The Instigator
RacH3ll3
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
dobsondebator
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The rule of "getting your driver's licence at least after you're 16" shouldn't apply to everybody

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
dobsondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,132 times Debate No: 8342
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

RacH3ll3

Pro

I think that getting your driver's licence only after you turn sixteen shouldn't apply to everyone.
By this, I am mean that some people should be able to get it before their sixteenth birthday, and some should have to wait until after. (This can be determined by tests.)
-----
my reasons:
1. Some people, when they turn the age of sixteen, are not ready to get their licence. They get on the road, and dangerous things may happen. They may also not be mature enough to drive, and want to do "crazy" things with their friends while driving. Waiting until they are mature enough to drive, may stop these risks. sixteen year olds have higher crash rates than any other driver. This rate could be lowered.
http://www.rmiia.org...

2. It may be helpful to people under the age of sixteen.
--example---
say, if a thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen year old had no other way to get to school, or to go places because their parents were not able to take them, or were at work. Yes, there are buses, but buses do not pick up/drop off people everywhere.
-----
so if the person had their licence, it would make it that much easier for them. (This is, of course, after they pass some sort of test to show that they can drive)

I will post more arguments in the second round. Thank you :)
dobsondebator

Con

Interesting topic. I've always thought the same, but because of my advanced maturity I've understood why the law is the way it is, so thus I NEGATE.

I argue that the law should change mandatory the way it is, for a few key reasons. The just of my side will be attacking my opponent's points and warranting them as such, thus your reason for negating. On to addressing my opponent.

To summarize: My opponent offers both extremes, both good and bad drivers, and why it should flex.

1) Bad drivers

With bad drivers, their license can be taken away as the law requires; in any case, this is the just of your deterrent to bad driving. For example, in the state of Arizona, we've installed quite a few photo radar cameras along our highways and our intersections. These not only deter young drivers from speeding, the biggest cause of accidents, but it also prevents current drivers who are older than adolescents. So you're doing one thing to prevent two instances, much better than stopping them at 16.

2) Under 16

For these drivers, there's no real justification to just allowing them early on. For instance, they could end up being those bad drivers, and the younger they get, the more likely they are to have poor driving characteristics. Why should we put convenience in front of safety? Even if a select few can pass the course required (and I'll address this later on), it's not practical to implement this system for a select few. Even still, convenience should never be an issue. Carpooling, biking, walking, buses, metro systems, jogging, boarding, even home schooling need be exist already. It's unlikely that a kid can't go to school because he's inconvenienced; after all, with going to school being a law in the United States, schools have to find ways to bring children to school.

3) Testing these drivers

There's two flaws with this argument. First, drivers are ALREADY tested. At 16, you obviously have to get a license by testing for it. If you fail it, most states require that you add an additional learning permit time or wait a set period of time until you can apply again. That's your deterrent right there.

But how are we going to test these individuals? Written tests? Those are easy to memorize and recite. Simulator tests? Not only do they not accuratly represent a real car (no real feedback to the driver) but they're also easy to fake. Driving tests on the road? Imagine the cost, the time, and the frequency.

Here's one problem with a driving test though: most kids aren't even big enough to fit in a car. I'm 16, 5' 7", starting to learn how to drive, and as of 6 months ago, I couldn't even reach the pedals. Most kids younger than me can't get any closer. Not to mention being able to see over the steering wheel. Even so, children or young adults behave much differently in a car accident than adults do. When I was in an accident (my mom was driving) I hit my head on the passenger side window and blacked out; my mom was completely fine, along with the other adults in the vehicle.
-------------
-------------
My only sole argument for now is that the 16-year-old drivers law stands to do a couple things. First, 16 year olds are determined as the earliest mature with the most need for driving. So it's the best age to start allowing kids to drive. But it also balances out the extremes, these bad drivers and the needy drivers, like my opponent suggests. In a sense, 16 year olds are the "average" of these categories, so it benefits the most amount of people. Hybrid programs like the resolution suggests are over complicated and hard to administer because there's really no accurate way to test each individual.

I propose a counter plan; something similar to the Graduated Driver's License program already implemented by 30 states.

