Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

Resolved that it and I should raise the driving age from 16 to 18
please post

Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate possible; I see where you are coming from, Rockylightning.

Students are excited to head off to college and need a way of transportation. They will be independent and learn what it is like to become an adult.

Raising the driving age from 16 to 18 delays a teenager's sense of independency and is inconvenient to the parents of the teen and the student.

I ask the Pro side this: give me one good reason why we should be taking this away from our youth.

Without the teen knowing how to drive until college, they will not be able to get around to jobs, groceries, or be independent. Instead, they will have to pay for public transit every time they need to go anywhere.

Raising the driving age will NOT lower the amount of driving accidents in teens because being two years older does not give them an extra two years of experience in driving if they are just sitting and waiting around.

A 16 year old would be more likely caught drinking underage then am 18 year old, completely making the alcohol factor irrelavent.

This debate is mostly based on reason. Is there any reason why we should not let a 16 year old drive?

Thank you; I will expand later on in my next speech.

===============================Refutations======================================

To refute my opponent's points, my opponent stated that "A 16 year old would be more likely caught drinking underage then am 18 year old, completely making the alcohol factor irrelevant." This point completely helps my side because a 16 year old is more likely to drink, so therefore if he can drive, more accidents.
2) My opponent stated that it would reduce convenience: we have to look at this debate as a whole, on my side, I have all my points (below) on the Con side, you have convenience. If we raise the driving age we could save lives, is convenience really worth lives? A human lives cannot be measured in the amount of convenience it has cost.

====================================Main points================================
Crysis you asked me for one good reason? I have 3.

I.
Reduces The Number of Accidents.
a.If we raise the driving the number of accidents would go down considerably. It's a known fact, teenager are way more likely to hace accidents than older drivers. In the USA there were over 30,000 deaths in crashes involving 15-17 year olds between 1995 and 2004. Raising the driving age will lower this number considerably.
b.Teenage drivers are very dangerous so delaying when they get a license will make roads much safer for everyone. Young people (especially boy's). have a different attitude to driving compared to older ones. For example, they can be fearless and thrill-seeking, taking risks that older drivers would not do. They see good driving as about being to control their car at high speeds. They are also more influenced by peer pressure and more competitive, both of which make risky behavior more likely.

II.Many countries have already done this.
a.Over the past ten years many countries and most US states have already bought graduated driving licensesing ( or GDL). This means that new drivers have to go through two or more stages or restrictions before they earn a full license.
b.Few countries think 16 and 17 years are grown up enough to vote, drink alcohol or smoke. Yet most allow them to get behind the wheel of a car, even though it is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. Society usually sees 18 as the age at which young people becomes adults. Shouldn't driving be one of the privileges of adulthood?
c.Believe it or not, if we lower the driving age it'll help us tackle the problem of obesity. Lack of excersice a large reason why many pele are overweight. Obesity leads to ill health for the individual and society suffers. If we lowered the driving age this would force teenagers to walk or use public transportation giving them much needed exercise and more exposure to the outside world. During the age(s) of 16-18 is also a crucial time in life where people develop habits and stick with them for life. This means that raising the driving age will have a wider impact as people grow less dependent on their cars.

===============================Sources========================================

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://searchwarp.com...

http://www.boston.com...

===================================VOTE PRO==================================

Rocky, I have more than 3 good reasons why your contentions are completely pointless.

To refute your first point, new drivers (as in inexperienced) are logically more likely to cause accidents on the road. If we raise the age to 18, then as 18 year olds, they will get into accidents as new drivers just as much as 16 year old teens. Raising the driving age to 18 does NOT cause the roads to be any safer than they already are. Wouldn't such things as college and possible careers pressure a teen more when they're 18 rather than when they are 16?

To tackle your second point, laws are broken in every country. People still smoke underage. People still drink underage. Getting behind the wheel of a car is one of the first steps of independency. A reduction by two years in driving will NOT decrease the amount of obesity, rather increase it; it's all reason and logic. If you can't drive 6 miles to work, and you don't have a bike, then you won't get a job unless it is local. And if you can't find a local job, then pretty much you're sitting around the house. If you decide to take public transit, you're just wasting your money every day commuting. Public transit doesn't provide exercise...

My Opponent has stated three unvalid reasons why we should take away independency and conveniency from our youth, and has failed to state any evidence for his side.

