There should not be a mandatory seatbelt law

As he is a newcomer, I would first like to welcome my opponent to this site, and I wish him good luck in this and any future debates. My opponent has kindly given me numbered points - a list of contentions by which he supports the resolution. I'll return the favor, and keep things rather organized - I'll mark my opponent's points with an "P" [for Pro] and my own points with a "C" [for Con], including the same numbers my opponent used in his first round. === P1: It is a violation of personal freedom... those who don't want to shouldn't be forced to wear one. C1: I will plainly state a fact that should soon become obvious to all present: freedom only exists as far as other people are willing to let you do whatever you want. For example, in America, we usually have the freedom of speech - we're generally allowed to say whatever we want. When does this 'right' disappear? As soon as an influential enough force determines that we no longer have that right. For instance, at a public school, there are a multitude of forms of speech which are considered taboo and for which there are strict punishments - for instance, "wising off" to a teacher is often punished in one way or another. From one point of view, these students do still have the right to wise off to their teacher. But that is not what we usually mean when we talk about freedoms and rights - we mean that an action will not have consequences, or at least not consequences imposed by public entities. Just as public entities at a school will punish you for speech they deem inappropriate, so too do law enforcement agencies attempt to punish you for driving without a seatbelt on. Let me put it another way for you. My opponent's stance here is that we should be able to do whatever we want, we should have personal freedom. Unfortunately, this is not true. Government limits your ability to do many things - run for office before a certain age, use certain dangerous substances, or fail to use certain safety devices. We do not have this mythical freedom my opponent speaks of - we are at the mercy of the powers that be - and the powers that be have decided that it is better for us to be forced to wear seatbelts than to not. This is not a violation of personal freedom, since we do not have personal freedom. Now certainly, my opponent can bring up the fact that we want personal freedom, even if we don't have it - but we're not the ones who decide the laws. Whether or not a law should or will exist depends not on how the average citizen feels about that law, but rather on how those in power like that law. The only way we, the common people, 'should' be determining the law is if we overthrow or severely reform the government - a case my opponent will have to prove if he wants to hold onto that notion. === P2: It is an oppressive money generator, not for the purpose of keeping people safe. C2: That's an interesting theory, except for one fact - it doesn't make any sense! If the government simply wanted to deprive us of some money and gain some money themselves, they would just raise taxes rather than doing actual work for it with courts and policemen. Nay, the purpose of seatbelt laws is thus: to create a negative incentive for not wearing seatbelts, so that more people will wear seatbelts, less people will die in crashes, and our country will be slightly more prosperous, happy, and populated. It is what psychologists would call "positive punishment," a form of operant conditioning, which is a priceless tool for controlling people's behavior. === P3: It is not reasonable, because there are some states that don't even require helmets to be worn when riding motorcycles. C3: This is immaterial to the resolution, because my opponent has failed to show that these states shouldn't have helmet laws. It's true that no helmet laws but a seatbelt law would be a bit inconsistent, but it could very well be that the best course of action for these states is to simply make helmet laws and keep the seatbelt laws. In fact, let's take a look at the language my opponent uses: "They don't even require helmets to be worn when riding motorcycles." This phrase brings with it the implication they should _at least_ require helmets to be worn, just as "they don't even provide ketchup to go with their mustard" implies that they should provide said ketchup. And of course, helmet laws and seatbelt laws are nearly identical in purpose and implications - implying that one is justified necessarily implies that the other, too, is justified. === P4: In many accidents it is safer to not be wearing a seatbelt and so it should be left up to the individual to decide when and if to wear a seatbelt. C4: Laws are not made because they always are for the better - they apply because following the law will be better for society overall. Indeed, how is a person to know which type of accident they will be in - one where a seatbelt might harm them vs. one where it might save their lives? They cannot know this beforehand. However, overall, it is much safer to wear a seatbelt than to not. Seatbelted vehicle occupants have about HALF the chance of dying in a car crash as non-belted vehicle occupants [1]. This means that overall, legislative forces of this nation should attempt to encourage people to wear seatbelts rather than not - and of course, one way they do this is by making seatbelt use a legal requirement. And as my opponent has already kindly pointed out for me, this holds the additional benefit of giving the government extra much-needed revenue. [1]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov... Keep in mind that this study is actually _critical_ of some of the claims of seatbelts' purported usefulness, yet even it acknowledges that belted folks are killed 50% less than unbelted folks [verses other sources which were claiming a 70-80% reduction in deaths]. This information is in the abstract. Thank you for reading, and good luck to my opponent once again.