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

Since there doesn't seem to be any clear flow, I'm just going to work by summarizing different arguments, for the sake of the debate and the readers. -------------------- 1) License testing To start, the most of what my opponent states in response to my points is this idea that "Actually, drivers no longer have to take this test. (Well, in most places anyway) You just have to show up, get your picture taken, etc. (of course, you have to have so many hours of "training".)" She assumes that just anyone can get a driver's license. She's mentioned this several times in her last speech; this is an absolutely ludicrous claim. The DMV is not going to let just anyone get a driving license; they're not handed out like hot cakes. In fact, all 50 states have some form of Graduated Driver License programs: http://www.dps.state.ok.us... But furthermor, the point of GDL programs goes completely unrefuted in my opponent's last speech. So you can extend this through the round. But even if you don't buy that, my opponent constantly mentions changes we can make to current laws to create safer situations or other solutions to problems. GDL laws already have cut fatal traffic accidents with 16 year olds by 11 percent. http://www.jhsph.edu... Therefor, you HAVE to negate this resolution and vote CON in order to implement GDL laws. While all states have some form, some states need stricter GDL laws that have more features and restrictions to slowly "ease" drivers into their task at hand. ----------------- 2) A Matter of Safety My opponent consistently claims this idea that some teens are safer than others. But like I said before (and goes unrefuted) 16 year olds are determined as the earliest age of any sort of maturity. They have this sense of safety. By implementing GDL laws, we can increase this safety. GDL laws also show, over time, if a driver is not ready to drive. He won't pass the initial permit test, nor the license test, if he is not ready. But it will also reflect in the mandatory supervised driving a teen must acquire in order to test for the graduated license. Like I've already brought up, younger kids can barely even fit in their seat properly in order to drive. It's not a matter of just adjusting "the steering wheel [to] move up or down to a person's liking, and the seats are adjusted to move back and forth." If this is necessary, a person shouldn't be driving. It creates unsafe situations like being too close to the airbag, not being able to see over the steering wheel, reach the pedals, etc. Regardless, one should be more mature in order to drive a car (16 years old, when most young adults have reached a height over 5' 5") -------- 3) A Matter of Convenience Here's something huge to chew on. I've already brought it up, but we should NEVER put convenience ahead of safety. For example. It might be convenient for me to run across the street in order to get across to the other side, running through traffic, but it's not safe. It's estimated that every time you jaywalk, your chance for an accident goes up 14%. In this situation, young drivers aren't going to be inconvenienced by not being able to drive. Like the countless options I brought up already, it's still possible to get to school or wherever they need to go. As for work, the demand for workers under, say 15, is VERY small. In Arizona, it's illegal. According to the Department of Labor, job tasks are incredibly limited for youths. They don't get jobs because they don't have transportation, but because workers don't want to hire, basically, children. http://www.dol.gov... So your demand for changing the laws is, again, not necessary. Even still, it's going to be easy for these youths to get to work, as not many are needing to travel great distances to go to work. -------------- 1) Testing at 16 is safer Again, my opponent brings up this false claim about testing at the DMV without really testing. I've already addressed it. But like I've mentioned before as well, GDL programs can greatly reduce these negative harms. Under the GDL laws, parents HAVE to be in a car with a teen to be driving, so that's your "hawk eye." Your biggest point on the CON side of this debate is the GDL program, this graduated drivers license program that allocates for the learning curve of driving. You can find a summary of this on just about any website, but the fact is, you have to NEGATE in order to take advantage of this benefit. Sorry for not posting point for point, but it's final exam time here in Arizona and I need to study for those. Thank you for the debate!