The rule of "getting your driver's licence at least after you're 16" shouldn't apply to everybody

**********Read the end for a summary of the round and my key voting issue.************ I have no other option but to simply summarize the points. Sorry, again this is for my convenience and for the debate's convenience. I'm going to use the same format I used in my last post. ------------ 1) License Testing My opponent is STILL in the wrong when it comes to testing for a license. In the state of Arizona alone, you have to pass a writing section and a road coarse section in order to obtain your license. Since all states have some form of GDL program, they already incorporate some form of this! Even still, it's ludicrous to allow this to continue because it would make young children more likely to pass, in which case your fatal traffic accident rates would go up. By negating, you allow for these GDL programs to protect against these harms completely. Either way, this claim of easy license testing is false. No one uses a written test system to just allow anyone to get their license. There needs to be some sort of road test, and GDL programs are the best form of road tests. --------- 2) A Matter of Safety Alright, so the point of "16 year olds being the earliest matured people" still goes unrefuted. That shows, because if any sort of trend continues, you can draw the line on the line graph backwards towards those age groups and continue to raise the amount of fatal traffic accidents, like I've also brought up. Either way, there's no guarantee that younger drivers even posses the reasoning, logic, or knowledge it takes to drive a car. It's been estimated that you need to multitask 21 different things at once in order to drive. How do we know that anyone younger possesses these skills? Little, if none. That's the point I'm trying to make, that goes unrefuted. This idea that shorter or smaller drivers can move their seats and pedals and whatnot in order to adapt, is the exact problem I've brought up and has STILL been ignored. The fact is, when you move the seat forward to reach the pedals, you've moved yourself closer to the airbag and all the forces of one. THAT'S the harm in this "convenience." That's the just of the argument, and my opponent never really addresses this. Therefor, this point carries through as well. That's the reason why most states have some law for front seat passengers and booster seats, designed to protect smaller children and also young adults. When you DO have 16 year-old drivers in the car, the need for this goes down significantly because they've already reached a mature height. Since the most of puberty dies down around 17 years of age, you don't need to place restrictions based ---- 3) A Matter of Convenience So, my opponent suggests that these young teens need transportation is for babysitting and other household jobs, outside of a business. This I can agree to. Businesses aren't likely to hire someone so young. But, the main point is that there are plenty of points of transportation, which go ignored. Take, for example, babysitting. You have two parties, the host and the employee (parents wanting the babysitting [host] and the parents with the employed child [employee]). Right there, you have, at BARE minimum, 2 points of transportation, not even including the fact that most likely there is more than one vehicle or siblings of proper driving age. I also bring up the following, which go ignored: "Carpooling, biking, walking, buses, metro systems, jogging, boarding." Not to mention countless more. So you see here, that no one is really inconvenienced by having to wait an additional year or so just to drive, it's just simply a hassle. -------- CON Argument (Graduated Drivers License LAWS) Ok, so my opponent comes back in her last speech and basically says, that her laws aren't tight enough, and remarks about how easy it was for her to get her license. This is exactly the point I'm making. I'm showing that it's because of the laws today that we're having more fatal traffic accidents for teens, that more and more are out on the streets with minimal driving experience. GDL laws GIVE THEM THAT EXPERIENCE so that they become safer, better drivers. The reason you must NEGATE is because GDL laws can't be implemented at any random age, they must be at a minimum of 16 years old. You have to negate in order to keep the laws at 16. However if you affirm, you effectively loose all that ground that GDL laws create. Therefor, you must vote CON from this debate. --------- Summary and why to vote CON The reason you must vote CON is simple: safety before convenience. It's clear that, by keeping the law at 16, you're keeping them safe. Even if a few kids, heck, even if a lot of kids are inconvenienced, it doesn't matter. A life-long injury, or even a fatal injury, is going to inconvenience you a lot more. But the second reason you must vote CON is because of this Graduated Drivers License program, or GDL. This creates a gradual introduction to the responsibilities of driving. You can't implement this while keeping the age of driving flexible, or at least my opponent hasn't shown otherwise. That's key here. I show constantly throughout the course of this debate how it benefits us versus the PRO side of this debate, you can scan just to see. ********************** For these two reasons, I vote a CON ballot. I thank my opponent very much for this debate. It proved just as interesting as when I joined it. I also thank the readers, and the voters. I encourage everyone to post a Reason For Decision (RFD) in the comments section, so that we can legitimize who won the round. Remember to vote off the debate, not off opinion :].