Teenagers and elders should not drive.
I have done this debate before.
It is about teenagers drivers
1. Pro accepts, Con's case *It has to be on teenagers
2. Pro's case *has to be on teenagers, Con's second case *Has to be on the elders
3. Pro's second case *has to be on elders, Con rebuts *Teenagers and elders*
4. Pro rebuts *Teenagers and elders*, Con defends his case
5. Pro defend his case, Con waives
Defintions will be on the second round.
This is unreasonable for many reasons. First, pro did not say 16 year olds, he said teenagers. This includes 18 and 19 year olds, ie adults. These people often have jobs and no longer live with their parents. If pro wants to deny them driving rights, he will need to prove that there is some change that happens at the age of 20 that would somehow mean these new drivers would avoid the problems that new drivers currently face. Pro also needs to show that it is age and not inexperience that causes the increase in traffic accidents seen with new drivers.
A much better solution is to look into our licensing requirements, and if they are not sufficient to weed out incompetent drivers, we can revise them.
We could also install safety devices to cars driven by teenagers. These already exist for insurance companies and for drivers who have had DUIs. I have one from my insurance company in my car that can determine if I am driving too fast or stopping too abruptly. They offer this option for those who want to lower their rates. The ones for drunk drivers lock the car until you breathe into them to prove you are not drunk. It would be a simple matter to have these devices installed for a probationary period to ensure that new drivers are still being monitored in case the tests they take to get a licence fail to weed out incompetent drivers. This monitoring would have the additional benefit of encouraging the drivers to be mindful of how they drive so that they do not lose their licenses.
Obviously this could create problems with shared automobiles, but the simple solution is to have the device lock the vehicle until a driving license in inserted or have a thumbpad scanner. This way, the device will be able to differentiate by who is driving the car.
Thank you for making your arguments. I will start making mine also.
1. It is a dangerous zone for teeenagers to drive and be in the street.
New York Times says,
"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 16- to 20-year-olds, with about 5,500 teenage drivers or passengers dying each year. In addition, about 450,000 teenagers are injured, 27,000 of them requiring hospitalization"
Also experience matters
Although factors like alcohol, drugs and distractions like the stereo naturally come to mind, the single biggest reason for both fatal and nonfatal crashes involving teenage drivers is inexperience. In one study, the highest crash rate occurred during the first month after teenagers got their license. That rate, 120 crashes per 10,000 drivers, dropped to 70 crashes within five months.
This shows us that teenagers are too early to drive cars. They can practice driving, however they can't do it in a street because, it is too dangerous. They could do it in a safed secured area to do all those things to get a license
In many places it shows that teenagers are not safe enough. I think that teenagers should wait until they are twenty to be driving.
For these reasons vote for me!
Also read my sources
First, Pro never defined what elderly means. So on that alone he has no case to even make, but that is a bit nit picky.
It is prejudicial to deny people the right to drive due to their age.
The goal of people who want to deny people the right to drive based on their age is not to be prejudicial, rather it is to reduce traffic accidents.
Requiring people to take a driving test at specified intervals will allow us to weed out people who have lost their ability to drive without unfairly taking away the rights of those whose driving skills are still intact.
Thus, the proper and fair solution is to require additional driving tests, not to take away licenses just because someone hit an arbitrary threshold.
If pro manages to find data showing that after a certain age, people tend to get in many more accidents, then all he has done is shown that people nearing that age should take another driving test so that those who are no longer able to drive safely are removed from the traffic pool.
Thank you for making your elderly case. In this case I will say the elderly is 70-200.
1. First it is not safe for elderly because they can't drive.
For many elders, and their loved ones, determining when they are no longer safe on the road is a difficult and heart wrenching process -- but ignoring the issue can be dangerous.
According to a recent study by Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and the AAA Foundation for traffic Safety, drivers 65 and over are more likely to get in traffic accidents than younger drivers. And those 85 and older log a fatality rate nearly four times higher than that for teens. On the flip side, senior drivers cause fewer pedestrian and motorist deaths and are more likely to follow safety rules such as wearing seatbelts and not drinking and driving.
Changes in vision and hearing. A loss of visual acuity can make it harder for drivers to see essential traffic signs, lane lines, and other drivers and pedestrians. Conditions common for older eyes -- cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration -- make it harder for drivers to see, and may also limit peripheral vision. A sensitivity to light at night, or night vision, can make the glare of oncoming headlights dangerous. And the loss of hearing can mean usual signals used to alert drivers, such as horns and sirens, go unheeded.
Limitations in physical fitness. A loss of muscle strength and flexibility can make it more difficult to steer, maneuver, grip the steering wheel, and pivot the head to check for traffic in the blind spot before changing lanes.
Slowed reflexes. Slower reflexes mean it may take a longer time for a driver to react to traffic signals, unexpected behavior in pedestrians and other motorists, and to gauge appropriate speeds.
Side effects of medication. People age 65 and older consume more prescription and over-the-counter medicines than any other age group. Taken alone or interacting with one another, medications may cause drowsiness or confusion and make it difficult to focus. Many also have the unexpected side effect of lowering tolerance for alcohol, which can notoriously affect driving skills.
General health conditions. Physical and mental conditions common to the older population, from Parkinson's to Alzheimer's disease, can also affect a driver's agility and judgment on the road.
I will also point out that there is a striking difference in the parts of his teenager argument where Pro copy and pasted his argument from the listed sources and where he wrote his own material. That said, at least he actually wrote something on his own for his teenager argument, unlike the elderly argument he completely copied.
I will now give a point by point rebuttal to his teenager argument:
"This shows us that teenagers are too early to drive cars. They can practice driving, however they can't do it in a street because, it is too dangerous. They could do it in a safed secured area to do all those things to get a license"
No, it shows us that new drivers get in more accidents. This, in no way, shows that there is something special about being a new driver as a teenager compared to a new driver as an older person.
Additionally, practicing driving only helps if it is done on a road. Pro's suggestion would be like playing Guitar Hero as preparation for playing a guitar.
"In many places it shows that teenagers are not safe enough. I think that teenagers should wait until they are twenty to be driving."
Explain why new drivers at 20 will be better drivers than new drivers at 16. Use actual evidence.
I did not plagirize all of my arguments. I only did my second one.
He didn't rebut any of my arguments.
I will not either. I will rebut them next round.
I say he is a liar because I directly quoted him and refuted his conclusions, but then this worm goes and says I never refuted his arguments. I see no honor in him and he needs a lesson in integrity.
debate-master1 forfeited this round.