The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age
I argue that the eldest sibling should not get the front seat.
The well-being of a parent's child is their first priority, and chief concern. For this reason, the safety argument outweighs all other arguments.
The government program of The Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows how paramount the problem of car safety is, and how to best prevent it, sitting in the back-seat.
"In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among children. In 2013, 638 children ages 12 years and younger died in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 127,250 were injured. But parents and caregivers can make a lifesaving difference.
Whenever you're on the road, make sure your child passengers are buckled in age- and size-appropriate car seats, booster seats, or seat belts. The safest place for children of any age to ride is properly buckled in the back seat."
Since sitting in the backseat is the backseat in vital to the safety of children, all children should sit in the backseat. The eldest sibling is included in "all children", thus I negate the resolution.
Pro concedes the fact that sitting in the front seat is dangerous. Pro responsesby saying that 16 year olds should sit in the front since they are the legal driving age.
So? Sitting in the front seat is still dangerous, whether or not you are 16.
Is a 16 year olds life more important than someone below 16?
The answer is no, all lives are equal, and this priniciple is protected under the Constitution.
Until the answer is yes, Pro's response is negated.
Pro also says that it is embarrassing for a 16 year old to be in the backseat. The person's life outweighs their social embarrassment by far.
However, this debate was not solely about whether teens are allowed to sit in the front seat, it is about whether the eldest sibling has the right to the front seat. Please provide your arguments against this statement.
Pro's response is in questioning where to draw the line. What the judge must realize is that none of this negates my argument.
The answer to my opponent's question is, no one should sit in the front seat. The only person to sit in the front should be the driver, this way, safety is optimal.
Pro then suggests that we eliminate cars because they are dangerous, I accept this proposal, because it negates Pro's entire case, thus me winning the debate.
Pro then says that the front seat is made to protect adults during car crashes, and therefore the eldest sibling should get the front seat since they are optimized for it. This is false for the following reasons.
1) This assumes that the eldest sibling is over 13 years. If there are three children in the family, one 2, one 5, and one 8, the 8 year old is not eligible to sit in the front seat by Pro's reasoning. But, Pro needs to argue that the eldest sibling (the 8 year old), should be able to sit in the front seat, the contradiction cancels out Pro's argument, and it is negated.
2) The front seat is still safer than the backseat, no matter the age, thus the argument has no impact.
Pro's entire case has been negated and Pro has failed to negate my case, thus I am winning this debate.
You brought my argument up about eliminating cars, and stated that the elimination of cars negates my entire case. That may very well be true, but it also negates your case, so the result would be a tie, not a victory for you. However, as you well know, that argument was simply an assertion of how ridiculous the obsession with safety is here.
You then give me two points that "negate" my previous argument about the front seat being optimized for older people. Both are completely ridiculous.
1) You say that it assumes that the eldest sibling is over 13 years. Did you not read the title of this debate? The title was "The oldest sibling should get the front seat WHEN THEY COME OF AGE." In your example, you said there were three children, the eldest being 8. Of course the 8 year old would sit in the back, because he/she has not come of age yet.
2) You then state that the front seat is safer than the back seat, completely voiding your entire argument.
Asserting that you are winning the debate is a faulty argument and, in my opinion, conceited.
Pro argues that if the front seat is really that dangerous, then it should be eliminated. I agree! If the front seat of the car is eliminated, then I negate the resolution and win the debate.
Pro then says that just because it is the most dangerous seat in the car (<=== a concession that it is the most dangerous seat in the car), doesn’t mean it's unsafe to sit in it.
See my Round 1 statistics to see how dangerous it is.
Pro admits that his entire case would be negated if we eliminated cars, but that mine would as well, and then it would be a tie.
If we are to eliminate cars, no one would be able to sit in the front seat, and I would negate the resolution and win. In order to affirm the resolution, Pro needs cars to not be eliminated (or how else would you sit in the front seat).
I concede my first point, Pro correctly pointed out that it is irrelevant, as it was “when they come of age”, my apologies.
I had a typo in my second argument XD.
Its should have read,
2) The front seat is still more dangerous than the backseat, no matter the age, thus the argument has no impact.
I do concede, the front seat is the most dangerous seat in the car, but that does not mean that it should be eliminated. That is a false and void argument. For instance, it is more dangerous to ride a bicycle than it is to read a book while sitting on a couch. Does that mean that nobody should ride bicycles? Of course not! Just because something is more dangerous in comparison with another activity (or position in the car) does not make it dangerous in general.
You say that I need cars not to be eliminated for my argument to be valid, and that I concede. However, you also need cars for your argument to be valid. As you said in argument one, "The government program of The Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows how paramount the problem of car safety is, and how to best prevent it, sitting in the back-seat." Your argument is that teens should sit in the back seat. If cars were to be eliminated then your argument would be negated as well. Also, I noticed that your statistic (also in round 1) said nothing about teens 13 and up, only children 12 and under. Let me remind you again, the premise of this debate was that "The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age." Your statistic regards children who have not yet come of age, and is therefore irrelevant to this debate.
First, Pro says that millions of people sit in the front seat everyday and are fine, this is true, but many sit in the front seat everyday and die. This is proven by the statistic I brought up in Round 1, this part of Pro's argument is negated.
Pro concedes that the front seat is the most dangerous seat in the car, this proves my initial argument true, that therefore if a parent values their childrens' lives, then they should not have them sit in the front seat of the car. I negate the resolution and win the debate.
Pro says that just because it is dangerous doesn't mean it should be eliminated. I disagree, in order to save lives we must minimize harm, and saving lives outweighs any arguments that Pro can bring up.
Pro also says that sitting in the front seat is not dangerous in general, only dangerous in comparison to sitting in the backseat. Exactly! Therefore the children should sit in the backseat, the less dangerous spot, in order to maintain their well-being.
Pro's last argument is that if cars were to be eliminated, my argument that children should sit in the backseat would be negated as well. I agree, but I would still win the debate, because I would only lose an argument, while Pro would lose the resolution, and I would win the debate.
Pro then says that my statistic is irrelevant. The statistic of 12 and under is, but the rest of it isn't, and therefore the rest still stands. The front seat is still the most dangerous place for children, thus parents should put the children in the backseat, this is something Pro concedes, thus the impact (that parents should put all the children in the backseat, not the front seat) still stands, which effectively negates the resolution, and I win the debate.
|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||5|