A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

Counterarguments: "If I was the first one to mention the notion of a system in which a limited license is given at age 15 or 16 with gradual reduced limitations, then I win the round. It's really as simple as that. " No, you supported my arguments, because the gradual driving licensing appear to be making a difference. Therefore, raising the driving age to 18 would also make a difference on reducing teen crashes. "I would say that the driving age is the point at which one can first legally operate a motor vehicle. " Include "on their own", because you should have know that people ages 16 and 17 are driving legally without any restrictions. I can't agree with your definition, because statistics already show that motor vehicles accidents are the leading causes of death for teenagers, but not including adults. I already stated that adults can supervise teenagers under the age of 18 until the day when they are 18. You haven't made an argument against the fact that adults can supervise teenagers under 18. "Many college students skip grades and start at college earlier. " Who? Most people go to college at the age of 18. In fact, individuals like the famous case that you brought up are child prodigies. There are less than 10,000 child prodigies I believe that are alive in the United States which can be found here: . http://en.wikipedia.org.... I didn't think we have more, otherwise I have lived in an isolated area and United States is the smartest country with over millions of child prodigies. I actually don't know the number of child prodigies we have, but I would think that the number is less than 10,000. When people skip grades and graduate early, they can start working for their work experience to be put on their rï¿½sumï¿½ until they are 18. Many people can't go to college because of the lack of funds or other non-academic factors. "If parents want their kids to be able to drive they would let them take a brain test if such technology truly existed. " So why don't they? I will post my argument for the last time since my opponent tends to ignore it. "In theory, it could work. However, Giedd says that ethical crossroad is too radical to seriously consider today. "We are just at the threshold of this," he says. Do you think every parent is going to agree to have their teenagers take a brain scan to determine whether he or she was neurologically fit to drive? What if the brain scan says that his or her brain isn't developed enough? How will their parents feel about the results? Ignoring the ethical crossroad, if the brain scans were implemented today, there would be no reason to raise the driving age to 18. But we can't because of ethics, and we need to raise the driving age to 18 now to save lives, until the day when brain scans can be implemented. " "I have given many more reasons why a period from an earlier age ( 15 or 16 or maybe even earlier. .. if such technology truly exists as pro suggests, lets use it) in which drivers are trained by their parents whom have driven for a lengthy period. I have given social and mental reasons why starting to drive on ones own at the same time one enters college is potentially deadly and why those at younger ages can use driving as an opportunity to establish good credit and be ready for adult responsibility. These are all ignored. " I didn't ignore those arguments. They don't go against me, because I have stated: "I have never proposed a strict system in which one can only get a license at age 18. By raising the driving age to 18, I meant by learners will still be granted their provisional license from 16 or 17, but will need a year to pass a beefed-up test, which means the minimum age at which a new driver could realistically go out on his or her own will be 18. The people under the age of 18 will have to be supervised by an adult such as a legal guardian or parent. " Therefore, you conceded this point, because I have stated: "Teens can learn how to drive with a supervising adult in the car before they become 18. Therefore, they can get their experience without driving alone, that can lead to car accidents and deaths. " Teens won't suffer when the driving age is raised to 18, because they would have more experience. So you concede this point: "In other words, the con thinks it likely that it is the first years of driving rather than the specific years of 16-18 in which individuals are most likely to get into crashes. " "If you allow 16 year olds on the road in any capacity this harm is there. " So let's raise the driving age to 18 so that insurance companies won't have the "ability to target high rates specifically to those under an age to discourage parents from getting their kids their own cars. " Adding a teen driver to the policy is always going to mean a higher premium. However, if the adult is supervising them, the insurance rates will be cut, because the adult can make sure that the teen drives safely. Therefore, it would be easier for teens to have cut insurance rates, because there would always be a supervisor if the driving age was raised. Source: . http://www.autoinsuranceindepth.com... "Basically the only argument my opponent has is that those under 18 are worse drivers and therefore should not be allowed to drive. " I already stated that drivers can be allowed to drive WITH an adult supervising them. Since we both agree that the ideal system is a hybrid permit/license one, raising the driving age to 18 will make it only better and reduce car accidents concerning teens. My opponent did not show why if the driving age was 18, that more or the same deaths will occur. Although my opponent does not agree with the definition of the driving age I have proposed a system of hybrid permit/license and the adult supervises them until 18, when the driver is allowed to drive on his own. My opponent has to proof that this system will fail or any other reason why the driving age shouldn't be raised to 18. Of course, this bill doesn't not need to be passed if we can implement a brain test. But we can't because of ethics reasons. My opponent thinks that the driving age refers to when a person can drive legally with or without restrictions. However, if my opponent agrees with HIS own definition, he would have to agree that the driving age is LOWER than 16 since people start learning to drive UNDER the age of 16. My opponent thinks that the driving age is currently 16 and that I'm proposing a system when people the age of 18 start learning to drive. That is why it doesn't make sense since most people associate driving age with when people can drive on their own. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... *All my sources associate the driving age with the age when drivers can drive on their own.