The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

drunk driving

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
faithlu8 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2017 Category: Cars
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 98865
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Drunk driving could be stopped right now. The money a state spends on law enforcement and DUI courts could be spent on putting a breathalyzer connected to the ignition in every vehicle in the state. Then no vehicle could move without the successful use of the breathalyzer, proof that the driver is not alcohol impaired. The breathalyzer should be a requirement to register any vehicle in the state. I do not drink, but I would gladly pay for a breathalyzer in my car if it is required in all vehicles so I and no one else would ever meet a drunk driver on the road. Rights? No one has a right to do something that imperils other people.


Breathalyzers are very inaccurate and as a result a lot of vehicles would be unable to start. A lot of people would be upset about this and riots would be inevitable. According to Dr. Michael Hiastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and Medicine at the University of Washington, "Even if the breath testing instrument is working perfectly, physiological variables prevent any reasonable accuracy.... Breath testing for alcohol using a single test method should not be used for scientific, medical or legal purposes where accuracy is important."
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
I'd rather be safe with "a little bit of security" than have none at all.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
Darwinism at its finest. I agree with stupidape as the libertarian in me says that this is a wee bit intrusive and also there are certain foods that can set it off, so if you eat some cookies or drink an energy drink you may fail and not be able to drive which would be frustrating. (
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
Drunk driving is stupid, it should be illegal to drive immediately after being drunk, and not recommended to drive after consuming alcohol. Drunk driving has caused enough accidents. You'd rather have 150,000 people alive by making it illegal instead of letting it be legal and have a drunk driver smash into your car.
Posted by nerdydork4044 1 year ago
I disagree with Stpidape. Drunk driving causes lots of accidents every year, and he is basically saying that that is okay. I also want to say that they are already trying their best to put an end to drunk driving in America.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
I still have a lot of the libertarian in me, I think people should be able to legally drive intoxicated at 150 mph. Maximizing personal freedom is key.

"Those who would trade a little freedom for a little 'security' deserve neither." Ben Franklin.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.