Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers

I hope I did not keep her waiting too long. I will address my opponent's counter arguments in the order they were presented. My opponent states that in my argument I only attack her example. In fact, I believe I have just expressed my point through her example. Yes, I do understand that police profile constantly through various circumstances. But, does that make profiling a good thing? Profiling is an injustice to people and in a sense it is just promoting stereotypes. Profiling in itself, is just unfair to people. The fact that they are more prone to being pulled over just by their age, gender, or the color of their skin is just unfair to everyone. As unfortunate as it is, profiling will exist whether or not these decals are placed on people's cars. But now why would we want to promote this profiling by putting a red flag (or in this case an orange one), to aid in the profiling? As for my opponent bringing up the fact that these decals would promote better defensive driving, then why stop at young drivers? In Round 1 of the debate, my opponent stated that "Though it is stereotypical, to a certain extent, to claim that all youth drivers are inherently worse than adult drivers (as we've all seen our fair share of terrible adult drivers)". I agree with my opponent here. There is a fair share of terrible adult drivers, so why stop at just the young drivers? Out of fairness for everyone, the state should approve a decal for drivers past the age of 75, as they are a hazard to people around them as well. In fact, maybe the state should approve driving decals for all age groups to aid in the profiling of other drivers to promote safer driving for all. The truth as long as a driver is following the laws of the road, they should have little to worry about. And if they are suspicious of a vehicle, they have every right to back off from them and keep their distance for the safety of themselves, their passengers, and the people around them. As for the Electronic Parking Permits, they were really just there to serve as an example of an alternate. As for figures, statistics, or any kind of numbers, I do not have any and have not located any in my research. I was stating an example I have witnessed on my own campus to prove that a decal is not necessary. "2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1]" For my opponents argument here, I would like for her to present the source where she found this information. From my research, the decal is said to remain on the new driver's vehicle at all times. As for the size of the decal, it would have to be fairly visible if the purpose is to alert other drivers and police. Besides the point, who's to say that a sexual predator would not be on the prowl looking for this decals and waiting for an unsuspecting victim to pull the car over in a discrete spot? I am pretty sure we can all agree that there are some sick and disgusting people out there who would go to great lengths to commit such heinous acts. My opponent claims that I "attack" her examples and ignore the gist of the argument. This is a fallacy. I do go out on her example of targeting school campuses, and I agree that their security is null in the debate, but point is that sexual predators are looking for discrete areas. Just as my opponent states in her Round 1 argument, "Their profiles tend to suggest something much more quiet". I have yet to hear of a sexual predator going after a group of adolescents, or young people who are accompanied by adults. Their profile suggests that they go after a single person in a secluded area. I also agree with my opponent's statement that we do not go after the markings of a driver education vehicle. These people have yet to even receive their permit yet. The idea of these vehicles, is to teach people, who have never been behind the wheel of a car, to drive. Therefore, defensive driving techniques may need to be applied here since these people are learning how the car drives and reacts. But while these young people are driving these cars, they are always accompanied by a driving instructor. According to the profile of a sexual predator, I am sure they would want to avoid a scuffle with a driving instructor just to get to the young driver. As for the statistics my opponent presents, the attack was not on your second source, it was on your first source. Link: . http://www.car-accidents.com... I would love to present a straight link to the chart itself, but to be honest I do not know how to do that. The link I have just added (which is straight from the cited links in my opponents first round debate), if you scroll down, the chart is right about halfway down the page. This chart provides the number of deaths of drivers at different age groups. Even if younger drivers are prone to fatal accidents, why should we disregard the fact that older age groups have higher death rates? Maybe stricter driving laws should be put in place for older age groups as well. The pie chart on my opponents link does pose the problem of a great number of deaths caused by teenage driving, but does that warrant greater profiling on these young drivers? There are a high number of deaths among all age groups. Perhaps there should be stricter driving laws and penalties for all people instead of just putting the blame on younger drivers. Yes, they have a significant amount of deaths from driving, but so do older drivers. This poses a threat to the safety of not only young drivers, but drivers in general. My opponent goes on of how the government promotes these laws to improve the safety of young drivers and to eventually lower their death rates. The fact stays that stricter laws should be put in place for all drivers to lower these mortality rates behind the wheel. Perhaps more action should be taken in teaching these young people to drive, but profiling against these drivers with a decal only seems to promote police in pulling these kids over and what my opponent states as "defensive driving" against these people. Putting a decal on a kids car does not keep them from driving into a tree like what happened in the case of Kyleigh D'Alessio. On my opponents attack of the "dropped fourth counter-argument": I apologize for any confusion that may have been brought up by my opponent but the fact was clearly stated in my first argument and the title. This debate is strictly on the fact of the state approved driving decal for new young drivers. The other points of the approved law served only as an example to inform my opponent and any spectators of the law. As for the other points of the law, if my opponent wishes to do so, we may debate at a later time. But as for this debate, and I quote myself again from the first round: "As for all the restrictions listed above, there are certain ones I agree with, and others that I feel are unjust to these new drivers. But the one that my opponent and I will be focusing on in this debate is the mandatory decal that is to be issued to all student drivers. " And to clarify once more, this debate is solely concentrated on the orange decal to be placed on the vehicle. In closing, placing a decal on young drivers cars does not prevent them from accidents. These decals serve solely for the purpose of unfair profiling. To aid in the effort of reducing accidents, stricter driving laws and penalties should be put in effect. Not a shiny sticker. I would like to express my condolences to the D'Alessio family, no one deserves to go that early I also thank my opponent for a good and interesting debate. Best regards, - Jan :)