The Instigator
Republican95
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Teucer32
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

People who text while driving should be fined.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Teucer32
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,051 times Debate No: 8823
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Republican95

Pro

This will be a policy debate. For those of you who do not know, a policy debate is a debate in which those debating debate about a piece of real or imaginary piece of legislation. For this to happen their must be a piece of legislation.

===PIECE OF LEGISLATION==

*This is a piece of legislation by a state legislature*

It is hereby unlawful for any person operating a motor vehicle to "text" while driving. This extends to all drivers. Law enforcement have the right to pull over somebody texting while driving. The penalty for texting during any day light hour is a ticket of one-hundred dollars, the penalty for texting during any night-time hour is two-hundred dollars.

I support this piece of legislation for the following reasons:

(a) Texting while driving can lead to accidents. Accidents can kill people. Is that text really that important? No, it isn't, a text isn't worth the life of another driver or yourself. The police have a right to ensure that safety on the roads is maintained, texting is a threat to that safety. Therefore it should be illegalized.

(b) If we keep texting legal, we might as well make it legal to drink and drive. Both are just as dangerous. They both impair response times and lead to more deaths on the road.

(c) I personally know of an 18 year old girl who died this May as a result of texting. She was the person texting, fortunately, it was a single car accident and no one else was injured. The police have ruled texting is at fault, texting isn't worth a life.

I have hundreds of sources if I am pressed for them, I will include them.

I look forward to this debate.
Teucer32

Con

Hey Republican,

Interesting debate.

Unfortunately, my first post will be light as I've been pretty busy lately. I hope it won't be a problem if I wait to launch into full debate until next round.

There were a few concerns I wanted to bring up:

(1) Even if we accept that your policy is for a good cause, the actual plan is flawed.

--VAGUENESS: Your plan is too vague to actually enforce. Are people allowed to stop on the side of the road to text? Are they allowed to read texts why driving? What exactly constitutes "texting"?

--PENALTY: 100 for day and 200 for night? Isn't that backwards? What this says to me is that it is better to text during the day (when there is more traffic) than at night.

--ENFORCEMENT: How can the police actually see if people are texting? Couldn't people easily say that they were dialing a number or checking their e-mail? How does an officer prove that they were texting?

(2) I won't delve into any other offensive points, but I'd like to see sources for your first three points. I'll go into those in the next round.

Please take a look at the plan flaws. Basically, I think it makes it easy for people to jump on the bandwagon when they see a cause they want to support. Unfortunately, I don't see this policy even mitigating the problem.
Debate Round No. 1
Republican95

Pro

Unfortunatley, due to my opponent's long response time, I will most likley have to forfeit several rounds of this debate because I will be in church camp this upcoming week.

However, I will post argument.

My opponent claims that this legislation is very vague, which, it is. I will make some ajustments.

Legislation: Any person that is operating a motor vehicle (defintion of motor vehicle as being in the driver seat while the car is running on a road) that appears to using a telephone for any other purpose other than calling is hereby subject to be pulled over and fined (100 during the day, 200 at night) by a law enforcement officer.

Now, I shall attack my oponent's case.

My Opponent: "100 for day and 200 for night? Isn't that backwards? What this says to me is that it is better to text during the day (when there is more traffic) than at night."

Actually no. Texting at night is more dangerous because 1) people are tired and have slower response times at night and 2) visibility is reduced at night and having your eyes anywhere other than the road is highly dangerous. In many parts of the nation the speed limit is slower at night than during the day for the above reasons.

My Opponnet: "--ENFORCEMENT: How can the police actually see if people are texting? Couldn't people easily say that they were dialing a number or checking their e-mail? How does an officer prove that they were texting?"

The wonderful things about laws like this is that they enforce themselves. Just the fact that texting is illegalized will grealty reduce the number of people texting and driving (people want to be law abiding citizens). And I don't think officers would pull over somebody as soon as they saw a cell phone, they would wait a couple of seconds to see what people were actually doing with a cell phone.

I await rebuttals.
Teucer32

Con

Republican,

I don't want to force any stress upon you by starting my full attack.

However, I will request that you provide sources for all of the points you've made so far.

"I have hundreds of sources if I am pressed for them, I will include them."

I'd like them.

Thanks for the heads up on church camp, Republican. Feel free to make more arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Republican95

Pro

Republican95 forfeited this round.
Teucer32

Con

Teucer32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Republican95

Pro

As my opponent requested I will post sources

This is kind of unfair to me, seeing how my opponent as yet to even establish his own case, he will do so in the last round. However, I will not a chance to respond. :(

==Sources==

1. http://features.csmonitor.com...

2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

3. http://www.cbsnews.com...

4. http://www.cnn.com...

=Conclusion=

Any attempt that the government makes to try to save lives is good. Even though this law might be difficult to enforce, it would send a message to drivers that strongly discourages texting and may even make some people to stop.

Please vote PRO
Teucer32

Con

Teucer32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
RFD:
B: TIED, leaning CON
A: TIED, leaning CON
COND: PRO, who forfeited fewer rounds. Also, the round he forfeited was excused.
S/G: CON (Commas/Semi-colons mixed up)
ARG: PRO (had more and stronger arguments)
SRC: PRO (CON had no sources)
Posted by harshilpatel14 7 years ago
harshilpatel14
If the police forces can catch people making phone calls, I believe it would not be so difficult to catch people whose eyes are off the road and are not concentrating on their driving. This law is based completely on the safety of others and therefore is necessary.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Cops will now have an excuse to stop any and all young women who do not have both hands on the steering wheel.
Posted by Aric 7 years ago
Aric
Maybe not tyranny, be we shouldn't have to mollycoddle our people. Not to mention, this law would be incredibly hard to enforce.
Posted by Republican95 7 years ago
Republican95
How is protecting life tyranny?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
(tyranny, not tyrany)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Resolved: Tyrany should be implemented on public roadways."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Teucer32 7 years ago
Teucer32
Republican95Teucer32Tied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Republican95Teucer32Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61