The Instigator
dubwad
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Seat Belt Laws

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,999 times Debate No: 19768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

dubwad

Con

Forty-nine states, as well as the District of Columbia, have seat belt laws. D.C. and thirty-two of the states have “primary” seat belt laws, meaning a police officer can stop a vehicle if he or she believes anyone in the car is violating the belt law. What violates a seat belt law differs from state to state but all laws consider the age of the people in the car, where in the car people are sitting, and, obviously, whether or not a person has on a safety belt.

What I propose to you is that all seat belt laws should be repealed on the grounds that they are unconstitutional because they deny a personal freedom without good and reasonable cause.

Seat belts can save lives. That should be mutually agreed upon because of statistics alone. It is for that very reason that seat belts should be worn by everybody in a vehicle, but only by the choice of the person. Statistics alone shouldn't be cause enough to take away free will.

In certain situations, evidence has shown that a seat belt can cause more harm than good. This fact alone should be cause enough to want the repeal of a seat belt law. When the government forces a person to wear a safety belt, they are essentially forcing that person to risk their safety. That isn't a right the government should have without an exceptionally great and pressing cause (an example would be a military draft in time of great need).

People should be taught the risks of not wearing a seat belt and then be given a choice, just as they are with other risky activities. Taking away risk in this situation logically leads to other situations. If the government can take away the choice of wearing a seat belt, then should they be able force people to exercise? Inactivity is the leading risk of heart disease. If our government follows the path of thought they are on right now, then that doesn't seem to be out of the question. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. so logically if the government passed a law requiring people to exercise a certain amount of time each day then the law would be saving countless lives. Fortunately, this law would be shot down immediately and with good reason. The United States isn't a dictatorship. It is a democracy full of free people that should be able to make choices involving their own life. That is why seat belt laws should be repealed.

Good Luck to my opponent!
imabench

Pro

The the Con's claim that seat belts restrict personal freedoms without a good and reasonable clause, and the very first sentence after that shows how seat belts save lives followed by an admission by the Con that seat belts are supported statistically and factually by researches proving the safety they provide. But the Con's entire argument is that these laws should be repealed on the sole grounds that people should choose whether or not they want to be safe.

"When the government forces a person to wear a safety belt, they are essentially forcing that person to risk their safety"
That is the exact opposite of what is really going on and the Con knows it because he has acknowledged the many lives that seat belts have already saved and will continue to save. The idea that the government is forcing people into harms way by making them wear a product proven to keep people safe is hands down, the most bullsh-t argument I have ever heard.

But despite all of the Con's complete lack of logic, contradictory statements, and acknowledging the effective use of the seat belts while denouncing them for their alleged risk to people, the Con is basing his entire argument on the fact that people have the right to choose to put themselves in a position that could surely result in serious harm to themselves.

1) If you dont have the common sense to wear a seat belt for your own protection, then you are a threat to each and every other person on the road. If you dont wear a seat belt, you dont give a dam about your own protection, and that can mean that you sure as hell dont care about the safety of other drivers on the road. Why would someone who doesnt even care about themselves care about others? People who dont like to wear seat belts could be considered reckless, to themselves and other drivers, making them a very liable threat to other people, and law enforcement have a duty to protect people from reckless drivers from the safety of others.

2) The greatest harm that seat belts have ever done to people is be a little uncomfortable, they are not even close to as hazardous as your health as the Con wishes they were for his argument.

3) The Con uses the slippery slope argument to try to cause people to fear that one day the government might make them exercise routinely, however he is completely oblivious to the fact that his own ideas could cause the same thing.

"Hey lets not wear seat belts, its a free country"
"Hey lets not put up with what that hippie over there is complaining about, lets beat him up, its a free country"
"Hey lets go bring some sawed off shotguns into a bank and demand money, its a free country"

With excessive civil liberties and excessive rights, you have anarchy. When you have excessive regulations and laws, you have authoritarianism. The US exists today because over time it has found a balance between the two, and wearing seat belts in the name of keeping you safe isnt a large step towards dictatorship. If the Con thinks it is then I could only imagine how the Con reacted when the government wanted to put airbags into cars, the Con has always believed that it is his constitutional right to hit a tree going 60mph and have his face completely plow into the dashboard of his own car killing him on impact.....

4) "seat belt laws should be repealed on the grounds that they are unconstitutional"

Where in the Constitution does it allow for people to directly put themselves in harms way and risk their own lives? There is no law in there because excessive freedoms lead to anarchy, something the founding fathers were very aware of and kept in mind when drafting the Constitution. If the Con claims that seat belt laws are unconstitutional, then I challenge him to find which law is allegedly being violated.

These laws exist to keep you safe, not because the government wants to control your life and every aspect of it, they just care about your safety in an industry that is far from safe. Thats why seat belt laws exist and that is why they should be enforced, for safety
Debate Round No. 1
dubwad

Con


I withdraw. Sorry to waste your time.
I had to do this for a class.
I just don't have time for a prolonged debate. Too many finals
imabench

Pro

THANK GOD...

Finals have been making my life miserable too..... good debate to the Con.
Debate Round No. 2
dubwad

Con

dubwad forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Beat up a hippie with a sawed off shotgun, while hanging out your car window, without your seat belt on, now that would be fun.....in a weird twisted sort of way.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol beat up a hippie Thats something I would say.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by QT 5 years ago
QT
dubwadimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made much better arguments, and Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
dubwadimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Well. Conduct goes to PRO for the ff. And pro's arguments were better. And btw, whats with your last argument, imabench... LOL
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
dubwadimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: yeah