The Instigator
bossyburrito
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Seat belt laws should not be enforced to anyone over 18.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,387 times Debate No: 23211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

bossyburrito

Pro

Hello, today i will debate as for why i think that seat belt laws (Laws that state that you must wear a seat belt while driving a car) should not be enforced for adults over age 18. This will be a fairly short debate, as the first round will be for acceptance only.
GenesisCreation

Con

I accept the debate. I will defend the idea that seat belt laws should be enforced for adults over the age of 18.
Debate Round No. 1
bossyburrito

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

1. Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If i don't wear a seat belt, the worst possible thing that can happen is that i get injured. No-one else is affected by this.

2. Adults should be able to choose how they handle things that only affect them. For instance, if i smoke alone, on my property, i should be mature enough to realize the consequences. I am not harming anyone else, so i should have the right to choose.

3. Minors will still have to wear seat belts. I believe that children are not mature enough to make decisions like this, that can potentially harm them.

One point i want to clear up is that i am not endorsing that people should smoke and not wear seat belts, just that if they feel like they want to, they should have that right.
GenesisCreation

Con

Pro said: Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If I don't wear a seat belt,
the worst possible thing that can happen is that I get injured. No-one else is affected by this.

Rebuttal:

1 - A person who does not wear seat belts can be launched from the vehicle during collision,
impacting with traffic or people. [1] [2]

2 - The unbuckled, ejected passenger will suffer debilitating injury or death, preventing them
from assisting others involved in the crash. This can indirectly result in the death of other people,
who could have been saved by you, if you had worn your seat belt.

Point 1 refuted. Not wearing your seat belt does affect others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said: Adults should be able to choose how they handle things that only affect them.
For instance, if I smoke alone, on my property, I should be mature enough to realize the
consequences. I am not harming anyone else, so I should have the right to choose.

Rebuttal:

Invalid argument. You share the road with other drivers. You don’t need to share your property.
Not wearing your seat belt affects other people, as I have demonstrated.

Point 2 refuted. Private property does not parallel municipal roadways.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said: Minors will still have to wear seat belts. I believe that children are not mature
enough to make decisions like this, which can potentially harm them.

Rebuttal:

If you get into an accident without your seat belt, your body is weaponized into an incredibly
deadly projectile. If your body is launched into another passenger, you could injure or kill them.
Therefore, buckling your child only helps if you buckle up too. This goes back to my original point;
not wearing your seat belt affects others. The source explains that an unbuckled passenger,
ejected at 35 MPH, has a weight of 3.5 tons. That will effectively liquefy their body and crush
whatever they collide with. [2]

Point 3 refuted. Forcing minors to buckle up is a fractional solution. Everyone must be
buckled to maximize the effectiveness of the safety restraints. [2] The source explains
that 80% of car crash fatalities could be prevented if the rear seat passenger was buckled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said: One point I want to clear up is that I am not endorsing that people should smoke
and not wear seat belts, just that if they feel like they want to, they should have that right.

Rebuttal: Public safety must be held as a priority over negligent freedoms.

http://www.wlwt.com... [1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2]

Debate Round No. 2
bossyburrito

Pro

I just want to thank Con for this debate, i was able to learn new things that altered my opinion.

1. These are very good points, although i have to ask why the government hasn't outlawed motorcycles if they are concerned for drivers on the rode. " In 2009, 58 out of every 100,000 registered motorcycles was involved in a fatal crash, compared with only 13 out of every 100,000 passenger cars. "[1]

2. See above. According to you, riding motorcycles should not be allowed.

3. Minors are usually seated in the back, and if they are buckled up, then the point is negated.

That was a fun debate. Thanks for pointing out things other that the old human life is valuable argument.
GenesisCreation

Con

Thank you Pro for furnishing the resolution.

1. In response to the question:" Why the government hasn't outlawed motorcycles?"

Rebuttal: Entirely off-topic. We are discussing seat belts, not motorcycle safety.


2. In response to:" Motorcycles should not be allowed."

Rebuttal: I can neither support or condemn the motorcycle. My burden of proof concerns seat belts.


3.> In response to:" Minors are usually seated in the back, and if they are buckled up, then the point in negated."

Rebuttal: That argument assumes that all backseat passengers are minors. It also assumes that front-seat drivers don't eject into the rear of the vehicle. The point is not negated.


In conclusion: My opponent has failed to support his burden of proof. Every "Pro" argument provided was opposed by a valid and source supported counter-argument. My opponent used absolutely none of his own sources. Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
I agree.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Thank you. DDO is a great place to learn.
Posted by SuperiorArsenal 5 years ago
SuperiorArsenal
GenesisCreation, I must commend you on your debating skills and style. Very impressive.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
bossyburritoGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con showed that not wearing a seat belt impacts other individuals, thereby confirming that benefit of limited liberty outweigh the costs.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
bossyburritoGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources is obvious. Arguments to Con. First BOP was not met by Pro. Additionally, the safety relationship to other drivers is a key reasoning. I would like to have seen the point of medical costs etc... but that is not relevant to the merit of the debate.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
bossyburritoGenesisCreationTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con, and arguments to Con for effectively refuting all of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
bossyburritoGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a red herring 3rd round that really derailed any momentum he could have had. His argument was basically like: if seatbelt laws are trying to help us, then why doesn't the government help the motorcyclists? A bit odd. Con refuted every point Pro brought up in round two, and he upheld his burden of rejoinder. Con used "neither...or" when nor is the correct grammatical counterpart. Also, Con used sources, so he wins the sources points.