It should be illegal for people to use cell phones while driving

I had a bit of an editing problem with the sources. http://content.nejm.org... http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Slippery Slope What I stated was, while similar, not the same as a slippery slope fallacy. My opponent already gave a good description of a slippery slope fallacy, and it is clear enough that my statement does not fit. What I said is that talking on the phone is no more risky than an array of similar activities, so by my opponent's logic, each of the activities should be banned. This does NOT say that one event necessarily follows from another. "The risks associated are worse, because the number one source of driver inattention is cell phone use, not eating or any other similar task, according to a Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA." This is a case of bad math. Cell phone use is no more risky than any other similar task; it is simply more common. So if it is no more risky, why should it be outlawed while other activities are not? "["the cost of banning cell phone usage is rather high"] This is based on the 2000 study, which was commissioned solely by AT&T Wireless and not an independent source." The source of commission does not matter, as the study was peer reviewed by independent experts. This peer review would have eliminated any bias of that sort [1, 2]. "And besides, too many factors go into play in determining how such numbers are estimated, which can change constantly at any moment in time. The researchers even said it themselves: 'the estimate is imprecise.' (3)" There is a difference between accuracy and precision. Even if the estimate is imprecise, it can still be a strong approximation. "What constitutes as proof in your opinion?" My opponent has now provided adequate proof to support his second contention. However, even if it is supported by evidence, it still does not hold up on logical grounds, as I showed in the previous round. "Again, what is wrong with someone pulling over into an emergency lane on the highway to answer 'potentially crucial calls' instead of continuing to drive distracted?" There are many factors involved. But off the top of my head, I can see that this would not work in many cases as it would be a delay; normally when people are in cars, they are trying to get somewhere. Sometimes getting somewhere is not so important, such as when getting groceries, but many times it is very important, such as getting to work on time. "I am talking only about the estimated 250,000,000 who live in the United States and drive cars, not the entire world." Still, 250 million is a lot more than 600,000. "According to car expert David Caulfield, the average bumper repair range is $300-700 dollars, which amounts to between $45,000,000 and $105,000,000 total. (5) Keep in mind that this is only a minor rear end collision with no injuries involved." The study took such costs into account. But on top of that, the costs are no reason to ban cell phone use outright: people can make choices, and if they have to pay for them, well, it was their choice. Other cars who may get hit by reckless cell phone drivers are not in monetary danger either, thanks to the miracle of liability insurance [3]. "Source?" [4] "maneuvering through traffic while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident five-fold and is actually more dangerous than driving drunk." My opponent has not cited a direct source for this. At worst, we have conflicting studies, and so neither should be accepted. At best, my opponent's study is not peer reviewed or is in some way not credible, in which case mine is to be accepted. Contention 5 is fallacious because it says that just because 5 states have made cell phone use illegal, that everyone should do it. I could just as easily say that since cell phone use is legal in 45 states, that it should be legal everywhere. See [5]. *** Cell phone usage is a relatively harmless activity, and it should remain legal. The monetary costs associated with restricting free choice are excessive. Citizens should be allowed to choose to talk on their cell phones or not. Resolution negated. Vote Pro. [1] http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [5] http://skepticwiki.org... [6] http://usgovinfo.about.com...