"Yet no state places an outright ban on driving by 16-year-old 'junior operators." Instead, more than 30 states employ a 'graduated driver licensing" system for 16- and 17-year-olds. In Massachusetts, for example, they are prohibited from driving during the first six months with passengers under the age of 18, a sensible way to limit distractions. But other aspects of the law are ill-considered. For example, junior operators must be off the road from midnight to 5 a.m., while National Safety Council data point to the 9 p.m. to midnight period as the time of highest risk for teen accidents and fatalities." http://www.boston.com...

It comes down to instruction, not age, that these teens are lacking and thus resulting in accidents.

"Driving is, after all, a skill like any other; it is not mastered overnight — or after a few weeks of classroom instruction and a couple of hours in the seat." http://www.motorists.org...

So with this program, we keep the benefits of 16 year old driving and also keeping them safer. Thus, you must NEGATE (CON) this resolution.

I thank my opponent for this debate :].
Debate Round No. 1
RacH3ll3

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

"For example, in the state of Arizona, we've installed quite a few photo radar cameras along our highways and our intersections. These not only deter young drivers from speeding, the biggest cause of accidents,"

What about the country roads and roads that do not have such cameras?

"Why should we put convenience in front of safety?"

Why not? We do this already (Drugs, alcohol, etc.) (Not saying that I agree with the previous) Plus, we could put restrictions on drivers below 16. (such as, but not limited to: they have to be enrolled in school, passing all grades, nobody in the car under twenty one etc.)

"First, drivers are ALREADY tested. At 16, you obviously have to get a license by testing for it. If you fail it, most states require that you add an additional learning permit time or wait a set period of time until you can apply again. That's your deterrent right there"

Actually, drivers no longer have to take this test. (Well, in most places anyway) You just have to show up, get your picture taken, etc. (of course, you have to have so many hours of "training".)

"But how are we going to test these individuals? Written tests? Those are easy to memorize and recite. Simulator tests? Not only do they not accurately represent a real car (no real feedback to the driver) but they're also easy to fake. Driving tests on the road? Imagine the cost, the time, and the frequency"

I agree with you on the written tests: they are easy to memorize, and you soon forget them. If we hired people who work at the drivers licence office to ride with the young drivers say, each week for a short period of time, the hired workers could show the young driver tips about driving. This would help more than it would hurt. Driving for an hour each week will not hurt the hired worker. As they did previously, if you score lower than acceptable, you would not be able to come back.

"Here's one problem with a driving test though: most kids aren't even big enough to fit in a car. I'm 16, 5' 7", starting to learn how to drive, and as of 6 months ago, I couldn't even reach the pedals. Most kids younger than me can't get any closer. Not to mention being able to see over the steering wheel. Even so, children or young adults behave much differently in a car accident than adults do. When I was in an accident (my mom was driving) I hit my head on the passenger side window and blacked out; my mom was completely fine, along with the other adults in the vehicle."

First of all, I would like to say good luck on your driving:) (btw, we are the same age and height) Anyways back to the debate, the steering wheel can move up or down to a person's liking, and the seats are adjusted to move back and forth. ( and about your wreck: My friends and I were in a wreck in October. The whole time I thought: we are gonna die. But we made it out alive and the ambulance said we were lucky to be alive. We flipped over three times!) Sorry I keep getting off track.

"First, 16 year olds are determined as the earliest mature with the most need for driving. So it's the best age to start allowing kids to drive."

The youngest age you can start working is 13. (of course this has some restrictions and it is considered 'light work') The main reason kids don't get a job when they are 13,14,or14 is because they don't have transportation. http://www.youthinformation.com...

""Yet no state places an outright ban on driving by 16-year-old 'junior operators." Instead, more than 30 states employ a 'graduated driver licensing" system for 16- and 17-year-olds. In Massachusetts, for example, they are prohibited from driving during the first six months with passengers under the age of 18, a sensible way to limit distractions. But other aspects of the law are ill-considered. For example, junior operators must be off the road from midnight to 5 a.m., while National Safety Council data point to the 9 p.m. to midnight period as the time of highest risk for teen accidents and fatalities."

This is what we have in our state, but this could be just the same for anyone under 18.

"It comes down to instruction, not age, that these teens are lacking and thus resulting in accidents."

This is why we need to have a thorough program.

