the legal age to drive should be 18

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 TendenciesDid 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 ElderlinessMy 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. http://www.teendriversource.org... http://www.iihs.org...