Should drunk people be allowed to drive cars?
Debate Rounds (5)
Accepted. Good luck. Please make your opening statement.
By the way, is this how the debate is planned?:
R2 Opening argument
R3 Secondary argument
R5 Closing argument, no new information
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.
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.
*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.
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.
I'm merely using the technical meaning of the name of this debate.
CommunistDog forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year 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:||4||0|
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.
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.