Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers

I've addressed the arguments in his RD 2 order. On his first paragraph (grouped response to my counter-arguments 1 & 2) 1. My opponent attacks the example without actually addressing the main point of the 1st counter-argument I give. The gist of that was the profiling will happen with or without a decal. Police officers profile based on age, or sex, or ethnicity just by looking into a car window. They profile with regards to types and quality of car. This is basically a wash. However, as stated in my 3rd counter-argument, since the decals do allow for an increase in defensive driving, which will inherently increase the overall safety of all drivers, I'm still winning the cost/benefit analysis. On Electronic Parking Permits: 1. How many high schools in the US are really using these? 2. Way more importantly, this is an attack on an example while totally ignoring the meat of the argument, which is about profiling occurring against young people no matter what. On decal quality and appearance: 1. Attack on the example. 2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1] This decal is perfectly removable, and the law does not mention the size of the decal. If we are going to argue about the specifics of the decal, then it can be removed any time the student is parked. This would further mitigate whatever minute harms can be gained off of the sexual predator argument, because only vehicles in motion would be subject to target, and sexual predators simply don't target their victims by following their moving vehicles around town or on the freeway. These harms are totally unwarranted. On campus security and sexual predators: Campus security is really null in this debate. Again, this was merely an example that my opponent is exploiting while ignoring the gist of the argument. Sexual predators target places where these young people hang out (i. e. are generally stationary) *like* school campuses, churches, playgrounds, parks, local hang outs, etc. He never warrants why it is that sexual predators will target vehicles. Furthermore, as I mention later, we don't have a problem with predators targeting driver education vehicles, all of which, by the way, are required by law to be marked as such constantly (those markings are generally not removable since the vehicle has been mechanically manipulated as a training vehicle). However, even if they weren't, by my opponent's logic, those vehicles and their passengers *should* be the target of predators. On the attack on my second source: 1. My opponent disregards the first source, handily, which states that: "The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash. " "Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes. 2. While I can't find the chart my opponent refers to (can I have a specific link so I can evaluate the data? ), we are talking about aggregate death, not a breakdown of the cause or number of passengers or any other important details that would allow us to assess the meaning of those stats. 3. The statistic I was specifically referring to was on the page *of* that link. It is a pie chart stating that motor vehicle deaths account for more teen deaths than any other cause. The next closest method of teen death is homicide. 4. My opponent's narrowly focused attack does not actually mitigate the argument I'm making that teen drivers are still a danger due to their relative lack of driving experience. The second source I listed is an entire government webpage dedicated to improving teen driving. Obviously, the federal government is concerned to a great extent about the safety of teen drivers. On student driver cars being marked: 1. What's the point of this rebuttal? The decals are fully removable, so the harms of these decals must be identical to those of student driver vehicles. So, my opponent is de facto arguing that we should not put markings on student driver vehicles as well. However, the safety benefits of this practice are clear. The same principle clearly supports the use of New Jersey's new decal. On my dropped 4th counter-argument and dropped alternative: 1. My 4th counter-argument is absolutely topical to this debate. My opponent directly stated in RD 1 that one of the harms of the decal, based on his profiling argument, was that teens with tickets won't have recourse once the citation has been issued. How is me addressing this fallacy not a point of contention? He is claiming that this inherent bias exists within the judicial system as well as the enforcement system, when it clearly doesn't. You can extend this as a valid offensive argument. 2. My alternative proposal is also directly related to the case at hand. My opponent is opposing this piece of legislation due to something he finds morally or ethically repugnant. I am doing the exact same thing. If the goal of this debate is to form a more just law (and, considering that the purpose of debate is to support some sort of change, even if it won't necessarily happen), then I am attempting to fulfill that goal better than my opponent. This is a pretty standard debate tactic. I'm just trying to increase education in the debate. After all, the more people know about this piece of legislation and its errors, the more people can act within the legislative system to make it more just. Furthermore, I am informing about an actual injustice within the legislation, and my opponent is not. Again, extend this as a valid offensive argument.