The Instigator
whitemarshmallow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should driver Ed classes be free for everyone?

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 2 votes the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 71146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

whitemarshmallow

Pro

There are an estimated 35,200 traffic deaths reported in the US. If drivers Ed classes were free for everyone the roads would become much safer. Drivers Ed will give them the opportunity to learn how to be a safer driver. There are responsible teenagers who want to take drivers Ed but can"t afford it. We don"t need people staying home from work because of the crazy drivers on the road.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.



REBUTTING PRO's CASE

PRO states, "There are an estimated 35,200 traffic deaths reported in the US. If drivers Ed classes were free for everyone the roads would become much safer."

The figure he cites isn't sourced, so you cannot buy that right off the bat. But even if you wanted to give that to him, there is absolutley no link here: he makes the assertion that Driver's Ed classes would cause the roads to become much safer, but we're given no evidence to that effect or reason to actually believe it. Therefore, this contention falls completely flat.

PRO states, "Drivers Ed will give them the opportunity to learn how to be a safer driver."

You'll note the evasive language he uses in the form of "opportunty to learn," which is conceding that not everyone will learn. Furthermore, he once again gives us no evidence or warrant for this--which is especially critical because Driver's Ed classes DO NOT involve on-road training: it's nothing more than endless quizzing on material you're going to forget the second you walk out the door. Further, knowing some irrelevant factoid like what the penalty is for drag racing will not and cannot make you a better driver--that doesn't provide you with any knowledge you didn't already have or could have easily learned elsewhere.

PRO states, "There are responsible teenagers who want to take drivers Ed but can"t afford it."

He tells us this, which is nothing more than an anecdote so we discard it outright, but he doesn't tell us why we should care or why this at all matters. Why do we even need Driver's Ed? We can solve for this entirely by equipping motivated teenagers with the tools to learn this materia on their own and at their own speed--and actually absorb and internalize knowledge, rather than engage in pointless busywork and scare tactics as are all too common in Driver's Ed.

PRO states, "We don"t need people staying home from work because of the crazy drivers on the road."

Again, nothing but baseless assertions from PRO! He doesn't evidence this ludicrous claim in the slightest becasue it is 100% untrue. Do not buy into baseless assertions.


NEG CASE

(1) Driver's Ed does not provide utility greater than what people can learn on their own

PRO must demonstrate that Driver's Ed actually accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish. Othewise, we're left in a situation where we not only can save money by allowing teenagers to self-teach, but are ensuring that those who do are actually motivated to learn and to succeed, which will allow them to become better drivers and citizens.

(2) There is no such thing as a free lunch

This resolution is positively absurd because it assumes we can have something for nothing. This is not and will never be the case. The money will come from somewhere. Either we move it away from useful government services like fire forces and police forces or teachers or we run a deficit, which increases expectations of future taxes, crowds out private investment, and reduces economic growth--or, worse yet, raise taxes and directly destroy growth. PRO's anecdotal example of teenagers who cannot afford driver's ed is nonsensical and not backed by anything--but even if it were, they would be worse off in a stagnant economy, which would be exacerbated under his proposal.


The resolution is 100% negated. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
whitemarshmallow

Pro

whitemarshmallow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
whitemarshmallow

Pro

whitemarshmallow forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
whitemarshmallowResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by WillYouMarryMe 2 years ago
WillYouMarryMe
whitemarshmallowResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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: Con exposed all the various assumptions in Pro's case. They wouldn't have been that hard to support, but Pro instead decided to just forfeit the rest of the debate.