

Con

I thank my opponent for her quick response and would like to apologize for my delay. I hope I did not keep her waiting too long. I will address my opponent's counter arguments in the order they were presented.

My opponent states that in my argument I only attack her example. In fact, I believe I have just expressed my point through her example. Yes, I do understand that police profile constantly through various circumstances. But, does that make profiling a good thing? Profiling is an injustice to people and in a sense it is just promoting stereotypes. Profiling in itself, is just unfair to people. The fact that they are more prone to being pulled over just by their age, gender, or the color of their skin is just unfair to everyone. As unfortunate as it is, profiling will exist whether or not these decals are placed on people's cars. But now why would we want to promote this profiling by putting a red flag (or in this case an orange one), to aid in the profiling?
As for my opponent bringing up the fact that these decals would promote better defensive driving, then why stop at young drivers? In Round 1 of the debate, my opponent stated that
"Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers)".
I agree with my opponent here. There is a fair share of terrible adult drivers, so why stop at just the young drivers? Out of fairness for everyone, the state should approve a decal for drivers past the age of 75, as they are a hazard to people around them as well. In fact, maybe the state should approve driving decals for all age groups to aid in the profiling of other drivers to promote safer driving for all. The truth as long as a driver is following the laws of the road, they should have little to worry about. And if they are suspicious of a vehicle, they have every right to back off from them and keep their distance for the safety of themselves, their passengers, and the people around them.

As for the Electronic Parking Permits, they were really just there to serve as an example of an alternate. As for figures, statistics, or any kind of numbers, I do not have any and have not located any in my research. I was stating an example I have witnessed on my own campus to prove that a decal is not necessary.

"2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1]"
For my opponents argument here, I would like for her to present the source where she found this information. From my research, the decal is said to remain on the new driver's vehicle at all times. As for the size of the decal, it would have to be fairly visible if the purpose is to alert other drivers and police. Besides the point, who's to say that a sexual predator would not be on the prowl looking for this decals and waiting for an unsuspecting victim to pull the car over in a discrete spot? I am pretty sure we can all agree that there are some sick and disgusting people out there who would go to great lengths to commit such heinous acts.

My opponent claims that I "attack" her examples and ignore the gist of the argument. This is a fallacy. I do go out on her example of targeting school campuses, and I agree that their security is null in the debate, but point is that sexual predators are looking for discrete areas. Just as my opponent states in her Round 1 argument, "Their profiles tend to suggest something much more quiet". I have yet to hear of a sexual predator going after a group of adolescents, or young people who are accompanied by adults. Their profile suggests that they go after a single person in a secluded area.
I also agree with my opponent's statement that we do not go after the markings of a driver education vehicle. These people have yet to even receive their permit yet. The idea of these vehicles, is to teach people, who have never been behind the wheel of a car, to drive. Therefore, defensive driving techniques may need to be applied here since these people are learning how the car drives and reacts. But while these young people are driving these cars, they are always accompanied by a driving instructor. According to the profile of a sexual predator, I am sure they would want to avoid a scuffle with a driving instructor just to get to the young driver.

As for the statistics my opponent presents, the attack was not on your second source, it was on your first source. Link: http://www.car-accidents.com... I would love to present a straight link to the chart itself, but to be honest I do not know how to do that. The link I have just added (which is straight from the cited links in my opponents first round debate), if you scroll down, the chart is right about halfway down the page. This chart provides the number of deaths of drivers at different age groups. Even if younger drivers are prone to fatal accidents, why should we disregard the fact that older age groups have higher death rates? Maybe stricter driving laws should be put in place for older age groups as well.

The pie chart on my opponents link does pose the problem of a great number of deaths caused by teenage driving, but does that warrant greater profiling on these young drivers? There are a high number of deaths among all age groups. Perhaps there should be stricter driving laws and penalties for all people instead of just putting the blame on younger drivers. Yes, they have a significant amount of deaths from driving, but so do older drivers. This poses a threat to the safety of not only young drivers, but drivers in general.

My opponent goes on of how the government promotes these laws to improve the safety of young drivers and to eventually lower their death rates. The fact stays that stricter laws should be put in place for all drivers to lower these mortality rates behind the wheel. Perhaps more action should be taken in teaching these young people to drive, but profiling against these drivers with a decal only seems to promote police in pulling these kids over and what my opponent states as "defensive driving" against these people. Putting a decal on a kids car does not keep them from driving into a tree like what happened in the case of Kyleigh D'Alessio.
On my opponents attack of the "dropped fourth counter-argument":
I apologize for any confusion that may have been brought up by my opponent but the fact was clearly stated in my first argument and the title. This debate is strictly on the fact of the state approved driving decal for new young drivers. The other points of the approved law served only as an example to inform my opponent and any spectators of the law. As for the other points of the law, if my opponent wishes to do so, we may debate at a later time. But as for this debate, and I quote myself again from the first round:
"As for all the restrictions listed above, there are certain ones I agree with, and others that I feel are unjust to these new drivers. But the one that my opponent and I will be focusing on in this debate is the mandatory decal that is to be issued to all student drivers."
And to clarify once more, this debate is solely concentrated on the orange decal to be placed on the vehicle.

