The Instigator
WeepingBoar35
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chrislee125
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the US abandon the Click It or Ticket Law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 324 times Debate No: 93034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

WeepingBoar35

Pro

Rounds:
1. Opening Statements
2. Rebuttals
3. Finishing Statements

"Congress seems to want to cure every ill to man except unconstitutional government."
-Charlie Reese

I have found through close examination that Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, which took effect on January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions and requires every person to be buckled is unconstitutional. How? Well, it violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights. So, I will start the case by giving a road map of my argument:
1. Fourth Amendment infraction
2. Fifth Amendment infraction
3. Public Opinion

C#1: Fourth Amendment infraction
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This 'Click It or Ticket' law completely bypasses the issuing of a warrant for something that does not endanger anyone else other than their self's. Therefore, the Click it or Ticket law allows law enforcement to bypass due process of law because no warrant is issued to search the vehicle Let me ask you this, is it right for the people on Capitol Hill to make US citizens do what THEY think is best? No, its not right. Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University wrote, "The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seat belts?" He makes a good point, should the government control whats best for us? NO! The fact is this country was built on the fact that a government should never control its people, that FREEDOM was a certain aspect of life all people should have the right to enjoy. Look at the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, it gives us three unalienable rights : 1. Life 2. LIBERTY 3. Pursuit of Happiness. This seat belt law gives the government a reason the take away the liberty of the fourth amendment. This is unconsitituitional.

C#2: Fifth Amendment infraction
The Fifth Amendment reads as follows: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So, when you can be fined for not wearing your seat belt, there is no trial. Think about this, you can be fined without being properly tried in a court of law. The officer can just say "You owe me $70 for not wearing your seat belt, case closed." What? How can we allow this to go on? This is another infraction of the constitution.

C#3: Public Opinion
In 1985, when the law was first passed, it had a 79% unsatisfactory review rate. The number has only gone up since then. The truth is, the people did not like this law and have continued to not like this law for decades. While I will agree some laws will not be liked, when 79% of the people disagree, it is time for a change. I myself wear a seat belt, but I don't do it because of the law. I do it because I have weighed the risks and decided that I preferred to use the seat belt device. So what happened to the right of refusal. The seat belt is considered a medical device since it is used to save lives. The government refuses your right to refusal (irony not intended) and pushes the law forward because they feel like you cant make the decision for yourself. America needs to understand that my life is my life, and I want to live it how I want to as long as I'm not hurting anyone. Who does not wearing a seat belt really hurt besides yourself. I eagerly wait for an opponent to debate this very controversial concept.

Cites:
1. Bill of Rights https://en.wikipedia.org...
2. Satisfaction Rates https://fee.org...
3. Walter Williams http://townhall.com...

