A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

Judges- Here is the question in this round. Everything else is pretty much extraneous. If I was the first one to mention the notion of a system in which a limited license is given at age 15 or 16 with gradual reduced limitations, then I win the round. It's really as simple as that. In many states, one can have a regular license at age 16 or 17 and not be required to ever be tested again or follow up. Yet, there are restrictions such as hours during which one can drive and a restriction on their ability to drive without adults over the age of 21. I would say that the driving age is the point at which one can first legally operate a motor vehicle. This is a pretty literal definition We failed to define driving age which is a huge problem and means this round should basically be dropped or else given to the person who first actually attempted to define it in his case. At the point in a debate when both sides have admitted that the ideal system is one which a driving rights are gradually admitted, all that matters is which side of the debate this concept flows to. All of the other arguments are essentially irrelevant at this point __________ My opponent claims that I have not responded to arguments, but I really have on two basic levels that go ignored. If, as my opponent claims, 18 is the best age to permit driving because it is based on brain science, then I ask him why does he not go higher and raise the driving age to 25 or whatever the scientifically PROVEN age at which the age is most fully mature truly is. His only response is that at age 18 students need to go to college. This is a weak response on many levels. First of all, many college students skip grades and start at college earlier. If driving is related to being able to be in college, then that is a completely different standard than age dependance. There is the famous case of a 10 year old in college for instance (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). These individuals are therefore also burdened even though their mental age is much higher than their biological age. And yes, if parents want their kids to be able to drive they would let them take a brain test if such technology truly existed. I don't see any reason why fingerprinting is any less invasive and yet this is regularly done along with licensing Thus, the side that must win this argumentation is the one that makes the best social argument for why individuals should be allowed behind the wheel given that they can pass the proper tests ( remember no one is getting a car without showing that they at least know how to drive a motor vehicle) I have given many more reasons why a period from an earlier age ( 15 or 16 or maybe even earlier... if such technology truly exists as pro suggests, lets use it) in which drivers are trained by their parents whom have driven for a lengthy period. I have given social and mental reasons why starting to drive on ones own at the same time one enters college is potentially deadly and why those at younger ages can use driving as an opportunity to establish good credit and be ready for adult responsibility. These are all ignored. Insurance is a net wash because insurance companies as I stated always have the ability to target high rates specifically to those under an age to discourage parents from getting their kids their own cars. Meanwhile, in both of our ideal systems insurance is still higher because parents who add their kids to their insurance plans to drive during any training period still have the same impacts on overall insurance. If you allow 16 year olds on the road in any capacity this harm is there. We both have to bite this harm. Basically the only argument my opponent has is that those under 18 are worse drivers and therefore should not be allowed to drive. However, at the point where we both agree that the ideal system is a hybrid permit/license one, he has negated his own position of strength and given up this round.