The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Minimal Driving Age

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 8 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,446 times Debate No: 6924
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

wjmelements

Con

Simple topic.

Driving means the right to legally pilot a ground vehicle.

I am arguing against the minimal driving age. I will present my arguments in the next round.
rougeagent21

Pro

Thank you for posting this debate. As you are pro, I will allow you to post first. Whenever you are ready, take it away.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

Incorrect. I am CON. Oh well.

There should not be a minimal driving age because the ability to drive is only indirectly related to age. Instead of having to wait to be a certain age before showing one can drive, one should merely have to show that one can drive.

The ability to drive may improve with age, but it mostly improves with experience, and starting people driving younger would put more experienced drivers on the road.

Further, it may be necessary for someone under the age of 15 or 16 to drive, and though they are coordinated enough, they are not permitted due to age.

It is stupid to base the right to drive on age. I await my opponent's argument.
rougeagent21

Pro

I apologize about the mis-communication. Please see the comment I posted.

I will first refute my opponent's case, and then state my own.

Although he does not clearly state this, one can divide my opponent's case into two parts.
1. Ability to drive is not related with age
2. Under-age drivers are sometimes required to drive.

First, one must ask why are minors (Under 16 year-olds, for Colorado) are not allow to drive? The reason is twofold. One, the state believes they can show poor judgment. They don't want accidents caused because someone has shown poor judgment. This is also why we don't allow children to vote, or mentally retarded people to vote. Poor judgment. Two, Minors in particular often use driving to show off, to ask girls/guys out, or run away from their problems. In all of these cases, accidents usually occur. Rash decisions are made, and people are killed. Just because the select few minors can use good judgment and drive well, doesn't mean we should open the doors for the hordes of teens to create hazards and accidents across the US. This is not safe, and shows poor judgement.

Second, my opponent says that sometimes it is necessary for minors to drive. (Examples please?) Even if this were the case, it would create yet another danger by allowing minors to drive. Now to my case.

My first and only argument will be: Teen, and under-aged minors driving is unsafe and costly. Here are some statistics taken from the United States regarding teen driving.

-Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.
-16 year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.
-16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.
-3,490 drivers age 15-20 died in car crashes in 2006, up slightly from 2005.
-Drivers age 15-20 accounted for 12.9 percent of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes and 16 percent of all the drivers involved in police-reported crashes in 2006.
-The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates the economic impact of auto accidents involving 15-20 year old drivers is over $40 billion.

These stats speak for themselves. Allowing under-aged teens to drive would be a HUGE mistake.
"Resolved, there should not be a minimal driving age."
Negated.

sources: http://www.rmiia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Con

Actually, my arguments are divided into these two parts:
1. "the ability to drive is only indirectly related to age"
2. Younger citizens may be required to drive.

1. "Just because the select few minors can use good judgment and drive well, doesn't mean we should open the doors for the hordes of teens to create hazards and accidents across the US"

Actually, it is the other way around.
Just because the select few minors who can't use good judgement and can't drive well, doesn't mean we should prevent all teenagers from driving.

The majority of teens do not drive to show off. There is purpose.
2. Many mothers and fathers are required to drive their teens everywhere because of a minimal driving age. Often these parents also have to work. Competant drivers are kept off the road by a requirement that is neither based off of skill nor competence. And further, idly waiting for parents to pick children up leads to mischief, especially when it occurs regularly.

My opponent's case is a set of statistics, which are actually the result of a minimal driving age.

-Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.- ...because teenagers are aloud to drive at 15 or 16 based off of their age and not their skill
-16 year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.- ...because they are less experienced. This is to be expected. Of course new drivers have higher crash rates than experienced drivers. Creating a minimum driving age won't effect this. Requiring that skill be used as a requirement and not age would improve this.
-16-year-olds are three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers.- ...same as above.
-3,490 drivers age 15-20 died in car crashes in 2006, up slightly from 2005.- ...same as above. From this statistic, we grow more confident that most teenage drivers are competent. Again, to base the right to drive off of age and not skill is the illogic that causes these deaths.
-Drivers age 15-20 accounted for 12.9 percent of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes and 16 percent of all the drivers involved in police-reported crashes in 2006.- Same as above.
-The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates the economic impact of auto accidents involving 15-20 year old drivers is over $40 billion.- Drivers acknowledge that accidents can damage their property as well as others, and when they or their parents are held responsible, this doesn't really matter.

Liberty is sacrificed for the dumbest reasons. Among these are safety. This is a clear example of tyranny and government illogic.

To base the right to drive off of skill and ability rather than age would make the streets safer and the people freer.

Finally, to increase the minimal driving age would result in no change in death tolls. However, instead of 16-year olds dying, it will be 18-year olds dying. Inexperience is inevitable, as we are all first-time drivers at one time.

'It has nothing to do with age. It's experience and education," -Massachusetts State Representative Bradford Hill
http://www.boston.com...
rougeagent21

Pro

As a roadmap I will first uphold my own case, then go on to neutralize my opponent's.

He makes just one very weak attack on my case. He says: "My opponent's case is a set of statistics, which are actually the result of a minimal driving age." HE GIVES NO WARRANT. How are these statistics a result of the minimal driving age? How? Statistics are only an observation of reality. This IS happening. Deaths ARE resulting from people's carelessness. THESE ARE THE FACTS. I don't see how my opponent would want to increase these numbers by allowing more inadequate drivers on the road. Multiple studies have proven that the human mind is not fully capable of constantly producing sound judgment until at least 20 years of age.

Now to fully bring down his case.

First of all, my opponent contradicts himself with his first contention. He says that the ability to drive is indirectly related to age. If they are related, then why allow for ability to lessen while age lessens. This is contradictory to his case. Point 1-NEGATED.

Second, he says young citizens may be required to drive. By allowing them to do so, we would ONLY INCREASE the danger on the road. Poor judgment leads to poor consequences-and more deaths. Point 2-NEGATED.

So, If you vote affirmative, you are voting for safer roads, and fewer deaths. If you vote negative, you vote for increased danger levels, and a higher death rate. With those two options, I think the answer is rather obvious.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I request that someone besides Roy explain why they voted against me.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Good idea Roy!
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
haha sound great :)
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
There is good clinical data from brain scans that the human faculty for judgment does not mature until around age 25. That leaves open the question of how mature is mature enough, but there is definitely a factor related to age and not just experience. The brain mechanism has to do with relating actions to consequences.

It seems to me possible to develop a driving simulator that could train and assess judgment as well as mechanical skills. The virtual reality simulator would have a car full of virtual teenaged passengers that gave "advice" to the driver and create various distractions. The length of the skirt of the girl in the front passenger seat could be adjusted from the instructor's console. The radio volume and content could be adjusted by the instructor.

I am only a government grant away from getting this built. Maybe it's in the Stimulus Package ...
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
The first three votes went to PRO and all three were:
<18
Conservative
US
White
Male
Christian
Not Saying for Eduction
Republican

Hmm...
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
You are ignoring my case. I suggested that we only let people drive that can drive.
Posted by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
so by driving at an earlier age with LESS life experience than those crazy teens, we are making the roads safer? I THINK NOT!
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
I apologize. By pro I meant the one starting the round. My bad.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by skyker 7 years ago
skyker
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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 resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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 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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
wjmelementsrougeagent21Tied
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:07