200th Debate: Drunk Driving Should Be Legal

Preface: I have one more case which I shall present in Round 4. Until then, I remind the voters that it is not an appropriate tactic for an opponent (especially one trying to change the status quo) to present unsubstantiated claims, then force the opponent to disprove them. If they are unsubstantiated, then they were never proven to begin with. I need not be made to disprove something that isn’t even yet proven. Proposition I: Definitions Intoxicated: affected by alcohol or drugs {1} Vehicle: a machine that is used to carry people or goods from one place to another Sources: 1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... Proposition II: Framework Pro attacks the fact that I am “splitting hairs”, however that is a fully acceptable means of debate. In fact all debates are by definition “splitting hairs”. Pro attempts to redefine my arguments by giving them a derogatory name, and trying to say that they are serious objections. This is cheap debating. My objections are quite serious. Noticeably, Pro fails to actually show that my counters are somehow not serious, that they are arguing trivial matters or inconsequential aspects (the informal definition of splitting hairs). I have countered Pro’s arguments, and if that means I’ve countered inconsequential aspects, then it only means that Pro’s cases were inconsequential. Counter-Case I: Pre-Crime Counter: Pro again stands by the minority report comparison, even though I have shown that it is a faulty comparison. The fact is that Drunk driving is itself a crime, and breaking it is, for all intents, committing a crime. This breaks the comparison, as pre-crime requires that you haven’t yet committed a crime. If you were arrested for going to the bar because you were likely to commit a crime, then that would work in comparison, but not committing the crime itself. He continues to say that drunk driving does not deter the act, but he doesn’t substantiate it. Instead Pro works to push BOP off of himself. Pro made the claim that it doesn’t work, now Pro must make that claim substantiated. I will later show that drunk driving laws are not only about deterrence. And for the record, Pro’s source does not say that Drunk Driving Laws (DDL) have no effect, rather it says that lowering the BAC further would have no effect. That is a very different thing. Conclusion: Pro tries to dodge BOP by making it seem as though I am required to dispel any unsubstantiated claim he makes. Until he shows his claim about inefficiency has merit, I need only to remind the voters that the clam is unsubstantiated conjecture on Pros part. Counter-Case II: Red Herrings/ Appeal to Pity Summarization: My opponent tries to justify his arguments against my claims of fallacies. Counter: My Opponent's first attempt is in the “slippery slope” argument. He tries to spell it out in further detail, but fails to actually support it. Again, I’ll repeat that all his case here does is show that expanding drunk driving into distracted driving is bad. But it doesn’t actually counter drunk driving itself. On that premise, we could say that arresting those who threatens to kill someone shouldn’t be allowed, because we could expand threats to include other statements, and eventually we could lose freedom of speech. Pro misses the point on the checkpoint parts. I can in fact defend drunk driving laws by countering every single flaw he points out. That is how it works. Pro tries to create some special rule that makes it harder for me to defend my case. If Pro points out a hundred flaws, and I show that those flaws can each be removed while keeping ddl’s, then I am in the right. I have shown that other states have removed the checkpoints, and that they still have the dd laws. Pro says it’s not easy, but these states show that it works. This isn’t a dilemma where we must keep both or remove both. Pro next fights the claims of Appeal to Pity. He states that laws should never hurt a citizen. However all laws harm citizens who break those laws. That is the point of them. Should we repeal assault because the poor criminal will have a bad record afterwards? He mentions that safe drivers are harmed, yet any driver who drinks with substantial BAC is not by definition “safe”. Pro essentially sums the rest up to again making the grand statement that the laws have no effect. Again, he does not substantiate that claim. Until he does so, it’s purely conjecture on his part, and does not support his case. Counter-Case III: Libertarianism Summarization: Pro builds a moral case around libertarianism, which I shall deal with here. Counter: Firstly, I’ll mention that space is often a problem. I will never object to an opponent using a non-final round to make new case. I for example also was incapable of making my own cases last round. Pro makes