The Instigator
BEN875
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
dan1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BEN875
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,647 times Debate No: 7518
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

BEN875

Pro

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." People should be allowed to take as many chances as they want with their health and safety. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights or liberties. Therefore, people should have the right to not wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet because the only person it puts in danger is the person making the decision. Just because people aren't forced to wear seatbelts or helmets doesn't mean that you can't wear a seatbelt or helmet. Just do what's best for you and let others make up their own mind.
dan1

Con

Interesting debate! I am glad you made it, but this foolishness will be debunked

Attacking my opponents overview (i guess!)

The purpose of any laws is to protect their citizens. My opponent stated that people should have the right to take as many chances as thye want. But to what extend. So they can take the chance of dropping a nucluer bomb, starting a world war 3. The truth is there needs to be limits and regulations in order to have a society. Secondly what if the person is crazy or mentaly retarded. You are letting them use their own discretion in real life situations. It is like letting a viscous dog go and say, "do what you want", we need to put a leash so to speak on the citizens.

Thirdly, my opponents last sentence states, "do what is best for you". Me and my opponent can both agree that it is safer to wear a seatbelt and a helmet. So the person does not know what is best for him.

And wearing the seatbelt is not a right, but it is the smart thing to do in order to guarntee saftey

Contention 1: The point of laws is to protect their citizens
We need to make the seatbelt law because it is protecting the citizens thus the government is fuffiling their job or duty. If they did not

Contention 2: Wearing helmets are safer

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries had a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury. http://www.bhsi.org...

These facts prove that many accidents occur to the head, with a helmet. Imagine how much more injury and DEATH there would be if they did not wear helmets

Contention 3: Kerry Doughtery stated that seatbelts save lives. http://hamptonroads.com...

Page 20 of Virginia's drivers manual states Wearing a seatbelt can double your chance of survival during a crash.
Secondly, your children will get a negative influence by seeing that you do not wear a seatbelt, as I said wearing a seatbelt doubles your chances of survival, well dont you want what is best for your children? If you do you will wear a seatbelt.

Example:At 2:30 a.m. on June 27, a 21-year-old woman crashed and died on Elbow Road in Virginia Beach. She was not wearing a seat belt.

Her death is tragic. Yet we all know there isn't a 21-year-old in America who hasn't been told thousands of times to wear a seat belt. Surely she knew about Virginia's seat-belt law, too. Why she wasn't wearing hers is a mystery.

It's easy to blame government when bad things happen. It's tougher to acknowledge that when drivers get into their cars, they make choices.

Bad choices - such as not buckling up - can have disastrous results.

Reasons to vote neg:
-Wearing your seatbelt greatly increases your chance of survival during a crash
-Most bikers die because of head injury WHILE WEARING A HELMET imagine what would hapen without one
-The government's job is to protect their citizens

Thank you, vote neg because wearing your seatbelt and helmet increases the number of lives
Debate Round No. 1
BEN875

Pro

The purpose of laws should be to protect people from other people not protect people from themselves. Protecting people from themselves is a pointless limit on freedom. I agree that society needs certain limits and regulations which is why I support traffic laws such as running red lights or driving at night without headlights on. Those laws protect drivers from each other. I'm not disputing the fact that not wearing a seat belt or helmet is dangerous. I'm disputing the idea that lawmakers should protect citizens from themselves. Obesity is one of the leading causes of heart disease, diabetes, and general unhealthiness. Does that mean that the government should regulate people's calorie intake?
dan1

Con

The government job ultimately is to protect their Citizens. So if they do not fufill seatbelt and helmet laws they are not fuffiling their job. Extend the bicyicle example that a lot of injuries are caused to the head WHILE WEARING HELMETS, imagine the damage without one. So my opponent is basically saying that the government should not care for the people of their country. Like if a child wants 20 pounds of candy the mother should say no beceause she knows what is best and the child obviously does not.