In closing, placing a decal on young drivers cars does not prevent them from accidents. These decals serve solely for the purpose of unfair profiling. To aid in the effort of reducing accidents, stricter driving laws and penalties should be put in effect. Not a shiny sticker.

I would like to express my condolences to the D'Alessio family, no one deserves to go that early

I also thank my opponent for a good and interesting debate.

Best regards,
- Jan :)
alto2osu

Pro

No worries on the delay :) RD 3 order.

Profiling:

1. Profiling is still a wash, which my opponent doesn't bother to address. At the point where, decal or no decal, we have profiling, my opponent can't use it as an offensive reason to oppose the decal. He also can't warrant that profiling will increase enough to even notice a difference in enforcement. Any claim to that effect is hyperbolic.

Decals & Defensive Driving/Safety Precautions:

1. I had to laugh at his total misquotation of my RD 1 statement. Here's what I actually said:

"Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers), the statistics on the matter prove that youth drivers are more likely to commit driving errors than those of older demographics."

Notice that my opponent quotes only a clause of my entire sentence, and leaves out the part where I prove definitively that young drivers present the nation with a safety hazard that the state feels compelled to address based on empirical warrants.

2. Why not put decals on old people's cars? I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is demographically accurate research to back it up.

On Permits Being Removable:

1. Aw crud. The source must not have pasted properly. My apologies. However, that is a direct quotation from the text of the law: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us...

Interestingly enough, this isn't the link I used initially. However, this version, published by the NJ legislature, has been amended to read "hang tags" rather than decals. Not only is the law written to allow transferable permits, but the legislature is making them hang tags. Though this actually changes the nature of the debate by totally nullifying anything my opponent says about profiling (since he says in RD 2 that hang tags are less conspicuous), please don't count this as an offensive argument. I maintain that the original information, which discusses the decal being removable, is enough for me to win the argument. Plus, I don't want to introduce a new argument in the last round.

Bottom line: the permit is transferable, and my opponent is plain wrong on that count. Furthermore, what logical sense would it make to create a non-transferable decal? Do teens never switch cars?

Sex Predators Cont.:

1. Sexual predators stalking cars around town is just illogical. It's impractical (if we can speak of criminality in terms of practicality for a moment). I've stated this previously. Despite documented behavior patterns for sexual predators, my opponent is under the impression that an orange decal will make all the difference in the world. I call shenanigans.

2. My opponent isn't able to argue against the fact that the permits are removable. Without even considering the fact that they are going to be hang tags, at the point where they can be taken off of the vehicle when parked, there's no reason to believe that a sexual predator would even have the opportunity to latch onto a victim in such a way. That is a ton of wasted effort, when predators can just hang out in a public park or mall for a few minutes, and have a much easier time of it than following around a car all day. This also assumes that sexual predators, specifically pedophiles, have their sights set on someone who is 16 or 17, which is pretty far fetched.

Source Debate:

1. "According to the link you cited (link number 2), there is a chart located on the page"—you said my second source. Hence, there was no way for me to have found this supposed chart in the first place. But, now that I know which one you meant, I went ahead and looked at it. My initial conclusions in RD 2 were right.

2. Again, without a more broken down statistic other than aggregate deaths, you can't mitigate the other evidence I present. Aggregate deaths doesn't really matter at the point where car crashes kill far more teens every year than *any other cause of death.* Furthermore, my sources also detail that teens cause an overwhelming percentage of fatal car crashes (in comparison to adults). I only need to prove that teen driving safety is a serious enough concern to warrant safety measures, not that more of them aggregately die than adults.

3. I already covered old people earlier. When their law comes up, I'll be in support of that one, too.

4. My opponent went ahead and dropped what I said about the federal government's concern with teen driving safety, as well as an extension of the source that he, apparently, didn't actually challenge. That's critical, as it proves that teen drivers are a specific concern of the state on a massive level. This isn't an arbitrary law.

Old vs. Young Drivers/Blame:

1. This argument relies on the validity of my opponent's profiling argument. I've already addressed profiling as flawed and unwarranted.

2. Decals have nothing to do with blame. They are simply one of many safety measures imposed by the state on a higher risk group of drivers.

Decals Don't Stop Kids From Hitting Trees/Education:

1. Correct. Decals aren't magical safety shields that would stop the force of a tree. However, since we are all about throwing new arguments into this last round, apparently, I'll respond thusly: with the decal on the teen's vehicle, and the teen knowing that more people, including police officers, will be watching said vehicle when they see the decal, the teen will most likely be coerced into driving better than they would if they were more anonymous. This is the same principle that applies to most drivers when they see a cop approaching them or anywhere near them on the road. Presence is enough to enforce.

