There should not be a mandatory seatbelt law

P1. Whichever way the issue of freedom is interpreted whether the way I first debated against, or this way which you have brought up (that I will now address), the result will remain the same. The result is that there should not be a mandatory seat belt law. The way I am now interpreting your point can basically be summarized as "Might makes right". You said "We should be, and are, however, able to do whatever we want that people with power do not want to stop us from doing" So whatever the people with power want us to not be doing is always right? I am sure you do not think that is correct. Simply appealing to the law that already exists or to the powers that be is not going to work, because that is exactly why I made my main point to begin with, that there should not be a seat belt law. Just because our leaders say that that is the way it is, is just not good enough. An easy example to illustrate this would be that the US Government once allowed slavery. My point is that some laws are not just and need to be changed or taken off the books entirely, and this is one of those laws. Your point about seat belt laws actually reducing the number of deaths is also debatable. I will discuss that more in point 4. if I have enough words left. But suffice it to say that there is evidence to the contrary. Your final point about the effect on others is meaningless because any choice a person makes could lead to their death. Any person's death will certainly have an effect on others. What it comes down to is if the person stood up for what was right and died, or did the person die because they submitted to an unjust law? You didn't comment on one of my sayings that seems relevant here so I will repeat it here at this point. Quoting myself: "If a person is involved in an accident and they survive the crash. But they only survived the crash because they were not wearing a seat belt, then they must, by law, be cited for not wearing the safety device. .. " It reminds me of the saying of "You can live on your knees, or die on your feet. " Some things are worth dying for, freedom is one of those things. This is not supposed to be a socialist country, but rather a constitutional republic which protects individual's (emphasis added) rights and freedoms. P2. I would like to make the contention that it is hardly nonsense to think that our state governments would consider using the mandatory seat belt law as a revenue generator. With the condition of our economy and considering that 48 of 50 states are nearly bankrupt, I think that the state leaders would look to any source of revenue as welcome. Raising revenues is not easy, you yourself agreed that raising taxes is not easy. I would simply say that it makes sense to look at and consider. The fact that my opponent seems familiar with the concept of 'police quotas' doesn't surprise me. I think almost everyone knows about them. I wonder how it is though that our official law enforcement agency is being used to generate revenues by police quotas, but that it is hard for my opponent to believe that the same law enforcement would not use mandatory seat belt laws to make money. I also agree that quotas are not right and I would like it if they didn't exist. But I also think that adding in an addition method to be used against the people is not a good idea either. I simply brought up the example of what happened in Maryland to reinforce those points. I used that example to show how zealously a law like this can be exploited if the powers that be decide to do so. The fact that they did this doesn't make it right though. I would like to see it completely out of their power to do this, and it will be when there is no mandatory seat belt law. You claim that the majority of people are fine with seat belt laws. I will say that at one time the majority of people were also fine with slavery. It still doesn't make it right by just appealing to the majority, if in fact the majority is for them. I am not even sure if the majority is for them. I certainly was never included in any surveys. I will address the federal funding issue in another section. P3. I would like to make a comment on your first source (ID. ). I want to point out something that is very peculiar. There is a difference in the amounts of the fine for an adult versus a fine for a person under 18 years old. For the adult the fine is $10. For the under 18 the fine is $51.50. I would like to explore why that is like that. The state recognizes the fact that the adult is able to understand the issue and make an informed decision better than the younger person (I will admit that I don't think that is the actual case in many instances). But nevertheless, there is a difference that the state recognizes and doesn't penalize adults as much. I would say that it isn't a stretch to say they probably wouldn't have any penalty, but you can't have a law without a penalty. The low fine of $10 suggests that it does not tend much to criminality, I would even say that they feel guilty enforcing it. I personally have had an Idaho State Police officer tell me that he refuses to enforce that law. I used to work at Pocatello Regional Transit (in ID. ) and we had safety briefings from them on a regular basis. In appealing to other actual authority figures there, I also had an experience with a rescue worker (S&R) who drove up in his tow truck to where my friend had just rolled my car when he fell asleep while driving on the freeway. The man told me that from what he has seen from other crashes he will not wear a seat belt. I didn't have my seat belt on and I walked away from the crash without any injuries (I give thanks to God for protection). P4. My opponent acknowledges that sometimes seat belts can actually be harmful. And since it is impossible to know which type of accident you will be involved in if you have one, it makes sense that the individual should be the one who chooses and not the government. If it was cut and dried a government formula might work, but my opponent himself admits that this is not the case. Here is an example to consider: Say a person is offered a vaccine, but there is a 25% risk of death associated with taking the vaccine. I would argue that it should be up to the individual if they want to take the vaccine or not. They may or may not ever come in contact with the disease after all. This is analogous to a person who may not ever be in an accident at all, but if they are, they should be free to choose what they think is more safe for them. Here is another ex: What if a person lives in an area surrounded by water? In case of an accident the percentages could be much higher of being submerged in the water if they have an accident. If they had a seat belt on this would make the chances of survival lower. I think that person should have the right to wear a seat belt if they want, but also the right to not wear a seat belt if they so chose. Mandatory seat belt laws don't allow that, that is yet another reason why we should not have mandatory seat belt laws. Or maybe a person has more of an aversion to being decapacitated (head cut off from the seat belt, which is common but not widely known) than they do for being thrown clear of the vehicle and taking their chances. The choice should be left in the hands of the individual. Do you want a paternalistic government or a government that protects your freedom? Keep in mind again that an individual always has the freedom to wear a seat belt as much as they want to. I am simply suggesting to remove the oppressing force of government from the equation and let both options be legal. I have run out of space to post statistics of my own. However, this link has the relevant statistics I was referring to [1] I now conclude and wish good luck to my opponent. 1. . http://www.atch.com...