And look to my previous example that wearing a seatbelt will double your chance of survival when in a crash

Thank you vote NEG because we must protect our citizens
Debate Round No. 2
BEN875

Pro

My opponent seems to think that the government should protect people from every possible negative occurrence they might get themselves into. That's not how "Freedom of Choice" works. "Freedom of Choice" allows people to consent to risks as long as they risk only their own person and property. It is none of the government's business if someone doesn't want to wear a seat belt or helmet. People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their person and property, as long as they don't physically harm the person or property of a non consenting other. I'm not disputing the fact that not wearing a seat belt or helmet is dangerous. I'm disputing the idea that the government should protect people from their own actions. It doesn't make sense to force people to wear seat belts or helmets regardless of how dangerous it may be not to because it doesn't physically harm the person or property of another.
dan1

Con

Ok this is the last round and he just randomly brought up freedom of choiche and you are not aloud to bring up new information in the last round so extend my points.
Debate Round No. 3
BEN875

Pro

Just because people aren't forced to wear seat belts and helmets doesn't mean that you can't wear a seat belt or a helmet. If the risks that go along with not using a seat belt or helmet concerns you then wear your seatbelt when you're in a car and wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. Just let other people make up their own minds. My opponent believes that people should be forced to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets because "For freedom of choice: The government has to do what is best for the citizens even when their views conflict" Freedom wouldn't exist if the government operated like that. Smoking has been known to cause heart attacks, strokes, emphysema, and cancer. Should the government "do what is best for the citizens" and outlaw cigarettes? Alcohol is bad for the heart, kidneys, and liver. Does the government have to do what is best for the citizens and outlaw alcohol?
dan1

Con

dan1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BEN875

Pro

Freedom of choice does not mean that people can do what they want as long as it isn't unhealthy or dangerous. Freedom of choice means that people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody else's rights or liberties. Most people don't seem upset about lawmakers forcing them to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets because the government tells them it's for "your own good". Freedom will cease to exist all together if people continue to swallow this justification. Should the government outlaw Big Macs for "your own good"? Should the police send officers into your home and force you to exercise for "your own good"? I urge voters to remember that your health/safety doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to you.
dan1

Con

dan1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dan1 7 years ago
dan1
I am sorry I made a mistake this is the real rebuttal.

He says that these seatbelt laws infringe on the freedom of choice and it is none of their buisnness whether or not they wear seatbelts. But it is their buisness because they should want what is best for their citizens.

For freedom of choice: The government has to do what is best for the citizens even when their views conflict
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
It is the government's responsibility to do what the public needs even if it conflicts with what they want, and in this case what they need and what they want is very different.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
We all know that we should wear seatbelts and helmets, but failing to do so rarely physically hurts anybody else but ourselves. I agree with the instigator on this one and, so far, Con has not directly rebutted his case.

I can confirm, however, that I am glad that it is law - if it wasn't I'd have several fewer friends and relatives than I currently have.
Posted by EmyG 7 years ago
EmyG
One of my friends was in a horrible car wreck two weekends ago. She's in ICU with terrible brain injuries. She was unconscious and they took her off medicine yesterday to see if she'd wake up on her own. Her whole body is swollen and they had to shave her head. Her right side isn't responding. They don't know if she'll be ok. The girl that was in the passenger seat died. They were both thrown out of the car because they weren't wearing seatbelts.
So, you can't make anyone wear a seatbelt.
But, the law should exist because it helps promote safety. It encourages people to wear a seatbelt.
Posted by C-Mach 7 years ago
C-Mach
"The government['s] job ultimately is to protect their [c]itizens. So[,] my opponent is basically saying that the government should not care for the people of their country... If a child wants [twenty] pounds of candy[,] the mother should say no beceause she knows what is best and the child obviously does not. [It's like] letting crazy or mental[l]y retarded use their own discretion in real life situations."

*Ahem!* You are talking about a mother saying no to her child when the child asks for twenty pounds of candy and crazy or mentally retarded people using their own discretion, not about mentally sound people who have reached the age of majority. It is not the government's job to protect the mentally sound who have reached the age of majority from themselves. You are indeed saying the exact opposite in regards to "the government... not car[ing] for the people of their country."
Posted by MikePGS 7 years ago
MikePGS
The government's role isn't to protect its citizens, its to provide them with a framework that will allow citizens to live in harmony. Certain branches of the government are charged with enforcing laws, which makes some people think that the government is there to protect us. As a matter of fact, the police have no legal requirement to protect anyone.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Agreed with the resolution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
BEN875dan1Tied
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