The Instigator
woodjm79
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

drunk driving

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,345 times Debate No: 42305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

woodjm79

Con

lets discuss drunk driving with the case of the 16 year old that killed 4 people...
I am totally against people driving drunk and hurting innocent people.
however I think that the drinking and driving laws today or horrible and the zero tolerance attitude in this country is run rampant and horrible for our society...
what say you?
My debate is that the strict drinking and driving laws are ineffective. I should be allowed to go drink a nice scotch and smoke a cigar after work on Friday and not fear.
I should also be allowed to pop a top and drive home if I want? One beer on my drive home will not cause any harm period. People that drive around drunk and have the potential to hurt someone or worse are going to do it regardless of the laws that keep me from enjoying the small pleasures of life.
My point is this, the law of zero tolerance of drinking and driving has no positive effect on keeping drunks off the street yet takes away my freedom of enjoying a drink responsibly. DO not punish the masses for a small percentage of the populous. I do not believe in the mantra " if it saves one child its worth it" these are laws created in fear and make us feel good. they hold no real value.
KingDebater

Pro

I am in favour of "drunk driving" as Con has worded it. I participate in "drunk driving" a good portion of the time! In fact, here's my route home:

My way home
Pretty cool, eh?

Why be in favour of it?
The main good coming out of "drunk driving" is that it's cool.
Being cool, whenever somebody tries it, the regular cool kids all give an amount of money to the bozo that tried it dependant on how long he did it for, because the longer you do it for, the more likely there is to be an accident. Here is a graph drawn up by a scientist to explain:

Wonga, dosh and spondoulix
Also, the view that "drunk driving" is extremely dangerous is not a well-thought out view. After extensive review, it was deemed that "drunk driving" is "probably fine" [1].

Back to the point about the cool kids. The amount of money given to said bozo actually outweighs any costs (if any!) of damages of any "drunk driving". Since people who participate in "drunk driving" are kind people [2], they will give the money they obtained to the local council, who will be able to invest excess money in advancing other important projects.

That brings me to my next point. This is a story of a Mum in the Manchester area who was caught participating in "drunk driving". Mums are good people, they've taken on a massive responsibility and they haven't made a complete mess of it. This Mum was no different. She even had her children (there was four of them!) with her in the car, and nobody and nothing was injured/damaged.

About Con's arguments, they are in need of sources to back them up. I'm not going to believe any stories without any proof, and I'll also need some evidence of damage/injury caused by "drunk driving".

Thank you.

Sources
[1] http://theporridge.co.uk...;
[2] http://is.gd...

Debate Round No. 1
woodjm79

Con

your argument makes zero sense? mine was full of logic and reason.. while yours had silly pretty pictures that fell way short of any real argument or debate.
I still offer the debate that our zero tolerance to drinking and driving is wrong.
driving drunk however is not acceptable and should be punished to a high extent.
Again do not pass laws that take away my freedom based on the bad behavior of a few.
get back to me when you can argue these points with logic and reason please. I look forward to the challenge
KingDebater

Pro

Con doesn't address my points, he just dismisses them as short of any real argument or debate, and claims that his was full of logic and reason.

Seeing as he didn't respond to my arguments, I'll just directly respond to his arguments from round one.

"lets discuss drunk driving with the case of the 16 year old that killed 4 people..."

We have no reason to believe this case is true, as Con provides no sources.

"I am totally against people driving drunk and hurting innocent people."

Con has declared his position in this debate.

"however I think that the drinking and driving laws today or horrible and the zero tolerance attitude in this country is run rampant and horrible for our society..."

This is his opinion.

"what say you?"

There is a grammatical mistake in this sentence!

"I should be allowed to go drink a nice scotch and smoke a cigar after work on Friday and not fear."

No, you should not! You are smoking! Smoking is extremely dangerous and really uncool!

"My point is this, the law of zero tolerance of drinking and driving has no positive effect on keeping drunks off the street yet takes away my freedom of enjoying a drink responsibly. DO not punish the masses for a small percentage of the populous. I do not believe in the mantra " if it saves one child its worth it" these are laws created in fear and make us feel good. they hold no real value."

This is also his opinion.

"My debate is that the strict drinking and driving laws are ineffective."


P1) If Good comes out of it, it's a good thing and ergo is effective
P2) (from round 1) Good comes out of participating in "drunk driving".
C1) (from p1, p2) ∴, Participating in "drunk driving" is effective
P3) If there are laws governing an activity that is effective and those laws do not damage the effectiveness of said activity, then those laws are effective.
P4) Participating in "drunk driving" still happens and has the same consequences with and without the law.
C2) (from C1, P3, P4) ∴, the laws governing "drunk driving" are effective.