----arguments----

1. It would actually make better drivers. ---If we had a thorough tests and watched every driving move they made like a hawk, we could watch them to see if they are eligible for the licence. Nowadays, sixteen year olds just have to go in the DMV, do a few written tests, etc etc...(they have to do some training, but no one REALLY listens to every word said or written.) This means some careless sixteen year old can go up to the DMV, get their picture taken, show them the papers that they supposivly studied, and then leave with their licence. Then they get together with their friends, and do some crazy tricks to celebrate with their friends, and then BAM! They go home with possible tickets, lost friends, and worse-they don't go home at all. Now say a fourteen year old goes up there. They pass all the tests, and are put on strict restrictions. Hopefully parents will monitor the children to see if the children are living up to the restrictions. If we did have this test, let's say the same sixteen year old went up to the DMV, had to do all the tests and such, then failed. They were also failing in school, etc. The DMV could tell the sixteen year old he couldn't get his licence until he started passing or turned eighteen.
By time the sixteen year old turned eighteen, he was mature enough to drive.
By time the fourteen year old turned sixteen, they would be more experienced than the sixteen year olds today.

2. Some people need it more than others at different ages.---Take me, for example. I started working at fifteen. I also live out in the country. My father is a single parent, raising me and my brother. He cannot afford to drive me everywhere I want. I am a mature driver, I wear my seat belt every time, and I do not speed. I could have used that licence when I was fifteen. I do have my licence now, and it helps out a whole lot. Now look at one of my friends. Her name is Valerie. She has no reason to be driving. She doesn't have a job, and she lives right in the middle of town, so she just walks everywhere. She was able to get her licence last year; I was not. Thus: some people need it more than others at different ages.

3. It is not the person's AGE it's the person's inexperience. Like I mentioned before, If we had tight restrictions and better teaching, we would have more younger experienced drivers. This is better than less experienced older drivers.
I know I keep saying this, but it is true:
lots of driving, studying, closely watching, restrictions = younger but better experienced drivers.
--------or----------
walking in and getting your picture taken= older but not to experienced drivers.

Some numbers and whatnot:
53% of teens are killed in a car accident occur on weekends. {there are no restrictions on driving on the weekends as of now, but we could change this to anyone under a certain number cannot drive on the weekends. }
65% of passenger deaths occur with a teen driving. {again, no laws against this, but we could put restrictions as no passengers under the age of [enter number]
41% of teenage motor deaths occur between 9:00 pm and 6:am. {there is a law against this one, but it is between 12:ooam and 5:00am. Again we could easily change this rule to no driving between [enter times]
2/3 of teenagers who died last year were not buckled up {better teaching and taking away their licence until they are [age] can prevent this.
16 year olds have higher crash ratings than that of any other age. {proper teaching and thoroughly picking who can and cannot get their licence can correct most of this.}
SOURCES FOR 3 and numbers=
http://www.5myteen.com...
dobsondebator

Con

Since there doesn't seem to be any clear flow, I'm just going to work by summarizing different arguments, for the sake of the debate and the readers.

--------------------
1) License testing
To start, the most of what my opponent states in response to my points is this idea that "Actually, drivers no longer have to take this test. (Well, in most places anyway) You just have to show up, get your picture taken, etc. (of course, you have to have so many hours of "training".)"

She assumes that just anyone can get a driver's license. She's mentioned this several times in her last speech; this is an absolutely ludicrous claim. The DMV is not going to let just anyone get a driving license; they're not handed out like hot cakes. In fact, all 50 states have some form of Graduated Driver License programs:

http://www.dps.state.ok.us...

But furthermor, the point of GDL programs goes completely unrefuted in my opponent's last speech. So you can extend this through the round. But even if you don't buy that, my opponent constantly mentions changes we can make to current laws to create safer situations or other solutions to problems. GDL laws already have cut fatal traffic accidents with 16 year olds by 11 percent.

http://www.jhsph.edu...

Therefor, you HAVE to negate this resolution and vote CON in order to implement GDL laws. While all states have some form, some states need stricter GDL laws that have more features and restrictions to slowly "ease" drivers into their task at hand.

-----------------
2) A Matter of Safety

My opponent consistently claims this idea that some teens are safer than others. But like I said before (and goes unrefuted) 16 year olds are determined as the earliest age of any sort of maturity. They have this sense of safety. By implementing GDL laws, we can increase this safety. GDL laws also show, over time, if a driver is not ready to drive. He won't pass the initial permit test, nor the license test, if he is not ready. But it will also reflect in the mandatory supervised driving a teen must acquire in order to test for the graduated license.

