The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Should seat belts be mandatory by law?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 53538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I'd first off like to apologize for any informalities in my debate, is this is my first "real" debate. I've done this with people on Facebook for years, I love debating, but everyone knows that people get real offended on Facebook and usually start just throwing insults, so I figured this would be the best place.
I'll just post my arguments in a list, and hope I'm doing it right!

1. A law that can punish someone for NOT doing something that affects no one but the person choosing not to do it absolutely should not exist. It's as absurd as it is unconstitutional. The idea that the government gets to mandate something that I do or don't do inside a vehicle that I bought and paid for myself is sickening.
I, personally, am not a seat belt user. Never have been, never will be. Are they a good idea in some cases? Probably. Is it my choice to assume the risk by not wearing it? Absolutely.

2. The main purpose in my eyes of these laws is to bring in extra revenue over a silly law.


1. No seat belts means car crash means death. Source?

2. Even superheroes buckle-up!

3. It causes your family members to be sad, somber, and derpressed TT
Debate Round No. 1


You gave me personal reasons why I should wear my seat belt, none of those state why it should be a legal issue.

Reason 1: You stated that no seat belts results in death during a crash. Are you right? Sort of.. It truly depends on the speed the cars were going and the angles that they collided. But it's my choice if I want to risk my own life, is it not?

2. LOL. I actually busted out laughing.

3. It does, and I understand that, but it's still not a reasonable explanation as to why it should be illegal. The government's job is to protect the public, not single individuals such as the scenario we're talking about.


1. It is your choice, but you can harm others and their cars if you crash into them.
2. You made no arguments against this.
3. Ah, but the public can be harmed too! Even if you die, your family will be sued. Good luck with THAT case!
Debate Round No. 2


DylanR00 forfeited this round.


Wow lol I won by using troll arguments.
Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by harrytlevine 2 years ago
In my opinion, using a seat belt is common sense. I could find millions of statistics that show how using a seat belt can help to prevent damage to yourself during a collision. So whether it be a law or not that seat belts must be mandatory for all ages really shouldn't matter, as most people should be happy to buckle up anyway. However, I do agree that such a law would be very beneficial to the safety of motorists.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited R3 which is never proper conduct for a debate. Pro was active and participated in every round. S & G - Tie. Neither made any vital mistakes that would have cost one or the other any points. Pretty even throughout the debate. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to provide rebuttals by forfeiting, but because that already cost conduct points I'll withhold that from further penalty. What did cost Con points was the fact that Pro successfully upheld his BOP whereas Con failed to justify his position upon being rebutted by Pro with counter arguments. Sources - Pro. Con failed to present any sources to provide additional evidence supporting his contentions, whereas Pro provided sources that served to further validate his claims.