Resolved: All 50 states should constitute a noise ordinance for vehicles that play loud music.

Cody Franklin, Resident Fascist; pleased to meet you, Pro. Skipping the formalities, let's move to the good stuff! We'll start with my arguments, and then move on to his. I - Affirming the resolution is unfair to U.S. possessions that are not states. [http://www.usa.gov...] If you'll take a look at the link, you'll note that, in addition to the 50 states, the United States also has a number of outside holdings and territories that are under its jurisdiction, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The resolution specifies that the ordinance would be established in the 50 states, inherently excluding the aforementioned external possessions, among others [http://www.infoplease.com...]; ergo, we can assume that the resolution is discriminatory in nature, seeking to "protect" those within the borders of the states, but leaving people in other territories to fend for themselves. II - Enacting a federal ordinance detracts from a citizens' right to defend themselves. In the case of obnoxiously loud music, we're looking at the chance of distracting other drivers on the road, putting all concerned in possibly fatal danger. Legally speaking, citizens of the United States have a right to self-defense when put in danger, in order to protect their lives, or even the lives of others; in the cases suggested by the resolution, all drivers in the proximity of the music-blarer are likely to be distracted, and therefore endangered; according to the law [http://en.wikipedia.org...], one has the right to dispose of the dangerous person by means of deadly force, if necessary. DDO user Nails [http://www.debate.org...] suggests a plan which carries far more efficacy than a fine and petty imprisonment - "I think we should legalize murders commit[t]ed for the sake of peace and quiet. Let the citizens t[ak]e the law into their own hands." Considering that the right of self-defense is legally sanctioned by the U.S. government, and is recognized in all U.S. holdings (not merely the 50 states), it is clearly a preferable option to the proposed "noise ordinance" which would only delay justice, and would be unable to get rid of the root cause of the music-blarer's reckless endangerment of other drivers. With those opening contentions out of the way, let's take a look at Pro's arguments. 1. Danger to other drivers a. I completely agree - blaring obnoxiously loud music on the open road can endanger other drivers; however, as I've proposed in my contentions, allowing citizens to invoke their right to self-defense would allow for the problem to be taken care of right away, as opposed to imposing fines, which would only mire the issue in bureaucracy, and would create more hostility between the government and the music-blarer, the latter of which may be inclined to believe that his civil liberties are being violated due to being penalized for "just playing some tunes". b. As I explained in my first contention, imposing a fined ordinance for playing music too loudly does not provide a large enough net of protection, even assuming that it was as effective as Pro claims - note the evidence presented discussing U.S. holdings outside of the 50 states. Notice that my solution is applicable to all U.S. citizens, and is free of unnecessary governmental intervention. Pro clearly cannot say the same. 2. Disturbing neighborhoods a. Again, I completely agree that playing loud music can be a bit of a nuisance at times; however, if the neighborhood is being victimized, it is best to allow the neighborhood to intervene, to prevent government meddling in private affairs. Consider some of the positive externalities of allowing neighborhoods to take care of the problem: we're looking at the promotion of neighborhood cohesion, a decrease in litigiousness, and an increase in self-reliance and creative problem solving. Allowing victimized residents to find ways to solve the problem is not only mentally stimulating, but it stops the offense as it happens, instead of waiting for a delayed, post facto response from the government. b. I would also like to point out to my opponent that life, as a general rule, is not fair, but we have to make the best of it, and the government stepping in at every turn is making it extremely difficult to accomplish this task, especially when it comes to the realm of minor annoyances like a car - with a loud stereo - in a neighborhood - late at night - a very conditional scenario for Pro, who has the burden of universality. 3. The example a. I'd just like to point out that this is merely my opponent's example of the status quo, and it doesn't actually cover both of his contentions. This so-called "evidence" only pertains to cars on the highway, yet says nothing about residential areas or public beaches. b. Speaking of the status quo, Pro has yet to prove its legitimacy, and is simply relying on an is-ought perspective to support his reasoning, something that we know to be more than a bit fallacious [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I hope that my (possibly) unique responses will give Pro something tough to chew on for a couple of rounds; and, speaking of chewing, I have some chicken alfredo waiting for me downstairs. Bis dann, mein Freund.