For these reasons, VOTE CON :)

To refute my opponent's points:
============================Refutes==========================================
1) "new drivers (as in inexperienced) are logically more likely to cause accidents on the road." There have been many scientific studies that prove that 18 year olds are more mature and more likely to make the right decision while on the road. It is also proven that 16 year olds are more likely to drink and drive, so obviously an 18 year old would do a better job. Experience doesn't matter when when you're drunk.
2) "A reduction by two years in driving will NOT decrease the amount of obesity," "You won't get a job if it's not local"
It WILL decrease obesity because people [for two years] will be forced to walk, bike, or scooter. IF you're job's not local, you can take public transit, and at least be forced to WALK to a bus or train.
===============================Points===========================================
(Found in round 2)
=VOTE PRO=

Starting with refutations:
1) it is true that 18 year olds logically do tend to be more mature than 16 year olds. However, Rockylightning has not listed any sources as to where these "scientific studies" came from that prove that they make better decisions on the road. Being older doesn't increase your reflex timing. Being older doesn't help you know when to turn, or give you a better clue when the light is red or green. It really doesn't make any difference. Also, my opponent has stated ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that a 16 year old is more likely to drink and drive and has failed to refute my point successfuly that 16 year olds, being farther away from the age of 21, are more likely to get caught drinking underage due to their appearance from maturity. Experience doesn't matter then you're drunk, but being drunk does matter when it comes to getting away with it.
2) This obesity point is completely ridiculous!Rockylightning has unsuccessfully tried to refute my point once again. It is inconvenient for the parents of the teenager and the teenager themsevles to have to wait until maybe even after a year of college just to be able to be independent and drive to school or work! There are some places such as the countryside or Central Valley in California where there is poor public transit. How would you be able to get around? You would have to live in a major town like Frenso to do that! And what will waiting two years do for you? Encourage you NOT to go outside and rather sit around all day doing nothing. This point should be disregaurded.

For these reasons, please Vote Con.
Thank you.

==============================Refutations=======================================
1) To refute that point: 71% of crashes in the US are caused by drunk driving (in teens)
http://www.edgarsnyder.com...
1b) Being older DOES mean you're less likely to drink, if we raise it to 18, then we wouldn't have drunk teens in a car, we would have drunk teens on a bus, which is better?
2) "This obesity point is completely ridiculous", no it's not, it makes complete sense that if kids aren't' allowed to drive, they will be forced to use bikes, public transit, etc. At least they will have to WALK to a bus stop, rather than to their garage.
3) "There are some places such as the countryside or Central Valley in California where there is poor public transit" as I have said before, if you can afford to buy a car, you can afford to buy a bike, and you can travel anywhere on a bike that you could on a car locally. That point is down.
4) "Encourage you NOT to go outside and rather sit around all day doing nothing", if you have a car, you will be sitting around all day driving your car.
==================================Conclusion===================================
My opponent has:
Stated NO evidence
Stated few sources
not clearly refuted my refutations
not clearly refuted some of my points
==================================================================
==============================VOTE-PRO==============================
==================================================================

http://www.edgarsnyder.com... does not seem to be a trusted or reliable source. Either way, 18 year olds are technically teens. if 71% of crashes are caused by drunk driving in teens in the US, that incluces ages 16-19.

The Pro side has failed to explain why being older means you're less likely to drink. I have given the reasonable fact that an 18 year old's appearance is more developed toward the age of 21 than a 16 year old's physical appearance.

The obesity point IS clearly ridiculous! Walking to a bus stop is better than walking to the garage? Does this make any difference? If you are reading this, do you see any connection of obesity to driving at a younger age by TWO YEARS? As a biker, you need to know when to turn, when to stop, and when to go on a street! You need to know the rules of the streets JUST LIKE DRIVERS! Therefore, the Con side has CLEARLY won this point beyond doubt.

Nobody drives their car all day long! People have better things to do than waste gas money, like getting to a good school, getting to work, and maybe even GETTING TO THE GYM TO EXERCISE!

My opponent has stated no evidence except for an unreliable website that has facts irrelavent to this debate,
Stated one unreliable source
Stated no reasoning. Therefore, it is justified that I can state that there is no reason to change the driving age to 18.
And has weakly refuted my points with excuses of absolutely no thought and 100% defensive rubbish.

For these reasons, the Con side CLEARLY wins this debate.
Thank you again for the challenge; it has been interesting debating you.