Thank You!
chrislee125

Con

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty..." -The Preamble to the Constitution
Should the US abandon the Click It or Ticket Law?
I will be arguing against this resolution.
Value: Safety
Value criteria: as defined by the Debate Handbook, safety is a condition of being secure, or the freedom from danger, risks, or injury. While many great thinkers defend the importance of safety or security to humans, it is Maslow's hierarchy of needs which establishes safety as a basic human value. Since it is a basic human need, it is a prerequisite to other higher values. Therefore, unless we are safe and secure, we cannot enjoy whatever value my opponent defends as the value standard. Safety is therefore the superior value standard.
Definitions: (as said by Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Tranquility: Free from disturbance or turmoil.
Welfare: the state of being happy, healthy, or successful.
Prerequisite: something that you officially must have or do before you can have or do something else.
Now, here is a road map for my opening argument so that you may follow along:
Contention 1: Cars are dangerous.
Contention 2: Protection.
Contention 3: Right v. Privilege.
Contention 1: Cars are dangerous. Obviously, driving motor vehicles can be seen as dangerous. Driving up to speeds such as 80 MPH can be convenient, but dangerous at the same time. A crash at this speed, or any speed, results in fatal injuries and death. Well why would we do this then? Put ourselves into these metal death traps? Well, driving can be dangerous, but we have a source of protection. That is... our seat belts. Over 2.5 million people died in motor vehicle accidents in the first six months of 2015. Over half of those were caused by a lack of a seat belt. In most cars accidents, seat belts give you a 79% chance of not getting fatally injured. So why are people mad that the government is enforcing us to wear these life saving devices? Well, our elected leaders do NOT want us to end up like that 1.25 million people that died in motor vehicle accidents by not wearing their seat belts. We shouldn't be mad at them for caring for us. I know that if my son or daughter in the near future was to not wear a seat belt, I will hope that they get a ticket from a police officer. Because the click it or ticket law just protected my son from being killed in a car accident that wasn't meant to be fatal.
Contention 2: Protection. The Click It or Ticket Law is a form of protection. It protects our lives in the event of a car crash by enforcing us to wear seat belts. It is a excellent law to enforce our safety. Some people think that enforcing us to wear a seat belt violates our freedom. But in fact it is protecting your freedom and your basic human rights. In Maslows hierarchy of needs, Safety is one of the first key components needed before you need your basic human rights. So if we blow off protection and safety as an unneeded human value, then soon our human rights are not needed anymore. So when the government is protection your basic human value of safety, they are protecting your rights too, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Don't be mad at the government for enforcing and protecting your safety. Because a world without security and safety is a world of chaos.
Contention 3: Right v. Privilege. Most people in the United States are mistaken when it comes to driving. They believe that it is a right to drive their motor vehicle. Well actually, it isn't a right, it's a privilege. There is nothing about the right to drive in the constitution. So since it is a privilege, when we drive, the government trusts us not to break the law and to respect it. It's kind of like when you parents buy you a new smart phone. It is your privilege to have that phone, because you don't actually own it. Your parents can search your phone whenever they want and take it away whenever they want without your permission. This is because they love you and want to protect you. It's kind of the same with driving. If you are breaking the law while driving, you should be punished. But law enforcement does this to protect you. They are not like "he he he... that guys not wearing his seat belt, time to ruin his day. But instead, they know that there are people that love you. I know this because I know many police officers in my life. They don't want to see you die of the stupid death of not wearing your seat belt. We shouldn't be mad at them for trying to protect our basic human value of safety.

Sources:
http://www.simplypsychology.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Value debate handbook, Chapter 9: Human Values: Explanation and strategy.
https://www.edgarsnyder.com...
Debate Round No. 1
WeepingBoar35

