The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
bubbatheclown
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Cars
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,620 times Debate No: 46061
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

Wylted

Pro

My opponent is for stricter drunk driving laws Im for looser laws. We both share the BOP. May the person with better drunk driving policies win.

Round 1-acceptance
Round 2/3- arguments and rebuttals
Round 4- closing statements and rebuttals
bubbatheclown

Con

I accept this debate. However, because I find it unsettling, I ask Wylted to change his profile picture, at least until this debate ends.

Those who oppose restrictions on drunk driving may argue that it violates a person's freedom. However, a person who is driving under the influence is much more likely to cause a wreck, quite possibly injuring or killing someone. Therefore, it is society's business, since it affects people other than the drunk driver. We outlaw murder, and for good reason. Since DUI (driving under the influence) may kill another human being, it should be considered equal to murder, or at least manslaughter.
There is a time and a place for drinking, but never in a running car should one be drunk.
I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal, which should prove either interesting or prove to be a troll debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

"I accept this debate. However, because I find it unsettling, I ask Wylted to change his profile picture, at least until this debate ends."

My profile picture is none of your business. This is very rude.

Premise one- field sobriety tests are unreliable and should be outlawed. Giving someone a field sobriety test is no better then flipping a coin to see if a person is drunk.http://winbackyourlife.org...

Instead of giving a field sobriety test that is really just a form of public humiliation, police should have a better reason to cuff someone and then take them down to the station and force this indignity upon them, then some humiliating test that is just a substitute for a coin flip.

This would count as a loosening of drunk driving laws because suspected offenders are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.
bubbatheclown

Con

"Premise one- field sobriety tests are unreliable and should be outlawed. Giving someone a field sobriety test is no better then flipping a coin to see if a person is drunk."

But signs of drunkenness can still be looked for, and a person can be stopped from leaving the for bar a short period of time until they're determined to be sober. Maybe for two hours. And the sobriety-test can be improved in order to make it better.

"Instead of giving a field sobriety test that is really just a form of public humiliation, police should have a better reason to cuff someone and then take them down to the station and force this indignity upon them, then some humiliating test that is just a substitute for a coin flip."
So are the cops supposed to visit the bars 24/7 to detain drunk people? Why not simply have the bartenders get their worker to put those things on car wheels to prevent the drunks from driving off while drunk?
Also, I would imagine being detained by the police would be humiliating.
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

My opponent proposes that bartenders forcibly keep patrons from leaving. This is a clear violation of people's civil liberties.

"But signs of drunkenness can still be looked for"

This has been proven in round 2 to be unreliable.

Premise 2- when convicted of a drunk driving charge in a lot of places you will have your right to carry a concealed weapon taken away.http://winbackyourlife.org...

Your right to drive May need to be restricted, but why would they take away a completely unrelated right? This is absurd. Lock them up or suspend their license don't take away completely unrelated rights.

Premise 3- Sober people shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk. That's right cops suck at actually telling if somebody is drunk so they frequently arrest people who are sober for DWI.http://m.csmonitor.com...
bubbatheclown

Con

"My opponent proposes that bars forcibly keep patrons from leaving. This is a clear violation of civil liberties."
When you enter a bar, you take a risk of intoxication. This is a price that you'll have to pay. And since it ultimately prevents you from getting on the road and DUI, you will be saved from arrest or an accident that may be fatal. This measure protects the drunk as well, even if they don't like it.

"This has been proven in round 2 to be unreliable."
This test still helps some and if it prevents you from getting on the road you won't be arrested for DUI.

"when convicted of a drunk driving charge in a lot of places you will have your right to carry a concealed weapon taken away."
Yes. A drunk guy may open fire when he'd otherwise be a responsible guy.

"Sober people shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk. That's right cops suck at telling if somebody is drunk so they arrest people who are sober for DWI."
Like I said, if you don't drive you won't get arrested for DUI.
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

"Like I said, if you don't drive you won't get arrested for DUI."

My opponent proposes the ridiculous step of not driving to prevent DUI charges. How about cops just refrain from arresting innocent people?

"Yes. A drunk guy may open fire when he'd otherwise be a responsible guy."

My opponent asserts the difference between opening fire on people or not is a few beers and not mental illness.

Summary-

1. I have given specific drunk driving laws and reasons they are unjust.

2. My opponent has proposed that bartenders should detain people.

Remember me and my opponent share the BOP. There is no middle ground. Has my opponent made a better case for more restrictive drunk driving laws than I have for looser drunk driving laws?

3. My opponent has bafflingly started the debate by requesting I change my profile picture.

4. My opponent started his arguments in round 1 despite agreeing to do it in 2. If he has any honor he will forfeit his final round.

5. I have facts. he has opinion.
bubbatheclown

Con

Very well then. In the name of honor, I forfeit this final round. However, I could post a rebuttal if I wanted to.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Scooby.Snacks 3 years ago
Scooby.Snacks
I find it ironic that Bubba, a person with a skull and crossbones as his avatar, is offended by someone using a pentagram. In case you weren't aware Bubba, a pentagram is symbolic of many religions, including Christianity.

But back to the topic at hand. I do agree with Bubba on the subject of the drunk driving laws. I don't think they should be relaxed, because these laws are in force to protect the public safety; not just the safety of the drinking driver, but also his/her passengers, other drivers and passengers in other cars, and even surrounding property. However, I do think that there should be some way to help drinking drivers get home safely. If they had other alternatives, I think tehre would be less drunk driving. The idea that they should just have a designated driver isn't practical. People go to the bar by themselves, and hiring a cab is often prohibitively expensive.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
I guarantee that I'd have more votes had I posted my last round.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
I might have to forfeit the last round, but post your argument anyway.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
Have you guys considering numbering your arguments instead of quoting each other back? That may conserve character space...
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Man, I really had to cut corners to get my argument to fit.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
This argument is taking close to 15 minutes. It must be a really good one.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Fair enough.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
lol, I'm taking that as your concession that Frederick von Hayek was actually irrelevant.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Bubba, most satanists identify as atheists to keep conversations of belief simpler. It's easier to tell my elderly grandma I'm an atheist then to tell her I got hungry and sold my soul for a McDouble.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I didn't know Selma Hayek was a satanist. I guess you learn something everyday.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
WyltedbubbatheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources; Con didn't. Con's conduct was bad because he called his opponent's profile picture "unsettling" which has nothing to do with the debate. Pro's arguments were more convincing because he backed them up with sources, and Con's best rebuttals involved suggesting that cops presume people to be guilty until proven innocent by a test that he already conceded was unreliable.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
WyltedbubbatheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources and fulfilled his burden of proof with one example, which Con did not adequately address. Good debate, though.