200th Debate: Drunk Driving Should Be Legal

Preface:There was no rule against storing sources on an off-site page. Conduct can’t be deducted for it. I will however consider it depending on the number of Sources I use. Although I would like to give some now, I will have to wait until the next round for provide my own cases, due to time issues this round. Synopsis: The Resolution is “Drunk Driving Should Be Legal”. Simple enough, Pro must show that drunk driving as defined by law should be made legal in all instances. Proposition I: Drunk Driving: the crime of driving a vehicle with an excess of alcohol in the blood. {1} Sources: 1: https://www.google.com... Proposition II: Pro must show that, in all cases, driving while intoxicated should be made acceptable. I, in contrast, must show that it is better to keep it illegal. If I can show that Pro’s arguments do not warrant legalizing drunk driving in all cases, than he will have failed affirmation of the resolution. All in all, I believe both sides should carry some BOP, however in the end Pro, as the opposer of the status quo, instigator of the debate, and Pro, my opponent carries all the normal determining factors of BOP. Counter-Case I: Pre-Crime and Slippery Slope Summarization: Pro tries to say drunk driving laws are examples of “pre-crime” law enforcement. Counter: Pro gives a largely unrelated example through a movie. The problem is that that movie shows an actual example of arresting someone for a crime they have yet to commit. What is the uncommitted crime here though? Murder? No, the crime in drunk driving is endangerment. The crime is drunk driving itself. Pro mentions outlawing anger, however anger is a trait that we can’t stop. It will happen when it happens. Drunk driving is not the case. It is different in that you don’t simply become intoxicated. I cannot control when I get upset. I can control when I drink six beers. That difference alters the very nature of the comparison. Pro says using statistics to show the danger of someone to society is wrong, however that is not an established moral, on any grounds. And we aren’t showing how dangerous someone is, we are using statistics to show how dangerous something is. Again, Pro uses the faulty comparison which ignores the variable of choice. Your race and age is not a choice. Your drinking is. Pro’s case here carries an impact. I could begin threatening my neighbor. Threatening to murder them and rape their wife. I can’t be arrested (or even kept an eye on), because I haven’t technically broken the law of murder. Pro’s next argument is under “Slippery Slope”. Pro actually performs a different fallacy. Red Herring, an attempt to divert attention away from the actual matter {2}. This isn’t about cops using the law to ticket for distracted driving. Many would agree that distracted driving, such like DWIs, are acceptable, but even if we found that they weren’t, all this does is show that we should restrict DWIs to DWIs. It doesn’t actually impact whether Drunk Driving itself should be illegal. Conclusion: I show here that Pro’s comparisons are faulty, and that drunk driving are an acceptable instance for the law to react to, as well as showing that the issues of expanding into other acts is a separate debate altogether, and a means of distraction alone. Sources: 2: http://dictionary.reference.com... Counter-Case II:Drunk Driving Laws Lead to Violations of Rights Counter: Firstly, and foremostly, this is again a red herring. Whether DUI checkpoints are acceptable doesn’t change whether DUIs themselves are okay. We can keep DUI’s without having DUI checkpoints. Pro’s whole thing here is that if one part is flawed, we should destroy the entire system. No, either we remove that one part, or we fix it. We didn’t throw away the constitution because we were against the 18 amendment wasn’t liked after all. That said, I will however address it. Many accept that the constitution must be weighed against the need for security. For reasons such as this, the constitution was made flexible, and designed to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. {3} If the Supreme Court (the interpreter of the constitution) determines the act acceptable, then it is acceptable until the Supreme Court determines otherwise. Until the Court decides otherwise, the act is technically permissible, even if controversial. I suggest that Pro must show that it is better to change the Drunk Driving Laws (nevertheless remove them completely) is better than reinterpreting the constitution. Lastly, several states have done away with Checkpoints, but these still have DUI laws. {4} Those show that I am right in saying that Pro’s case doesn’t work. Conclusion: Outside of addressing the matter of constitutionality, I have shown that this is not a major issue in the debate. We can keep DUI laws even if we remove Checkpoints. Sources: 3: http://www.supremecourt.gov... 4: http://www.ghsa.org... Counter-Case III: Drunk Driving Laws Don’t Work Counter: Pro’s quote refers again to Checkpoints. Yet again, we can get rid of checkpoints without getting rid of DUI laws. This would clear up Pro’s issue of police being taken off routes to man the checkpoints. As for the issue of people not driving erratically enough, we could simply raise it back up to 0.10%. Pro tries to say there is no evidence that these laws help. Purely unsubstantiated. The problem is though that he can’t show any example of how removing them would help. Most DUI laws have been in place so long that Pro can’t compare the effects of not having them. The fact is that Pro has to show us that removing the laws would reduce (or keep the same) accidents. The fact is that he is making a substantial claim here, and unless he can show us this evidence, he fails to give BOP for the claim. Regardless, I point out that if the current laws aren’t working, we should instead try to fix the system. We can implement more effective means, such as requiring car companies to install devices that keep the car off if alcohol is detected, {5} or increasing car patrols at bars. Also, Pros source at the bottom of that case refer to a specific law which deals with alcohol content for those under 21. Again, an specific matter, rather than a reason for removing the entirety of the DUI laws. Conclusion: By pointing out the Pro’s explanation is based on Checkpoints impacting enforcement rates, I show that this entire case of his fails, as Checkpoints can be removed without removing DUI laws. Sources: 5: https://www.lifesafer.com... Counter-Case IV: Lives Destroyed Summarization: Pro tries to say that the lives which have been harmed due to DUI laws are excuse enough to remove the laws Rationalization: Three words. Appeal to Pity. {6} These people had made the choice to drink, and then proceed to drive. They did this, full well knowing it was illegal. They rarely ever had a good enough reason to drive afterwards. The only one to blame here is them. Not the system. If you don’t want to get arrested, then don’t break the law. The teachers and principals shouldn’t be influencing kids if they think it’s ok to get behind a wheel drunk. Politicians deserve the embarrassment if they are caught breaking the laws that they are responsible for. The kids also are responsible for their own actions, and have only themselves to blame. Of course it’s an exaggeration to say they suddenly lose most their chances at jobs due to alcohol. For some industries, yes. But again, don’t drink and drive if you know it will cost you a career. Pro ends by simply reciting his arguments, and actually suggests the unfounded idea that it makes it more dangerous (outside of the already shot down issue of checkpoints). {7} Conclusion: Simply put, we are responsible for our own issues. We can’t just blame the system because we got behind the wheel drunk. Sources: 6: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 7: http://dictionary.reference.com... Closing Statement: Overall, Pro’s cases almost all revolve around the problems of checkpoints. Let’s remove checkpoints. Now we have removed most of Pro’s case, but the DUI laws themselves still stand. Many states have proven that point by still having them, regardless of not having checkpoints. Therefore the resolution is not affirmed there. The remaining cases are either unsubstantiated, pity appeal, or they faulty comparisons. Drunk driving is itself a law, and is broken knowingly and by choice, and thus cannot be compared to a law against things which are not a choice of ours. Pro does not affirm that drunk driving should be legalized, and thus as, at this point, failed the resolution. ==Unitomic==