Justification
P1 - This is quite self-explanatory. A good thing is effective in achieving that good purpose.
P2 - (Extend all arguments from round one)
C1 - This follows logically from the first and second premises.
P3 - This is self-explanatory also. If the laws do not affect the effectiveness in a negative way, then those laws are effective in not destroying the good purpose coming out of said activity.
P4 - ". Any good coming out of people participating in "drunk driving" still exists with those laws in place.
C2 - This follows logically from the first conclusion, third premise and fourth premise.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
woodjm79

Con

My opponet does not understand what it is to debate ideas...
also my opponent has made it clear that he knows nothing about this subject with his argument that i do not cite basic understood facts of my point...
if my opponent has no personal real life knowlege of this subjuct he should not have accepted to debate me.

my opponent copy and pastes my points and then just says these are my points with out even commenting on them
****"I am totally against people driving drunk and hurting innocent people."

Con has declared his position in this debate.

"however I think that the drinking and driving laws today or horrible and the zero tolerance attitude in this country is run rampant and horrible for our society..."

This is his opinion.

"what say you?"

There is a grammatical mistake in this sentence!

"I should be allowed to go drink a nice scotch and smoke a cigar after work on Friday and not fear."

No, you should not! You are smoking! Smoking is extremely dangerous and really uncool!

"My point is this, the law of zero tolerance of drinking and driving has no positive effect on keeping drunks off the street yet takes away my freedom of enjoying a drink responsibly. DO not punish the masses for a small percentage of the populous. I do not believe in the mantra " if it saves one child its worth it" these are laws created in fear and make us feel good. they hold no real value."

This is also his opinion.

"My debate is that the strict drinking and driving laws are ineffective."

****

My original point is clear and it is very clear my opponent does not uderstand my point... thus making this debate futile..

****P1) If Good comes out of it, it's a good thing and ergo is effective
P2) (from round 1) Good comes out of participating in "drunk driving".
C1) (from p1, p2) W56;, Participating in "drunk driving" is effective
P3) If there are laws governing an activity that is effective and those laws do not damage the effectiveness of said activity, then those laws are effective.
P4) Participating in "drunk driving" still happens and has the same consequences with and without the law.
C2) (from C1, P3, P4) W56;, the laws governing "drunk driving" are effective.

Justification
P1 - This is quite self-explanatory. A good thing is effective in achieving that good purpose.
P2 - (Extend all arguments from round one)
C1 - This follows logically from the first and second premises.
P3 - This is self-explanatory also. If the laws do not affect the effectiveness in a negative way, then those laws are effective in not destroying the good purpose coming out of said activity.
P4 - ". Any good coming out of people participating in "drunk driving" still exists with those laws in place.
C2 - This follows logically from the first conclusion, third premise and fourth premise. ****

the above is rambling and makes no sense...
I stand by my opinion that our laws regarding drinking while driving need ratification. they do not serve the purpose intended. they only affect people negativly that do NOT want to drive drunk.
My opponent seems to think that drinking one beer or having one sctoch out with friends is driving drunk...
this type of thinking that is irrational just proves my point...
Next time i hope this debater picks to debte a subject he has some knowlege on and actually debates my ideas and points rather then ramble on making zero reasonable logical sense...
thanks guys next time I debate this subject i hope someone will debate me with class and character ...
KingDebater

Pro

Con doesn't respond to my arguments, he just dismisses them as me rambling on making no sense. He also claims I don't address his points when all his points are are his opinions.

All arguments extended.

The good still comes out of participating in "drunk driving", so the strict laws are still effective.

Vote for me or smell like pee!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by woodjm79 2 years ago
woodjm79
done
Posted by whatledge 2 years ago
whatledge
Well, you haven't really established a resolution. Is this about Drunk driving or the laws regarding drinking such as zero tolerance? You need to give some foundation to this debate, which just seems like a digression or opinion, which could just be discussed in a forum. As a debate, this is really vague and informal. I would advise that you edit the debate and elaborate a little bit more what your resolution is and what you are trying to prove/disprove.
Posted by woodjm79 2 years ago
woodjm79
well if someone would comment i would love to debate it..
Posted by whatledge 2 years ago
whatledge
I think this is more of a forum topic than a debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
woodjm79KingDebaterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to award argument and grammar points to Pro, as Con took a position in the debate but then disagreed with his position in the opening statement. As such Con made his arguments void by arguing for both sides of the debate. This makes any argument from Pro a good argument. Grammar fro Con was not good i.e. dont use multiple periods....... ;) Sources points are shared as Pros sources are comedic, but Con had none. Conduct points go to Con, as Pro threatened me the voter with urine. ;)