Seat belt laws should not be enforced to anyone over 18.
| Started: | 4/26/2012 | Category: | Society |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 587 times | Debate No: | 23211 |
 Pro  Con I accept the debate. I will defend the idea that seat belt laws should be enforced for adults over the age of 18. |
 |
|
Pro 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. Con Pro said: Seat belts only apply to the person wearing them. If I don't wear a seat belt, Rebuttal: 1 - A person who does not wear seat belts can be launched from the vehicle during collision, 2 - The unbuckled, ejected passenger will suffer debilitating injury or death, preventing them 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. Rebuttal: Invalid argument. You share the road with other drivers. You don’t need to share your property. 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 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 Rebuttal: Public safety must be held as a priority over negligent freedoms.
|
 |
|
Pro 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. 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. |
 |
| bossyburrito | GenesisCreation | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| bossyburrito | GenesisCreation | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| bossyburrito | GenesisCreation | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
| bossyburrito | GenesisCreation | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 5 |