Should Kids At The Age Of 16?
Debate Rounds (4)
http://asirt.org...) Kids that are 16 are way to young to drive. First of all there still in high school, so most of them have a lot of stress which leads to not paying attention to the road. Second of all, most kids at that age have a phone, and at least half of the deaths are related to kids on their phones not paying attention. Lastly, kids are willing to take risks, especially if there are friends are in the car. If the light is yellow, they may speed up and try to make the light. They could get hit, or hit someone else.
KIds need to be able to drive at the age of sixteen.
1)They are stiil in high school. Most parents have jobs around the same time the kids have school. Not all parents are available to drive their kid to and from school. Car pooling is a suggestion, but plans don't always go through. They have to have a transportation system.
2)Most teenagers arounf that age have jobs. They graduate in two years and they start taking on responsibilities. Having a car will help get them to where they need to go.
3)It's a sense of responsiblity. Teenagers graduate and keave out to face the world on their own. A car helps with the responsiblity such as: having money for gas, being safe on the road, and are able to be trusted to drive.
Sixteen is the required age to drive before you turn eighteen. Just because there are accidents involving teenagers, that doesn't mean they shouldn't drive. It is all based on the drivers choices. The law states there is not texting and driving. If you are in a vehicle and have picked up a phone, you are already breaking the law. Yes, high school kids are under a lot of stress, but that doesn't necessarily hav anything to do with the way they drive. Every teenager has a phone. It is there choice on whether they want to risk their lives or not when they decided to let it be a distraction. Not all kids take risk. Having a car is a privalge. Everything you listed in your arguements are choices that those kids make and those kids are the ones that shouldn't have a right to drive.
What about the kids that follow the laws of driving? It doesn't matter if your sicteen or thirty five. Anyone who owns a vehicle are at risks of accidents. Teenagers just happen to have a higher percentage. Just because some teens decide to make poor choices, doesn't mean the ones who obey should have their driving privalege taken away all together.
I get what your saying,but most teens don't even have enough money for a car. And on top of that, the drivers ed class is like 400 dollars. I'm not saying teens are bad drivers, but they will take risks in some point in there teenage years, more than older people. And to top that that off, you can drive anyone if you get your licence (when your 16) for a certain point in time. I don't think your mom (not yours exactly, more of everyone :P ) will want you to drive around her brand new car. And even if they have a job, there is a reason there is a bike was made...
To be correct, drivers ed classes are not 400 dollars depending on where you live. My drivers ed course is only seventy-five dollars and that covers the certificate test and in-car lessons. Some allow you to take one in-car test and you can qualify as a safe driver. As far as money goes, kids don't have to have their own car. I drive my mom's car. If you're a safe driver, you should be able to drive your parents brand new car. Teenagers do take risks, but just driving a car is a risk for anyone. Not all teenagers are dumb enough to take those risks. Like I said before, it's all choices.
As a driver, you have responsibilties. Everyone listens to music in the car. Most teenage drivers, or drivers, do not blare the music. You're insinuating that all drivers have the music turned up. That's not true. When you are the driver, you are supposed to make the choice. Ever seen the movie Footloose? In the movie they blamed music. It wasn't the music that caused the crash. When I drive, I blare my music. It's up to the driver whether or not they get distracted. I don't, but I know my father does, so he'll turn down the radio. Even if you can't hear cars, you can still them. At leats you should be able to. One thing you learn in drivers ed is what to do when friends are in the car. It's a suggested idea that new drivers should not have friends in the car until they're used to. I'm not effected by friends in the car. As the driver, it's your car you should make rules. My rules are: they have to buckle their seatbelts, stay seated at all times, and not to get in my line of sight or cause me to look away. That's where your responsibilties come in. It's also based on experience.
Da_Foxx_Boy forfeited this round.
Drivers who are sixteen should be allowed to drive. It shows a sense of responsibilty and it helps with transportation. Teenagers in high school will most likely have a job so they will need a car to get there. Not all parents are available. Car accidents happen. Teenagers have the higher percenatge of that. Distractions and other causes are based on their choices. I say those choices should only be made if they are experienced.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 10 months ago
|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|
Reasons for voting decision: Agreed before the debate with Pro, and this debate did nothing to swing my opinion at all. I'm awarding conduct points to Pro because Con shouldn't be correcting his opponent's spelling and grammar during the debate. That's the job of the judges. Additionally Con forfeited rounds and that is poor debatesmanship. Both Pro and Con had atrocious spelling and grammar. Shame on you both, but no points for either. Neither of you did a thing to address the questions that matter in road safety. Con presented a single case and bad sources, neither of which do a thing to sway an opinion on public safety. I wouldn't give points for sources normally since Pro used none, but Con misrepresented a source. He's arguing for U.S. law and presented data for world statistics. The source says ages 15-44 for 50% of fatalities and then immediately says that 90% are outside the U.S. The source also lists data statistics for non-driver fatalities. This is not a worthy source for this debat
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.