The Instigator
katrilenyah
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheDarkMuffin
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

the legal age to drive should be 18

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 3 votes the winner is...
TheDarkMuffin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,731 times Debate No: 34513
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

katrilenyah

Con

The legal age should to drive should not be raised to 18. The legal age in Indiana to drive is 15 w/permit and 16 w/drivers ed. Teenagers at the age 15-18 like to start experimenting with their boundaries and surroundings, wanting to get out into the world, to try things on their own. This allows teenagers to get a taste of living on their own and becoming independent. Being able to drive allows teenagers to do just that. Teenagers at this age also want a little extra spending money instead of waiting for allowance or having to ask parents. This means that they would need a job and that means they need transportation to their place of employment. And a lot of teens parents are like mine, which means that they refuse to drive their teen to their work place. No licence means no job which means less teens will have money. With less money teens wont be as likely to spend money in towns and in businesses. This would hurt the economy greatly, seeing how a lot of the money flow through out the economy is from teen spending in clothing, grocery stores and malls. Changing the drive age would only hurt the economy.
TheDarkMuffin

Pro

I don't beleive it would be at all harmful to my side of the argument, as Pro, to rebut several of my opponent's points while simultaneously forming my own side on the matter. I will be compartmentalizing it into different sections to make it easier to understand.

Those Troublesome Teenage Tendencies

Did you know that "Teenagers at the age 15-18 like to start experimenting with their boundaries and surroundings[?]"

This is true, for the most part. As I'm going through the pubescent stage myself (Sweet 16, they call it, if films depicting the 90s are to be believed), I don't find this as true to me as my opponent appears to believe.

I'm not simply saying that as a way of needlessly getting my personality known. This is an objective argument, and what I say must have a rhetorical or persuasive point to it.

I'm saying this to assert that everyone is, indeed, different. More than likely, at this point, you may believe that I'm arguing for Con, but that's not true at all. I'm simply setting the situation.

Now, it's worth noting, at least to some capacity, that, and this is rather well known, there's a certain age range where accidents are less prone to happen.



It's also a rather commonly known fact that the top instance of death for adolescents results from driving.

[1]

All teenagers are different. I said that. So, it's a possibility you're the rare exception to these reckless teenagers and you drive carefully. That may be the case, but the law is based on statistics. For a good reason.

Say you're immune to being killed permanently. When you die, you revive very soon afterwards. Death is but a nuisance. Now, being that you're a rare exception, does that mean we should make murder legal, since there are people out there who can handle death?

In the same way, just because a couple teenagers are perfectly capable of driving with the same skill as an adult, we shouldn't make it legal for all teens to drive. Also, rising the age limit just by ONE YEAR can decrease the chance of fatal accidents by over 10%![2] That may seem rather insignificant, but this study was done with 100,000 teenage death statistics. That's over 10,000 lives that could've been saved.

10,000 lives of teenagers we've established were special. I'm aware that this is an obvious appeal to emotion, but it's a bit difficult not to already feel a bit empty or evoked from this fact.

However, you may not be one for the whole "every person is special." Maybe those people dying doesn't mean anything to you. Very well. I'll rebut my opponent's other point.

Economic Enabling from the Entitled Elderliness

My opponent shifts from a primarily emotional argument to a much more logically based one. This is a very sound technique. Con introduces it with the assertion that "Teenagers at this age also want a little extra spending money instead of waiting for allowance or having to ask parents." This is, of course, another generalization, which only proves to demonstrate that my opponent should support my first point about the law working for the majority, rather than exceptions. Con continues to say that the situation in the quote above will lead to a job which will lead to a need for a ride which will lead to the refusal of the parents which will lead to less spending which will lead to a potential to "hurt the economy greatly."

Slippery slope fallacy. Then, my opponent even continues. "Changing the drive age would only hurt the economy." This is false. The logic here doesn't even check out!

Changing the limit would not only not only (that's peculiar, I never thought I'd need to repeat it like that) hurt the economy, but it might actually help it!

Con asserts that "With less money teens wont be as likely to spend money in towns and in businesses...This would hurt the economy greatly, seeing how a lot of the money flow through out the economy is from teen spending in clothing, grocery stores and malls."

Valid point. More teens=more money=better economy!

So, if teens are dying, then less teens! So, it's only logical that it's the inverse here.

Less teens=less money=WORSE ECONOMY.

