The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points

Resolved: All 50 states should constitute a noise ordinance for vehicles that play loud music.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 10346
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




We've all heard it, ear splitting loud music coming from a car driving down a quiet residential street, or maybe from across the parking lot at a public beach. Loud music is a distraction to others and may effect the way others drive. it can also be dangerous in an emergency.

Contention 1:
Source -

My first contention is that it can cause danger to other drivers on the road. One thing everyone learns in driving school is to pay attention on the road, look in your mirrors, and look what it around you. Emergency vehicles are a good thing to look out for. The ability to hear approaching emergency vehicles is greatly diminished or completely absent. This can lead to delayed response times for emergency responders and increases the chance of a collision should the driver not yield to the emergency vehicle.

My second and last contention
( is that loud music can disturb residents. In addition to the obvious roadway dangers presented, loud music blaring from a motor vehicle disturbs residential areas. If you are home sleeping late, how would you like it if some person decided to crank up music, no matter what it is, wake you up and disturb you? Not fair, is it?

Examples of current violations:

California -
California Vehicle code Section 27007: No driver of a vehicle shall operate, or permit the operation of, any sound amplification system which can be heard outside the vehicle from 50 or more feet when the vehicle is being
operated upon a highway, unless that system is being operated to
request assistance or warn of a hazardous situation. A violation is a misdemeanor crime and can result in a fine of up to $1,000 and / or six months in jail.

Thank you.


Cody Franklin, Resident Fascist; pleased to meet you, Pro.

Skipping the formalities, let's move to the good stuff! We'll start with my arguments, and then move on to his.

I - Affirming the resolution is unfair to U.S. possessions that are not states.

[] If you'll take a look at the link, you'll note that, in addition to the 50 states, the United States also has a number of outside holdings and territories that are under its jurisdiction, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The resolution specifies that the ordinance would be established in the 50 states, inherently excluding the aforementioned external possessions, among others []; ergo, we can assume that the resolution is discriminatory in nature, seeking to "protect" those within the borders of the states, but leaving people in other territories to fend for themselves.

II - Enacting a federal ordinance detracts from a citizens' right to defend themselves.

In the case of obnoxiously loud music, we're looking at the chance of distracting other drivers on the road, putting all concerned in possibly fatal danger. Legally speaking, citizens of the United States have a right to self-defense when put in danger, in order to protect their lives, or even the lives of others; in the cases suggested by the resolution, all drivers in the proximity of the music-blarer are likely to be distracted, and therefore endangered; according to the law [], one has the right to dispose of the dangerous person by means of deadly force, if necessary. DDO user Nails [] suggests a plan which carries far more efficacy than a fine and petty imprisonment - "I think we should legalize murders commit[t]ed for the sake of peace and quiet. Let the citizens t[ak]e the law into their own hands." Considering that the right of self-defense is legally sanctioned by the U.S. government, and is recognized in all U.S. holdings (not merely the 50 states), it is clearly a preferable option to the proposed "noise ordinance" which would only delay justice, and would be unable to get rid of the root cause of the music-blarer's reckless endangerment of other drivers.

With those opening contentions out of the way, let's take a look at Pro's arguments.

1. Danger to other drivers

a. I completely agree - blaring obnoxiously loud music on the open road can endanger other drivers; however, as I've proposed in my contentions, allowing citizens to invoke their right to self-defense would allow for the problem to be taken care of right away, as opposed to imposing fines, which would only mire the issue in bureaucracy, and would create more hostility between the government and the music-blarer, the latter of which may be inclined to believe that his civil liberties are being violated due to being penalized for "just playing some tunes".

b. As I explained in my first contention, imposing a fined ordinance for playing music too loudly does not provide a large enough net of protection, even assuming that it was as effective as Pro claims - note the evidence presented discussing U.S. holdings outside of the 50 states. Notice that my solution is applicable to all U.S. citizens, and is free of unnecessary governmental intervention. Pro clearly cannot say the same.

2. Disturbing neighborhoods

a. Again, I completely agree that playing loud music can be a bit of a nuisance at times; however, if the neighborhood is being victimized, it is best to allow the neighborhood to intervene, to prevent government meddling in private affairs. Consider some of the positive externalities of allowing neighborhoods to take care of the problem: we're looking at the promotion of neighborhood cohesion, a decrease in litigiousness, and an increase in self-reliance and creative problem solving. Allowing victimized residents to find ways to solve the problem is not only mentally stimulating, but it stops the offense as it happens, instead of waiting for a delayed, post facto response from the government.

b. I would also like to point out to my opponent that life, as a general rule, is not fair, but we have to make the best of it, and the government stepping in at every turn is making it extremely difficult to accomplish this task, especially when it comes to the realm of minor annoyances like a car - with a loud stereo - in a neighborhood - late at night - a very conditional scenario for Pro, who has the burden of universality.

3. The example

a. I'd just like to point out that this is merely my opponent's example of the status quo, and it doesn't actually cover both of his contentions. This so-called "evidence" only pertains to cars on the highway, yet says nothing about residential areas or public beaches.

b. Speaking of the status quo, Pro has yet to prove its legitimacy, and is simply relying on an is-ought perspective to support his reasoning, something that we know to be more than a bit fallacious [].

I hope that my (possibly) unique responses will give Pro something tough to chew on for a couple of rounds; and, speaking of chewing, I have some chicken alfredo waiting for me downstairs. Bis dann, mein Freund.
Debate Round No. 1


samzack forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


samzack forfeited this round.


My opponent doesn't exist. I reported his account(s) samzack and dasamster for multi-accounting (though it may have been a coincidence that there were two 17-year-old boys in Greenwich, Connecticut who were named Sam Zack). Long story short, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


samzack forfeited this round.



Conduct: Con - Pro was a multi-accounter, and no longer exists.

S/G: Tied - Pro had no gross violations, though he only lasted a single round.

Argments: Con - Con's inequality, status quo, and self-defense arguments were quite strong, and were obviously never touched.

Sources: Con - Con has more sources, and explains how a couple of Pro's sources don't actually help his position.

Clearly, 6 points go to Con today.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Lol. After reading through Pro's evidence, I have deduced that 2 of the links are merely descriptions of the status quo, and "Fresno Famous" is some guy's blog.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Just to clarify, samzack, my arguments are intended to be a bit less than serious; I like to keep some of my debate very light-hearted, if not bordering comical.
Posted by samzack 7 years ago
8,000 text ... go right ahead!
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Up the character limit, and I will take this. 8,000.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
who/whom fail.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
I agree with nails
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
A noise ordinance would be costly and ineffective to enforce. Rather, I think we should legalize murders commited for the sake of peace and quiet. Let the citizens tkae the law into their own hands.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
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 Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06