Should the US abandon the Click It or Ticket Law

First, I shall go over my opponents case. Then I will review my case. My opponent does not have a value. The value of a debate is a structure that holds the whole argument together; it is a mutual target for all the contentions and criterias to push for. If one does not have a value, there is no structure for the debate. My opponent can't really defend or explain his contentions very strongly without his value. Because of this, I find my opponents case to be very weak, without much backup. My opponents contention 1: Fourth Amendment Infraction is invalid and no longer stands as a point for this debate. The reasons for this involve my opponent not fully understanding how the police force and the fourth amendment work. The amendment states "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." If a police officer can see you breaking the law right before his/her eyes, then he/she has probable cause to arrest you. This includes breaking the Click It or Ticket law when not wearing your seat belt. If an officer can see a gunman shooting people in a building, he/she doesn't need a warrant before they help those people. Now, if an officer SUSPECTS that an individual is breaking the law and does not have probable cause to arrest them, then he/she needs a warrant. For example, an officer can pull you over if you are breaking a traffic law, but, if the officer suspects that you have marijuana in your car, then he/she needs a warrant. My opponent obviously does not fully understand the fourth amendment and that is why his contention 1 no longer is valid. My opponents contention 2: Fifth Amendment infraction is invalid and no longer stands as a point for this debate. My opponent does not fully understand how the Fifth Amendment works when you get a ticket. First of all, when you get a traffic ticket, there is nothing stopping you from challenging that ticket in a court of law. You automatically plead guilty when you pay for the ticket. But if you feel that an officer is cheating you into a ticket, don't pay for it and bring it into traffic court. There is no infraction in the constitution because of this. This is why my opponents contention 2 no longer stands. My opponents contention 3: Public opinion is also invalid and no longer stands as a point for this debate. My opponent does not understand that public opinion has no affect on a privilege. First, can I get a source on how much the unsatisfactory rate has grown on the subject of the click it or ticket law? Second, let me ask all of the teenagers out there a question. How annoying is it to get your phone taken away. Well, I myself being a teenager, I find it very annoying. When I do something against my parents rules, I get my phone taken away. I hate it, but I know that my parents only do it because the love me and are trying to protect me. The same goes with the Click It or Ticket law. It is annoying when you get pulled over just for not wearing your seat belt. But the Click It or Ticket law and the police force is only doing this because they care about you and want to protect you. So even though the law is unsatisfactory and annoying, that shouldn't stop you from being grateful for the seat belt law. You have to realize that the law wasn't made to annoy you, but to protect your basic human need of safety. Finally, a majority does not decide what is right your wrong, your conscience does. Especially when the majority is deciding on a privilege. If your conscience says that wearing your seat belt is good, then the Click it or Ticket law is a good law. Therein, my opponents contention 3 is no longer valid too. Now, I shall briefly go over my case. Value: Safety. Safety is a basic human need that is required before any other need besides breathing. Contention 1: Cars are dangerous. Motor vehicles kill hundreds of people everyday. Don't be mad at the government for trying to protect your basic human need of safety in the dangerous environment of a car. Contention 2: Protection. The Click It or Ticket Law is a form of protection. It is protecting your freedom and your human rights. Contention 3: Right v. Privilege. Driving is a privilege. The government trusts us not to break the law and when we do, there will be consequences. Thank you for your time. I advise you to vote for the negative (or con) side of this debate.