Like I've already brought up, younger kids can barely even fit in their seat properly in order to drive. It's not a matter of just adjusting "the steering wheel [to] move up or down to a person's liking, and the seats are adjusted to move back and forth." If this is necessary, a person shouldn't be driving. It creates unsafe situations like being too close to the airbag, not being able to see over the steering wheel, reach the pedals, etc. Regardless, one should be more mature in order to drive a car (16 years old, when most young adults have reached a height over 5' 5")

--------
3) A Matter of Convenience

Here's something huge to chew on. I've already brought it up, but we should NEVER put convenience ahead of safety. For example. It might be convenient for me to run across the street in order to get across to the other side, running through traffic, but it's not safe. It's estimated that every time you jaywalk, your chance for an accident goes up 14%.

In this situation, young drivers aren't going to be inconvenienced by not being able to drive. Like the countless options I brought up already, it's still possible to get to school or wherever they need to go.

As for work, the demand for workers under, say 15, is VERY small. In Arizona, it's illegal. According to the Department of Labor, job tasks are incredibly limited for youths. They don't get jobs because they don't have transportation, but because workers don't want to hire, basically, children.

http://www.dol.gov...

So your demand for changing the laws is, again, not necessary. Even still, it's going to be easy for these youths to get to work, as not many are needing to travel great distances to go to work.

--------------

1) Testing at 16 is safer

Again, my opponent brings up this false claim about testing at the DMV without really testing. I've already addressed it. But like I've mentioned before as well, GDL programs can greatly reduce these negative harms. Under the GDL laws, parents HAVE to be in a car with a teen to be driving, so that's your "hawk eye."

Your biggest point on the CON side of this debate is the GDL program, this graduated drivers license program that allocates for the learning curve of driving. You can find a summary of this on just about any website, but the fact is, you have to NEGATE in order to take advantage of this benefit.

Sorry for not posting point for point, but it's final exam time here in Arizona and I need to study for those. Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 2
RacH3ll3

Pro

Thank you.

"She assumes that just anyone can get a driver's license. She's mentioned this several times in her last speech; this is an absolutely ludicrous claim. The DMV is not going to let just anyone get a driving license; they're not handed out like hot cakes. In fact, all 50 states have some form of Graduated Driver License programs:"

I did not mean just "anyone". Of course there are exceptions.

"GDL laws already have cut fatal traffic accidents with 16 year olds by 11 percent"

What if this can cut it by more?

"GDL laws also show, over time, if a driver is not ready to drive. He won't pass the initial permit test, nor the license test, if he is not ready. But it will also reflect in the mandatory supervised driving a teen must acquire in order to test for the graduated license."

The permit test is the written test. It has pictures of signs and you have to name them, etc. If somebody doesn't pass this, they definatly don't need the permit. However, even if somebody does pass this test, that doesn't mean that they are ready to drive. I knew these signs when I was eight. Does that mean I could drive? No. Now, about the licence test, in many states, they do not give the driving test anymore. Some can take it online, print out the certificate, and show up to the DMV. Then they have thier licence.

" If this is necessary, a person shouldn't be driving. It creates unsafe situations like being too close to the airbag, not being able to see over the steering wheel, reach the pedals, etc. Regardless, one should be more mature in order to drive a car (16 years old, when most young adults have reached a height over 5' 5")"

I move the seat when I drive a car. The whole point of moving the seat is so you can touch the pedals. Also, my friend is 4'11. She can drive a car just fine. Most 13, 14, and 15 year olds are taller than her. If she can reach the pedals, I'm sure they can.

"They don't get jobs because they don't have transportation, but because workers don't want to hire, basically, children"

One year difference? The jobs don't have to be at a business, it can be babysitting, mowing, painting, etc. However, they wouldn't be able to do these things around town, because they wouldn't have transportation.

"Again, my opponent brings up this false claim about testing at the DMV without really testing. I've already addressed it. But like I've mentioned before as well, GDL programs can greatly reduce these negative harms. Under the GDL laws, parents HAVE to be in a car with a teen to be driving, so that's your "hawk eye."

This is not a false claim. I did not have to take a road test. I only took the sign test, which was for my permit. I live in the state of Texas, and Texas does not require you to take a road test. Parents do not HAVE to be in a car with you after you get your licence. Parents (or someone over 21) have to be in the car with you when you have your permit, but that is different than the licence.

