The Instigator
The_Winner
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
CommunistDog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should drunk people be allowed to drive cars?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
The_Winner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 75528
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

The_Winner

Con

Drunk people should not be allowed to drive because they could cause a lot of accidents
CommunistDog

Pro

Accepted. Good luck. Please make your opening statement.

By the way, is this how the debate is planned?:

R1 Acceptance
R2 Opening argument
R3 Secondary argument
R4 Rebutals
R5 Closing argument, no new information
Debate Round No. 1
The_Winner

Con

yes that is how it works,

Drunk people shouldn't drive cars. About every 54 minutes there will be a drunk driver crash. If the driver hits another car that will put another family/ person into the hospital.
CommunistDog

Pro

Drunk- past participal of drink
Drink- take a liquid into the mouth and swallow

After drinking liquids, whether it be a beverage like soda or juice, you should be allowed to drive. If you drink water, you won't have a greater possibility to crash into something. Everyday beverages [excluding alochol] should not stop a licensed driver from driving their vehicle.

While you can argue that you did not intend to debate on this, you did not specify alcoholic consumption in the title. Erego, because you cannot make rules DURING the time of debating, my argument is valid.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Winner

Con

According to the definition of "drunk" the person is affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behavior. So, your argument of water and other sortes of "no alcohol" drinks is incorrect. Once again, drunk people is one of the highest crash makers.
CommunistDog

Pro

*Now was not the round to make rebutals*

My definition was deprived from the auto-dictionary that is commonly found when highlighting a word. It is a product by Google, which is abundant on Chromebooks and a downloadable app. Erego, it is from a trusted source.

The auto-definition app grabs the straight-up definition of a word. Therefore, I translated your debate as what it seemed to be by a reliable source. Seeing that it can be verified with such a source, my argument can and is relevant and true to this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Winner

Con

That is different for me dictinary.com a very riliable source and google both said that drunk basicly sais that drunk means alchohal causing somebody to lose control. For example: http://dictionary.reference.com... and https://www.google.com...
Those are two examples of definitions of drunk. While in the drunk state the drivers are unreliable and are potentially dangerous. Therefor while in the drunken state driver should not be allowed to drive.
CommunistDog

Pro

I'm merely using the technical meaning of the name of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
The_Winner

Con

In conclusion drunk people should not be allowed to drive while in their drunken state.
CommunistDog

Pro

CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Winner 2 years ago
The_Winner
The links that I posted did not say so
Posted by CommunistDog 2 years ago
CommunistDog
Technically speaking, it also means the past participle of drink.
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
mostlogical
if someone is drunk they have consumed alcohol and are strongly affected by it
Posted by CommunistDog 2 years ago
CommunistDog
for the wuh?
Posted by The_Winner 2 years ago
The_Winner
nice website for the cons
Posted by CommunistDog 2 years ago
CommunistDog
I am a wee bit Russian. :3
Posted by GreenProgressive 2 years ago
GreenProgressive
Allow me to provide some evidence towards cons statistic since he failed to do so.
http://www.cdc.gov...
Posted by Rami 2 years ago
Rami
I think he's Russian and there water has been replaced with vodka. Of course he would want to drink and drive!

If anyone was offended by my comment, I apologize in advance. I mean this only in good spirits and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
Posted by The_Winner 2 years ago
The_Winner
I don't know why he did it?
Posted by CommunistDog 2 years ago
CommunistDog
@Cat I have my reasons.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
The_WinnerCommunistDogTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - con gets conduct because pro played a game of major semantics and forfeited the last round | Arguments - pro had the actual BoP and never fulfilled it, he just played a game of semantic junk. I can define "a" as a letter if the resolution read "Obama is a good person", and that'd destroy the entire essence of the debate. Con made an argument that many people will be put into the hospital, and this outweighs whatever arguments pro made.