2. Again, I agree that education may be the most effective way to solve this issue (despite the fact that my opponent failed to bring it up in RDs 1 or 2). In the meantime, though, safety precautions are not a bad thing, and he can't prove that they are. We don't stop ourselves from implementing a plan because it has drawbacks. Every plan has drawbacks. This plan has far more benefits than harms.

Dropped/Non-Topical Arguments:

1. I read your statement of topic. However, that doesn't invalidate my 4th counter-argument about the court system. Allow me to quote my opponent:

RD 1: "Not only will the police be looking for these decals to pull these young drivers for an easy citation *(which will go through)* but sexual predators can as well."

Here, he makes the court system a key part of his profiling advocacy, since he states that not only will profiling result in more tickets issued, but more "guilty" verdicts since he doesn't believe that judges will dismiss or discharge them. I referred to what he said in RD 1, and clarified again in RD 2. My opponent needs to be held accountable for what he says in round.

2. The counter-plan (involving striking a different clause from the law and keeping the decals) is still, no matter how many times my opponent repeats the same non-argument, a part of this debate. As stated in RD 2, if the goal of the debate is to create, even if just in this round on this website, a more just law, then I'm still operating within his framework. My opponent frames the debate in terms of justice achieved for teens, and then ignores the only argument in the round that *actually* manages to achieve a net benefit in justice for teens (i.e. protecting their due process rights). We are both still debating decals, but we've also been debating about justice since the beginning of the debate.

In summation, given that my opponent cannot achieve any justice for the teen drivers of NJ, ignores a Pro plan to do so as "non-topical," and cannot win the cost/benefit analysis with regards to the decal clause, I urge a vote in favor of Pro.

Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and wish him good luck in his future at DDO!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Well debated by both sides. It comes down to the evidence supporting Con's notions that sexual predators will target teen drivers and that police will harass teen drivers. I think Pro successfully argued that these are unlikely to be significant problems. Con made a mistake in supposing that the number of accidents involving young drivers is relevant, when it is the accident ate that it is important.
Posted by Jan_PL_S6 7 years ago
Jan_PL_S6
haha yea win or lose it was a good debate. And another personal thank you to pro for my first debate on DDO :)
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
RFD:
B/A: Tied
Conduct: Tied
Grammar: Tied
Sources: Tied
Arguments: I understand Con wanting to debate a specific topic, but Pro presented an alternative that should have been addressed. I find Pro's alternative appropriate here. Con did not address it, but did state why so .5 pts to Pro
Next, Pro goes straight for the cost/benefit analysis which, after reviewing the sources, goes toward the decals. 1 pt to Pro
I thought Con did well with explaining that other demographics were prone to accidents, but have no decals. This is very solid, but may be support to issue such decals instead of not having them at all. .5 to Con
All in all, I think this was great, but my points go 1.5 to .5 so arguments to Pro. Good job.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I enjoyed this debate a lot. Thanks again, Con :)
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Great debate. Very solid on both sides and I enjoyed the topic. I had no idea about the decals in NJ.
Posted by Jan_PL_S6 7 years ago
Jan_PL_S6
Thank God i'm not bringing my car over there any time soon lol
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Hey can't be as bad as China, where you don't even have to have road experience to get a full license. :P
Posted by Jan_PL_S6 7 years ago
Jan_PL_S6
I know what you mean. I forgot to mention that of course there are complete alcohol restrictions in place in the U.S. as well but I inferred that it was understood with the fact that our alcohol age requirement is 21+. But in Poland there are restrictions on the car as well. For instance new drivers must have a car that is from a certain year or newer. And of course the driving tests are ridiculous compared to the joke they are in America.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Sounds similar to many Australian state systems. We have had the Learners and Provisional (we call them plates) system for many years. Instead of limited drive hours though, drivers must log time in specific road conditions such as wet and night time before being allowed to progress from L to P plates. As an L driver one must be accompanied by a fully licensed driver at all times. Blood alcohol restrictions are in place for both (none on L plates and depending on the state, for P plates it is none for the first year up to for all 3 years as a P plater). Speed restrictions exist for L plates and 1st year P plates. Most likely they will soon pass state laws restricting the type of car you can drive as well while on restricted plates. As a P and L plater the plates must be displayed, after the first year of P plater
license they can be removed but all other restrictions still apply for the remaining up to 2 years.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Jan_PL_S6alto2osuTied
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 Jan_PL_S6 7 years ago
Jan_PL_S6
Jan_PL_S6alto2osuTied
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 belle 7 years ago
belle
Jan_PL_S6alto2osuTied
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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Jan_PL_S6alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Jan_PL_S6alto2osuTied
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 LadyHavok13 7 years ago
LadyHavok13
Jan_PL_S6alto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06