Should seat belts be mandatory by law?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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!
DylanR00 forfeited this round.
Wow lol I won by using troll arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years 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||6|
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.
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.