"Your biggest point on the CON side of this debate is the GDL program, this graduated drivers license program that allocates for the learning curve of driving. You can find a summary of this on just about any website, but the fact is, you have to NEGATE in order to take advantage of this benefit."

About 40% of all teenage drivers get into a car accident withing the first year of earning their licence.
http://www.atlanticdrivingschoolaz.com...
GDL restrictions usually last for one year. If the above sentance is true, then shouldn't we be doing something about this? GDL restrictions may work some, but letting younger teens get their licence if they take tests, would work. My reason for saying this is because if younger kids start to drive, they will tighten the laws about GDL. I got my licencetwo months ago, and the only restrictions I have are: no driving between 12 pm and 5 am and no more than one passenger under 21 in the car with me (unless a relative is riding, then we can have however many we want).
These restrictions aren't much, and teens will drive whenever with whoever they want. That is why if we test kids to see how mature they are, some may not be able to get their licence. (hint: the ones who don't really care.)

--Arguments--

1. It would cause less accidents for people who have no licence but continue to drive anyways.----
There are people who drive their parent's or friend's cars without a licence, because they are too young to get it. Of course they are inexperienced. They could die driving, because they were not as informed as they thought. Driving is different than people think it is. Just think if they had been able to get their licence, and they were well informed. It could save many lives.

I am sorry but I cannot continue because it is 2:00 in the morning and I have to go to bed because I have to wake up at 6:00. I was not able to do this earlier today and tomorrow I will not be able to do it because I will not be near internet access. (The lake) That is why 2:00 in the morning was the only time. This was a good debate and you were a good debater. Thank you everyone and please post RFD's.

Thank you :)
dobsondebator

Con

**********Read the end for a summary of the round and my key voting issue.************

I have no other option but to simply summarize the points. Sorry, again this is for my convenience and for the debate's convenience. I'm going to use the same format I used in my last post.
------------
1) License Testing

My opponent is STILL in the wrong when it comes to testing for a license. In the state of Arizona alone, you have to pass a writing section and a road coarse section in order to obtain your license. Since all states have some form of GDL program, they already incorporate some form of this!

Even still, it's ludicrous to allow this to continue because it would make young children more likely to pass, in which case your fatal traffic accident rates would go up.

By negating, you allow for these GDL programs to protect against these harms completely. Either way, this claim of easy license testing is false. No one uses a written test system to just allow anyone to get their license. There needs to be some sort of road test, and GDL programs are the best form of road tests.

---------
2) A Matter of Safety

Alright, so the point of "16 year olds being the earliest matured people" still goes unrefuted. That shows, because if any sort of trend continues, you can draw the line on the line graph backwards towards those age groups and continue to raise the amount of fatal traffic accidents, like I've also brought up. Either way, there's no guarantee that younger drivers even posses the reasoning, logic, or knowledge it takes to drive a car. It's been estimated that you need to multitask 21 different things at once in order to drive. How do we know that anyone younger possesses these skills? Little, if none. That's the point I'm trying to make, that goes unrefuted.

This idea that shorter or smaller drivers can move their seats and pedals and whatnot in order to adapt, is the exact problem I've brought up and has STILL been ignored. The fact is, when you move the seat forward to reach the pedals, you've moved yourself closer to the airbag and all the forces of one. THAT'S the harm in this "convenience." That's the just of the argument, and my opponent never really addresses this. Therefor, this point carries through as well. That's the reason why most states have some law for front seat passengers and booster seats, designed to protect smaller children and also young adults.

When you DO have 16 year-old drivers in the car, the need for this goes down significantly because they've already reached a mature height. Since the most of puberty dies down around 17 years of age, you don't need to place restrictions based

----
3) A Matter of Convenience

So, my opponent suggests that these young teens need transportation is for babysitting and other household jobs, outside of a business. This I can agree to. Businesses aren't likely to hire someone so young.

But, the main point is that there are plenty of points of transportation, which go ignored. Take, for example, babysitting. You have two parties, the host and the employee (parents wanting the babysitting [host] and the parents with the employed child [employee]). Right there, you have, at BARE minimum, 2 points of transportation, not even including the fact that most likely there is more than one vehicle or siblings of proper driving age. I also bring up the following, which go ignored: "Carpooling, biking, walking, buses, metro systems, jogging, boarding." Not to mention countless more.

So you see here, that no one is really inconvenienced by having to wait an additional year or so just to drive, it's just simply a hassle.