Pro

WeepingBoar35 forfeited this round.
chrislee125

Con

First, I shall go over my opponents case. Then I will review my case.
My opponent does not have a value. The value of a debate is a structure that holds the whole argument together; it is a mutual target for all the contentions and criterias to push for. If one does not have a value, there is no structure for the debate. My opponent can't really defend or explain his contentions very strongly without his value. Because of this, I find my opponents case to be very weak, without much backup.
My opponents contention 1: Fourth Amendment Infraction is invalid and no longer stands as a point for this debate. The reasons for this involve my opponent not fully understanding how the police force and the fourth amendment work. The amendment states "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." If a police officer can see you breaking the law right before his/her eyes, then he/she has probable cause to arrest you. This includes breaking the Click It or Ticket law when not wearing your seat belt. If an officer can see a gunman shooting people in a building, he/she doesn't need a warrant before they help those people. Now, if an officer SUSPECTS that an individual is breaking the law and does not have probable cause to arrest them, then he/she needs a warrant. For example, an officer can pull you over if you are breaking a traffic law, but, if the officer suspects that you have marijuana in your car, then he/she needs a warrant. My opponent obviously does not fully understand the fourth amendment and that is why his contention 1 no longer is valid.
My opponents contention 2: Fifth Amendment infraction is invalid and no longer stands as a point for this debate. My opponent does not fully understand how the Fifth Amendment works when you get a ticket. First of all, when you get a traffic ticket, there is nothing stopping you from challenging that ticket in a court of law. You automatically plead guilty when you pay for the ticket. But if you feel that an officer is cheating you into a ticket, don't pay for it and bring it into traffic court. There is no infraction in the constitution because of this. This is why my opponents contention 2 no longer stands.
My opponents contention 3: Public opinion is also invalid and no longer stands as a point for this debate. My opponent does not understand that public opinion has no affect on a privilege. First, can I get a source on how much the unsatisfactory rate has grown on the subject of the click it or ticket law? Second, let me ask all of the teenagers out there a question. How annoying is it to get your phone taken away. Well, I myself being a teenager, I find it very annoying. When I do something against my parents rules, I get my phone taken away. I hate it, but I know that my parents only do it because the love me and are trying to protect me. The same goes with the Click It or Ticket law. It is annoying when you get pulled over just for not wearing your seat belt. But the Click It or Ticket law and the police force is only doing this because they care about you and want to protect you. So even though the law is unsatisfactory and annoying, that shouldn't stop you from being grateful for the seat belt law. You have to realize that the law wasn't made to annoy you, but to protect your basic human need of safety. Finally, a majority does not decide what is right your wrong, your conscience does. Especially when the majority is deciding on a privilege. If your conscience says that wearing your seat belt is good, then the Click it or Ticket law is a good law. Therein, my opponents contention 3 is no longer valid too.
Now, I shall briefly go over my case.
Value: Safety. Safety is a basic human need that is required before any other need besides breathing.
Contention 1: Cars are dangerous. Motor vehicles kill hundreds of people everyday. Don't be mad at the government for trying to protect your basic human need of safety in the dangerous environment of a car.
Contention 2: Protection. The Click It or Ticket Law is a form of protection. It is protecting your freedom and your human rights.
Contention 3: Right v. Privilege. Driving is a privilege. The government trusts us not to break the law and when we do, there will be consequences.

Thank you for your time. I advise you to vote for the negative (or con) side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
WeepingBoar35

Pro

WeepingBoar35 forfeited this round.
chrislee125

Con

Well, since my opponent forfeited his rounds, I'm not sure if there is much left to say about this debate. Because of this, i'll just review on what has already been said and go off that.
My opponent's case is weak and cannot stands for itself. His debate is invalid because of its lack of a value, his misunderstanding of his contentions, and a lack of a rebuttal and a closing.
In review of my case, I shall go over my value and contentions.
Value: Safety. Safety is a basic human need that is required before any other need besides breathing.
Contention 1: Cars are dangerous. Motor vehicles kill hundreds of people everyday. Don't be mad at the government for trying to protect your basic human need of safety in the dangerous environment of a car.
Contention 2: Protection. The Click It or Ticket Law is a form of protection. It is protecting your freedom and your human rights.
Contention 3: Right v. Privilege. Driving is a privilege. The government trusts us not to break the law and when we do, there will be consequences.

This was a great debate topic. I was fun to argue. I would like to thank my opponent for his case and you, for paying attention to this debate. I would like to thank you for your time and I highly recommend that you vote for the negative side of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by chrislee125 8 months ago
chrislee125
Sorry it's taking me so long to respond... it has been a busy week. But I have outlined and planned a debate to present to you. It is almost finished.
Posted by WeepingBoar35 8 months ago
WeepingBoar35
Chaise, I thank you for the compliment. However, I must urge you to debate no matter the skill level of your opponent. Who knows, my view of the law moght be in the minority. If you would like to learn how to debate like a pro (not me btw) pm me on my profile page and ill take you through the fundamentals
Posted by Chaise15 8 months ago
Chaise15
No but im not too good yet at debating. You seem like a pro. So I wish the next person who is too challenge you the best of luck.
No votes have been placed for this debate.