The Instigator
snelld7
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
SuperPerfundo
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Resolved: Talking on the phone while driving should be outlawed in the United States of America.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/2/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,383 times Debate No: 7650
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

snelld7

Con

My side is clear. I'm supporting talking on the phone while driving. Any takers[...]?
SuperPerfundo

Pro

While personally I talk on the phone often while driving, I think it should be outlawed.

Talking on the phone is one of the most distracting things someone can do while driving, especially texting. Given that over 100,000 deaths a year are from car accidents and our driving culture in general, we do not need any more distractions.

These type of debates always boil down to free choice, so I'm just going to address it now. Talking on your phone while driving significantly distracts you, thereby endangering other drivers on the road. This substantial risk to other people means your decision to talk on your phone while driving is outside the realm of a 'personal decision' and can not be legitimized by civil liberties or free will.

Thanks for posting this debate. Looking forward to your response.

http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Con

snelld7 forfeited this round.
SuperPerfundo

Pro

Sorry you didn't get a chance to respond. Extend my arguments. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
snelld7

Con

Sorry about that, and thank you! Good luck to you also.

1) "These type of debates always boil down to free choice, so I'm just going to address it now. Talking on your phone while driving significantly distracts you, thereby endangering other drivers on the road. This substantial risk to other people means your decision to talk on your phone while driving is outside the realm of a 'personal decision' and can not be legitimized by civil liberties or free will."

Now in first site of this, it sounds perfectly ok. Civil liberties of others as well need to be taken into consideration, however taking away talking on the phone is not going to do this.

My opponent, SuperPeFundo, is under the misconceived notion that if we eliminate people from talking on the phone while driving then it will eliminate distractions, and that is the reason it should be outlawed. By this logic, cars should consisted of only one seat, gas and breaks, the wheels, and the steering wheel. Car radios should also be outlawed due to his reasoning, and street advertisements and billboards should be outlawed.

The same distractions are also present when someone is siting in the car with the driver. Seeing as how people aren't going to be silent while driving , the same distraction "talking to someone while you're driving" is going to be present whether you outlaw phones or not, making their outlawed status be underminded and pointless.

Bottom line is, the same distraction whether you're on the phone, or talking to someone in the car is present either way. Maybe even more so with driving with passengers because you sometimes like to look at the people you're takling to in your car, but you can't look at anyone on the phone.
SuperPerfundo

Pro

I don't defend any of the other distractions you pointed out. Just because other distractions exist, doesn't mean outlawing cell phones wouldn't be helpful in keeping drivers focused. Your argument against my logic is a slippery slope fallacy.

The presence of all of the distractions you listed is all the more reason to ban cell phones. Drivers are as distracted as ever and cell phones present one of the few opportunities to battle those distractions. Its hard to ban conversation with passengers or listening to music, but talking on a cell phone while driving is identifiable and actionable. A cop can see someone talking on their cell phone, just as they can see someone not wearing a seatbelt, and enforce the law.

Also, talking on the phone while driving is especially distracting. While billboards and car radios are background distractions, cell phones command more attention and an extra hand. If I am having a conversation, I have to listen to what they are saying, process it, form a response, etc., completely taking my mind off of the task at hand. What makes talking on the cell phone distinct from conversation with a passenger is the phone itself. I have to drive with one hand because I'm holding the phone to my ear, or doing the awkward head-shoulder-lean-and-pinch maneuver. Also, it would be ridiculous and impossible to ban conversations with passengers.

However, all of this is irrelevant. I do not need to prove that car radios are good or that billboards are ok, only that cell phone use should be outlawed. We agreed to the terms of this question earlier. If cell phone use distracts drivers, then they (and their cell phones) become a danger to other drivers on the road. As personal convenience does not override other's right to drive securely, cell phones use should be banned. Your only refute to this is your citation of all of the other distractions drivers are faced with. This, however, provides all the more reason to cut back on one of the largest distractions.

Thanks for you response, looking forward to another one. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
snelld7

Con

"I don't defend any of the other distractions you pointed out. Just because other distractions exist, doesn't mean outlawing cell phones wouldn't be helpful in keeping drivers focused. Your argument against my logic is a slippery slope fallacy."
========================================================================

Put it like this, people talk on the phone while driving to amuse themselves while driving. If you take this away, people will just find somthing else to amuse themselves while driving. Maybe making people purchase the hands-free systems so that their hands may stay on the steering wheel should be allowed, but not outlawing talking on the phone while driving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Also, talking on the phone while driving is especially distracting. While billboards and car radios are background distractions, cell phones command more attention and an extra hand. If I am having a conversation, I have to listen to what they are saying, process it, form a response, etc., completely taking my mind off of the task at hand. What makes talking on the cell phone distinct from conversation with a passenger is the phone itself. I have to drive with one hand because I'm holding the phone to my ear, or doing the awkward head-shoulder-lean-and-pinch maneuver. Also, it would be ridiculous and impossible to ban conversations with passengers."
============================================================================

As I said before, holding your phone in your hand is not the only way of talking on the phone while driving. Their are hands-free devices that could be purchased in order for it to be ok. Maybe we should require those instead of trying to outlaw it all together. A perfect example is how we require insurance. We realize driving is dangerous, however instead of outlawing driving all together, we require insurance.

