A bill to raise the driving age to 18.

This argument will be short because I don't think too much new has been said in the round. First of all, my opponent loses on two very fundamental grounds thus far in the round. He has ceded that 18 is not actually in his frame of argumentation a legitimate point in regard to brain development. 18 is essentially just less bad than 16 according to his theory. According to his argument why do we not raise the drinking age to 50 or the driving age even higher past the range of 25 to lower even more accidents. The answer to this is that our laws are not meant to be merely statistical but to have some logical reason besides merely being most fitting within the realm of stats. Years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that in terms of environmental regulation it was not enough for the EPA to decide that a substance was harmful and to therefore ban it to the lowest possible level permitted, there had to be some correlation between the exact number that they put both and some degree of damage they wished to removed. In other words, eliminating a certain amount of accidents should have some very real impact on the number rather than merely cutting down on some portion of those driving under the point of full brain development. Furthermore, by not responding to my major arguments about why 16 is a very good age to begin driving and why 18 is a rather lousy one in terms of social policy, the other side has essentially conceded these points. This side says that what matters most in the development of a good driver is experience and that getting individuals driving under the tutelage of his or her parents is better than having them start in college when surrounded all the time by drinking buddies and only peers. While it may be true, though no evidence is given, that those at age 18 are better at resisting peer pressure it is also undoubtedly true that there is much much more peer pressure when one is living alone and not around parents. Good driving habbits learned at home are much more likely to stick around Moreover, Whether a person receives a limited license with the ability to drive at all, or a full license at age 15 or 16 does not change the fact that the other side has negated his own position by allowing those he deemed "not fully and psychologically mature" onto the road. Moreover the other side has essentially done a case shift by trying to say that this falls under his side of the debate. Raising the driving age to 18 should mean that those under 18 can not drive a car. Period, end of story. To try after two rounds of debate to change the flow of debate means that the other side has conceded that no good response can be giving to the notion of a driving training period from 16 to 18. Judges...Go back and read the first posts and see who mentioned this concept first. The debate should go to whomever that was ( I believe it was clearly me). All of the arguments about brain scans were meant to illustrate a sole point. If the other side is serious about brain development and says that we can determine whether ones region of the brain to control motor function is developed, then I say scrap the age limit altogether and allow everyone who passes a more extensive brain scanning test to drive. The fact that the other side can advocate such a test means that clearly such scans are limited and can not actually determine good drivers with any degree of certainty. Give that this is the case, you have to in terms of legal policy making deffer to the laws that have the best social implications. I feel that I have clearly made a stronger argument about how having people driving at age 16 is better of overall for them and for all of society.