the case that in a libertarian government, it is not appropriate to create a law which infringes one's rights. The problem is that all laws infringe upon a right in some way. In fact libertarianism can be said to infringe upon the right to security, as it would, in it’s purest form, give no true protection. Rights are more complex than some believe. For every right, there is a countering right against it, usually a form of the right to security. Libertarianism relies on a highly optimistic hope that humans will respect each others rights on principle, however human nature makes this unlikely to happen. Due to the right to security, libertarianism is not a widely accepted philosophy. Many people prefer more protective governments (mind you, in this case, more protective is not the same as authoritarianism, which is on the far end of the spectrum, and there is a very wide margin for people to place their beliefs). To enforce a libertarian view would itself breach the other people's rights to self-determination, as it would go against the viewpoints of the majority {3} I’ll chime in really fast to also present Pro a philosophical question of what really makes something a right? What separates a right from a privilege. We can’t just attach the word “right” next to an act and have that alone justify the act. We can’t just attach “right to” next to ‘drive while intoxicated’, and expect it to justify the action. Conclusion: Pro’s arguments from libertarianism firstly rely on the idea that libertarianism is a strongly held belief. However, it is not, with only 14% describing themselves as such (3 of that 14 incorrectly identified what libertarianism actually was). That said, the right of self-determination requires that we use a government that follows the general views of the majority, with consideration given for those who oppose. To base our laws purely off libertarianism would impede the right to self-determination. Sources: 3: http://www.pewresearch.org... Case I: Intoxication Thesis: I will show that Pro’s mentions of the minimum requirement are not the only levels of intoxication we can find. Rationalization: On my fridge right now can be found about 150 dollars in alcohol. Included is Pinnacle Vodka, Jagermeister, Captain Morgans, and Crown, among other examples. Averages out at 35% by volume. If I were to drink all that (and survive), I would certainly be well over 0.08%. If I were to operate a vehicle, I would have a highly substantial likelihood of wrecking, likely into traffic, as I live beside a highway. Pro must remember that these higher levels of drinking must be taken into account. If we even allow for the arresting of those with BAC of 0.3%, then we are still in possession of some DDLs, which disaffirms Pro’s resolution, which is an absolute in this regard. Now it is true that a BAC of 0.08% is highly unlikely to create a wreck, that risk does grow substantially higher with an increased BAC. While those who are libertarian may consider it an acceptable risk for freedom, the fact is that the majority of people (from whom the mandate of governmental power truly derives, especially under self-determination) believe that many “rights” (not all of which some consider actual rights) must be weighed against the countering right to security, as is shown by support for the laws {4}, which may actually show high support for tougher laws. I also point out that most definitions of intoxicated include drugs, not simply alcohol. Therefore DD Laws, despite the semantics of their names (although that isn’t even true, given that the official description is “Driving under the Influence”, or “Driving while Intoxicated”), by true definition, may include intoxication by any of various drugs. If driving under the influence of drunks such as methamphetamines or cocaine are made illegal, then DD laws are still, by definition and true name, in place. Conclusion: The risk presented by higher BACs show that there is a benefit for keeping these people off the street. For every one which is arrested, there is decreased chance of them causing a wreck. While Pro believes it is “Pre-Crime”, the fact is the drunk driving is itself a law, so breaking it is still breaking a law. Sources: 4: http://www.gallup.com... Closing Statement: Ultimately, Pro doesn’t succeed in reviving his older arguments, instead trying to force BOP away from himself, even though he is making the claims. As some of his claims are not substantiated, those specific examples are simply conjecture, and so bare no true weight. Outside of that, he attempts to counter the claims of fallacy, however he does not successfully show that his cases are logically sufficient to affirm his resolution. I however remind the voters that Driving while Intoxicated is a far broader concept than just driving with a BAC of .08%. ==Unitomic==