--------
CON Argument (Graduated Drivers License LAWS)

Ok, so my opponent comes back in her last speech and basically says, that her laws aren't tight enough, and remarks about how easy it was for her to get her license. This is exactly the point I'm making. I'm showing that it's because of the laws today that we're having more fatal traffic accidents for teens, that more and more are out on the streets with minimal driving experience. GDL laws GIVE THEM THAT EXPERIENCE so that they become safer, better drivers.

The reason you must NEGATE is because GDL laws can't be implemented at any random age, they must be at a minimum of 16 years old. You have to negate in order to keep the laws at 16. However if you affirm, you effectively loose all that ground that GDL laws create. Therefor, you must vote CON from this debate.

---------
Summary and why to vote CON

The reason you must vote CON is simple: safety before convenience. It's clear that, by keeping the law at 16, you're keeping them safe. Even if a few kids, heck, even if a lot of kids are inconvenienced, it doesn't matter. A life-long injury, or even a fatal injury, is going to inconvenience you a lot more.

But the second reason you must vote CON is because of this Graduated Drivers License program, or GDL. This creates a gradual introduction to the responsibilities of driving. You can't implement this while keeping the age of driving flexible, or at least my opponent hasn't shown otherwise. That's key here. I show constantly throughout the course of this debate how it benefits us versus the PRO side of this debate, you can scan just to see.
**********************
For these two reasons, I vote a CON ballot.

I thank my opponent very much for this debate. It proved just as interesting as when I joined it. I also thank the readers, and the voters.

I encourage everyone to post a Reason For Decision (RFD) in the comments section, so that we can legitimize who won the round. Remember to vote off the debate, not off opinion :].
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
I would like to have seen more driving laws listed. I live in Tennessee and in rural areas, 13 yo drivers are not uncommon. Illegal, yes. Good debate. I would have taken con due to the wording of the resolution. Anyway, Grammar went to pro as I had trouble following some of con sentences. Spelling must be real bad before I pay attention to it. Con presented the better case here as his arguments were more convincing. Good debate, well done.
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
I agree with the "7 points self-vote." Thanks for the RFD :]. Great debate!
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
RFD:

before and after: Pro because, like Luke said, I agreed with this before, and I am also backing myself up.
Conduct: I believe it was a tie
Spelling and Grammar: Con because I did not have enough time to do a spelling check.
Convincing arguments: tie
Reliable sources: tie
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
thank you for your RFD, and for not just giving yourself seven points because you want to win.
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
My RFD:

Who did you agree with before the debate? PRO-- As a teen myself, I've always wished I could get my license earlier, so I completely agree on this point.

Who did you agree with after the debate? CON-- Not only do I sort of have to back myself up, but simply because I understand why the laws stand as they do today. They're actually completely fair; they're keeping us safe, and we too frequently take that for granted. That's what laws are designed for in the first place anyways :].

Who had better conduct? TIED- We both remained civil towards each other :].

Who had better spelling and grammar? CON - I believe I used conventions and proper grammar in as many places as possible.

Who made more convincing arguments? CON - I presented more numerous arguments, while also presenting an alternative to the debate and using that, alongside with sources and analytics, to prove the CON side stronger.

Who used the most reliable sources? CON - Alongside with using the most amount of sources, I also used government sanctioned sites (anything with ".gov" at the end) along with larger organizations (such as Motorists.org), alongside newspapers (such as Boston.com). I traveled to the PRO websites and didn't find them very legitimate looking, nor have I even heard of them, so I'm afraid I have to go with myself on this one :].

But great debate! I enjoyed it a lot, and I thank everyone for their time :].
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
alright :)
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
I"m fine with voting for ourselves with RFD's.
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
well Luke,

I meant, do you want you and I to vote on the debate (we will have to give an RFD.)

or do you just want neither of us to vote on the debate?
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
What do you mean Rachelle? The name's Luke by the way :].
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
Okay I ran over my word limit.

First of all, I said gonna instead of going to. I literally had 0 characters remaining.

and I would like to add on

Thank you dobson and thank you voters :)

-----@dobsondebator:
what do you want to do? do you want to vote and give an RFD or just not vote at all?

----@ voters:
please give a RFD when you vote. :) thank you
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
RacH3ll3dobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
RacH3ll3dobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
RacH3ll3dobsondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06