As far as the, " If I am having a conversation, I have to listen to what they are saying, process it, form a response, etc., completely taking my mind off of the task at hand." The same exact distraction is present when you have a conversation with someone in the passenger seat of a car, or even the backseat of the car. If your're outlawing it to prevent THIS distraction, however it will exhist EVEN AFTER you outlaw it [......] then the outlawing is pointless, is it not?

Put it to you like this:
If I have A, B, and C, and A and B both lead to C. However, I delete B because it leads to C but do nothing, and plan to do nothing with A[...] Then what is the point of even deleting B?

I guarantee you there are more car accidents from distractions from people in the car than there are from people talking on cell phones.

Now I understand your view, which is saying if we delete one of the reasons then it could only benefit. But, I fail to see how we'll benefit if we're doing it to prevent a problem that will still and always exhist, distractions. You'd call people that talked on the phone or texted on the phone while driving irresponsible right? (hence the fact that you want to outlaw their activity). Now do you think these irresponsible people will suddenly be unaffected by the other distractions from people in the car and suddenly become responsible with the outlawing of talking on cell phones? Or do you think they will combine talking with passengers to something else to compensate for their lost cell phones because they're not allowed to ammuse themselves. Keep in mind that long distance driving gets boring and people that aren't allowed to amuse themselves run the risk of falling asleep at the wheel.

The law would be saying, " We allow people to be able to bear arms to defend themselves, which arms are to kill. We will still be able to draft soldiers in order to kill or be killed. We will still have the death penalty to kill. However, you can't talk on the phone because there is a 1/100 chance of dying in a car wreck." (and by the way I didnt even factor in the fact that not all car fatalaties are from cell phones. The ACTUAL chance is less than that)

http://wiki.answers.com...

Good luck on the debate and I loook forward to your next response.
SuperPerfundo

Pro

If I have A, B, and C, and A and B both lead to C. However, I delete B because it leads to C but do nothing, and plan to do nothing with A[...] Then what is the point of even deleting B?"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Less C.

We agree that cell phones are distracting to drivers. Your only defense is that drivers are distracted by other things as well as cell phones. Suppose cell phones are B and all of the other distractions you listed are A. If both lead to C (dangerous driving), then cutting out B (cell phones) may not completely eliminate C, but curbs it significantly. If we recognize that a certain habit creates dangerous driving and have the ability to stop it, we have an obligation to all other drivers on the road to do so. Again, personal convenience and amusement should not supersede public safety.

Claiming we shouldn't ban cell phones because they are not the only distractions is like allowing a crime simply because there are countless other people committing it also. Just because banning cell phones would not completely solve the problem, doesn't mean it isn't a step in the right direction. The less distracted drivers are the better.

It doesn't matter what the odds of dying in a car crash are (even though I don't find a 1/100 chance appealing). Even if cell phones only present a marginal distraction, its in society's best interest to protect drivers by eliminating it. The reason this is true with cell phones and not the other distractions you mentioned is two fold. First, I don't need to defend those distractions; this is a debate about cell phone use. Second, cell phone use is purely a convenience and can be outlawed and enforced easily. The only thing that presents as much of a distraction as cell phones is passenger conversation, but this is obviously not easily banned.

So, we agree that safety supersedes convenience and that cell phones present a distraction to drivers (we differ on degree). To sacrifice any degree of safety on the road for a minor convenience is ridiculous. What do we have to gain from keeping cell phones legal? Amusement? Convenience? Doesn't seem like much of a plus in the face of more dangerous roads.

Thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by aeopimp92 8 years ago
aeopimp92
nice debate although ill have to agree with con. pro had better conduct and grammer just because he gave up a round when u didnt get back to the debate in time and he just had better grammer but yea anyways go con!
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
AAAH!!! I didnt get on in time...I will respond swifty next round
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Paris 7 years ago
Paris
snelld7SuperPerfundoTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
snelld7SuperPerfundoTied
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 Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
snelld7SuperPerfundoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
snelld7SuperPerfundoTied
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 SuperPerfundo 8 years ago
SuperPerfundo
snelld7SuperPerfundoTied
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 aeopimp92 8 years ago
aeopimp92
snelld7SuperPerfundoTied
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:52