Should seat belts be mandatory?
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.
P1: Something that is mandatory is an invasion of one's freedom.
P2: Seat belts are mandatory.
C : Seat belts being mandatory are therefore an invasion of one's freedom.
Now this argument is not valid as there is a difference between an "invasion of freedom" and "something done for your own good" like how it is at home with your parents. What the government wants to do is merely protect the citizens of that country as parents would do with their child. ( Do not take this as propaganda ) I get that my opponent has already argued on this by stating that it is his/her choice on whether or not they want to assume the risk but this is a selfish and careless point of view.
My opponent completely ignores the risks of not wearing seat belts by going on about the law of seat belts being imposed is silly as the owner of a vehicle should have the right to do whatever he/she wants but ignores what matters most. What about your own life? What about your loved ones? Would you really want to risk your life and also risk leaving or losing your loved ones for good all because you did not follow a so called "silly" law? I bet not. It may not have happened to you before but we'll never know if it will one day.
Also, saying that 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 is like saying that our parents punishing us for not obeying laws in our homes despite it affecting no one but yourself is wrong.
In conclusion to my rebuttal, assuming that a law that helps save lives is silly just because one sees it as an "invasion of freedom" is not only careless but also selfish.
Right, now onto my argument which also refutes my opponent's.
1) Seat belts should be mandatory as it saves lives.
This is true in terms of it being a fact and through logic. Here are some facts and statistics of mine.
a. Statistics show that seat belts save lives. When used correctly, wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of fatal injury to front seat passenger car occupants by 45%, and risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%. For those riding in the rear of vans and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) during a car crash, rear seat belts are 73% better at preventing fatalities.
b. Most drivers and passengers killed in crashes are unrestrained. 53% of drivers and passengers killed in car crashes in 2009 were not wearing restraints.
c. Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.
d. Seat belts prevent drivers and passengers from being ejected during a crash. People not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during a crash. More than 3 out of 4 people who are ejected during a fatal crash die from their injuries.
e. Seat belts save thousands of lives each year, and increasing use would save thousands more. Seat belts saved almost 13,000 lives in 2009. If all drivers and passengers had worn seat belts that year, almost 4,000 more people would be alive today.
These facts show that increasing seat belt use is critical to reduce injury and saving lives.
Related to my first point, my second point to support it.
2. Seat belts being mandatory increase seat belt usage.
One may ask how but according to Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138, most of the empirical studies that have investigated this question mainly focus on the effect of the two different types of enforcement on usage rate. The general findings are that laws increase usage, and that primary enforcement does it significantly better. It has also been found that the more risk-averse individuals are more likely to comply with the law.
All of Con's points are based on carelessness and selfishness and personal views. I have successfully rebutted them and showed why it is not worth disobeying the law in the first place. With all this said, seat belts should be mandatory.
Over to you, Con.
1. Where is the victim in a seat belt violation? The enforcement of that law creates a real victim. The victim"s time and money are taken from him by law enforcement over him choosing to risk his own life. We've got to give people the choice to make bad decisions, without that it is an invasion of one's freedom.
2. It's not the government's place to keep us in good health. As a government for the people by the people, it's their place to serve us, protect us from threats both foreign and domestic, but it's never been their job to force us to be safe on our own terms.
Pro listed arguments that lean towards more of a personal reason than anything else. "I have successfully rebutted them and showed why it is not worth disobeying the law in the first place." It isn't worth the loss of life, but is it really the government's place to interfere? They allow us to go rock climbing, surfing, wake-boarding, dirt-bike racing, you name it! There are hundreds of things as dangerous as refusing to wear my seat belt that ARE legal, the fact that seat belts are mandatory while I'm still allowed to risk my life climbing a ninety degree cliff is absurd.
1. Con states that people should have the freedom to make choices regardless of whether it is a bad decision or not.
This is what a selfish and suicidal person would say in this case as it proves he/she disregards their own safety and possibly the safety of others. Freedom is a necessity but only to a certain extent. Besides, even now there are people who disobey the law of seat belts such as my opponent ( As he said himself in Round 1 ) and what could they possibly have coming their way? Why, whatever I stated in Round 1 of course. Accidents, death, and the safety of others at stake. These are all UNNECESSARY risks so I am at a loss as to how my opponent is so careless about his own safety and even the safety of others. Sure, nothing may have happened to him yet but let's face it. We don't know anything about our futures.
2. Con stated that as a government for the people by the people, it's their place to serve us, protect us from threats both foreign and domestic, but it's never been their job to force us to be safe on our own terms.
Mind you that the part where Con said it's the government's place to protect us from THREATS both foreign and DOMESTIC is where Con falters. Domestic means something existing or occurring inside a particular country. By that it means that the government has the job to protect us even from OURSELVES. By us not wearing seat belts we are endangering both ourselves and the people around us and that makes US a THREAT to OURSELVES.
3. Con concludes I have based my arguments on personal reasons.
In what way are my arguments based on personal reasons? All of my arguments are based on facts which were sourced and if my opponent is talking about my rebuttals, my rebuttals are based on logic which make sense, don't they? My arguments still stand.
4. "It isn't worth the loss of life, but is it really the government's place to interfere? They allow us to go rock climbing, surfing, wake-boarding, dirt-bike racing, you name it! There are hundreds of things as dangerous as refusing to wear my seat belt that ARE legal, the fact that seat belts are mandatory while I'm still allowed to risk my life climbing a ninety degree cliff is absurd." said Con in his conclusion.
The answer is yes, it is the government's place to interfere as I explained in rebuttal point no. 2. However, as for the activities stated by Con, allow me to ask this. These activities, do they potentially harm others in the process? Not really. What about driving without a seat belt? Do they have potential to harm others? Most definitely. This shows my opponent has based this argument on selfishness and carelessness once again disregarding the safety of others.
I have once again proven that it is Con who listed arguments based purely on selfishness, carelessness and personal reasons and not I. I have once again successfully rebutted Con's points.
Back to you, Con.
All my arguments remain standing and undefeated while all of Con's points have been successfully rebutted. I have shown that freedom is a necessity but only to a certain extent and why seat belts should be mandatory. My opponent also admits defeat. Vote Pro.
Thanks DylanROO for this interesting debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.