So, not only does the current driving age kill innoent people, many of which have never gotten a chance to be adults, but it also kills the economy! Everything that my opponent says it supports? It KILLS. Merciliessly! Bring up the age! Suppress the gauge!

*ahem* That should conclude my argument. I don't believe I've missed anything. For my opponent, I've got a plethora of other debates to attend to, so don't feel pressured to reply as quickly as possible. Take as much time as you need.

  1. http://www.teendriversource.org...
  2. http://www.iihs.org...
Debate Round No. 1
katrilenyah

Con

Maybe in your area this situation would not affect your economy, but I live in a very small country town that is only along only less then 1/4 mile stretch of road. And on of the main things circulating the economy in that tiny farm town is the teenagers and young drivers that live in that town. And I agree I don't use driving to help me explore my boundries but a lot of kids in my community do. This may not affect you area but it does mine. And the main deaths in my area are suicide not accidents.
We've only had three deadly accidents in the last three years but we have had 12 suicides in the last 4. I do agree that the driving test need to be more strick to ensure that we have better safer driver on the roads to help prevent more accidents, but changing the age is actually hurtful in towns like mine.
TheDarkMuffin

Pro

To my opponent, that situation sounds rather unfortunate, with the excessive adolescent suicide overshadowing even what's statistically considered the number one killer in the United States. However, you surely must understand that the law isn't for your small town.

Deliberately Denned Demonym

My opponent starts her argument with facts from experience. Namely that, as a possibility, "Maybe in your area this situation would not affect your economy, but I live in a very small country town that is only along only less then 1/4 mile stretch of road." Con lives in a small town.

However, being that we are debating the law, a significant note would be that laws are not exclusive to towns. In the United States of America, which I know my opponent is speaking of due to her mention of the particular US state "...Indiana," age restrictions are exclusive to states.[1]

Thus, any amendment to the age limit for certain things should not be for the benefit for specific towns. My opponent claims that, in her area, "...the main deaths...are suicide not accidents." This is very tragic, but it fails to do anything in favor of her argument. Con asserts that the suicides exceed the collisions, and I believe the intention is to imply a link between driving and preventing suicide, but she provides no evidence to support this.

It's also possible that she's meaning to create a comparison to show that the deaths of those in collisions are nearly completely negligible, but she fails to show how changing the age limit of the entire state would benefit more than simply her town.

Ironically, this bias is something she implicitly accuses me of.

Back to the original quote, Con appears to be saying that my argument is biased due to me being in a different area. Note that her assertion refers to bias involving "the economy." The economy looms over the entire world.

Being that we are arguing for the state law to change, I believe "...the economy in that tiny farm town..." must benefit the state's economy were it to change for the better, something my opponent argues for without supporting.

Moving On Up

I've explained why we shouldn't have the age restriction be lowered, but why should it be raised? I've already provided evidence that this would help us through statistics on the individuality side, but not for the government side.

My argument was based entirely on my opponent's logic. I wasn't carrying my own burden of proof. Thusly, that's what I'll do here.

"More teens=more money=better economy!"
"Less teens=less money=WORSE ECONOMY."

Really, this is more my opponent's assertion, as I was using her logic and she didn't refute it, but it supports my side. So, I'll support it.

[2][3][4][5]

There. Vote Pro.
  1. http://www.iihs.org...
  2. http://www.businessweek.com...
  3. http://www.newswise.com...
  4. http://usanewsbrief.com...
  5. http://www.deloitte.com...
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CanWeKnow 4 years ago
CanWeKnow
Do you live in Pawnee? Haha. How are you parks? I think it's obvious why teenagers are allowed to drive when they are. I've been lucky. I haven't had a single accident since I started driving at 16, and it's only been 1 year. However, I can't even count how many of my class mates have been in serious accidents throughout even the past 5 months.
Posted by MDB 4 years ago
MDB
Ban old people from driving. They cause a lot of accidents.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 4 years ago
newbiehere
katrilenyahTheDarkMuffinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dominated this one for the reasons stated below. (No need for me to rewrite the same thing two other voters have already stated, right?) As a side note, I am a fan of the way Pro lays out his argument. It's very easy to read.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
katrilenyahTheDarkMuffinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really just ignored her opponents arguments... Dark muffin put up a pretty good case as well
Vote Placed by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
katrilenyahTheDarkMuffinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Hands down win for Pro. Con hardly presented a case here, with their lack of statics, logic and reasoning and weak refutations. Pro made much better arguments though his refutations and statistics. Also noticed more spelling mistakes with Con. Pro wins sources for having them.