should kids be able to drive at 13 years old
Debate Rounds (3)
First of all i would like to indicate that a "kid" is an individual until the age of 18. The law allows the minimum age of driving to be between 16-17. These are also seen as teens. You will have to prove to the authorities also your arguments. Nonetheless...
Here are some facts: (F=fact; D=deducted)
F: "33% of deaths among 13 to 19-year-olds in 2010 occurred in motor vehicle crashes"
D: The fact does not indicate or mention pre-teens. You would argue, yes they don't because they don't have an driving license. But look at the numbers 13-15 is against the law to drive. Therefore preteens are allowed to drive since the % of deaths or crashes is not indicated.
F: "56% of teens said they talk on the phone while driving"
D: If you take into consideration a toddler or a individual who has not yet reached the capability to talk then this "fact" will not be applied.
F: "Teens may not get behind the wheel and drive intoxicated the way an adult would"
F: "Six out of 10 drivers ages 16 to 20 who were killed in crashes were unrestrained"
D: A toddler will be restrained in his/her/it's carseat. Therefore this will protect a toddler and will keep him restrained.
Now you will argue that preteen does not posses the mental capacity to drive/operate a motorized automobile. Consider this:
Driving requires a certain amount of hand-eye coordination, intuition and and a sense of the car's position (spacial geometry).
The child is learning/improving his walking abilities which require some hand-eye-foot coordination, if it were to be introduced to a car situation, adaptation will take place. Intuition and mental capacity (i mean the ability to rationalize) is developing at an accelerated speed, the more reason to introduce a child at this age to driving.
Bottom line is that all the facts prove that a child/preteen/toddler should be encouraged and allowed to drive.
"You will never know what kids are doing out here now a days"
This is the second sentence from your paragraph looking response. You have given all your arguments that contradict this sentence. Here are the sentences that are contradicting:
"I believe if a kid was to drive at 13 years old that child might not no what to do"
"Skip school because they can drive at such a young age nd go places that they owant to go"
"They dont have no reguard or no respect for authority now a days."
" To be honest with you im not going to sugar code nothing 50% of kids at schools break the rules everyday so imagine how they would be on the rode.I dont think that is such a great idea to have teenagers on the rode because half of the time they wont even be paying attention." (maybe give a reference as to where you got that percentage from)
Bottom line is that the con is taking morality and a "what feels good" type of approach to this debate and has completely ignored the points i have made in the previous round. In order for this debate to continue you have to disprove what i have indicated in round 1.
heartblue102 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CommunistDog 1 year ago
|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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: While I still don't trust that 13 year olds should be behind the wheel, Pro does have convincing arguments. I thought pro would lose, seeing how Con made a debate which is almost impossible for Pro to win at.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.