Secondary Match, Round 1. chissler v GAOTU789: Seatbelts

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Seatbelt laws are not sufficiently justified".

chissler will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
GAOTU789 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


There are no limits on the length of posts, but you may only use 1 post per turn.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each invidual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.


The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

A new time limit policy is in effect
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extention of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extention begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extention request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by The Vagabond]




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Seatbelt laws are not sufficiently justified.



The topic of our debate today is seatbelts and whether or not the legislation put forth by our public officials is justified. This is a subjective topic that does not have a right or wrong answer. What we do have are extensive facts surrounding various aspects of this law and you the reader can make what you wish of it. I ask that you put your personal opinions aside and read what we have to say. Take our words into consideration and determine who made a better case. Do not conclude this debate saying who was right or wrong, conclude this debate saying who presented a better case for their argument.

With that, a ding of the bell sounds and we're off to the races.

Seatbelt laws are not justified and the punitive measures doled out to citizens who do not abide are absolutely horrendous. I often wonder if our government is actively recruiting to push our citizens under the poverty line.

The crux of the matter on this debate is that seatbelts are supposed to safe your life. Because they are supposed to save your life, they are mandatory. A lot of things in life are healthy and can save me, but they are not mandatory. Eating take out food can kill me just as quick as not wearing a seatbelt, but our governments allow us as individuals to consciously make the decision as to whether or not we will consume foods that are unhealthy. Smoking cigarettes and consuming alcohol are major detriments to our health and yet they are perfectly legal commodities that we can purchase freely.

So why has our government decided to legislate that seatbelts are mandatory and must be worn by all drivers? Why can be make decisions on lifestyles and substances, but not seatbelts?

This is a theme that we will see again in this debate and we will elaborate more on just why the government does what they do and we will get into it with a little more detail.

Now I direct our attention to some of the punishments handed out by law in response for having been caught not wearing a seatbelt.

From the Ontario's Department of Transportation website.



Effective December 1, 2006, in Ontario, every person travelling in a motor vehicle must wear a seat belt or use a child safety seat. The penalty for seat belt infractions is a fine between $60 and $500. Convicted offenders will receive two demerit points.


Bolding Mine

Five hundred dollars!

For how many citizens would that be almost a full two week paycheck?

Now ask yourself, is this justified? Does the punishment fit the crime? I hesitate to even refer to this as a crime, but under today's law it is. So while it is a crime, it is not a justified crime and that is the topic of our debate here today.

The above is an example of Canadian law. To reference American law, each state has varying numbers. But the maximum penalty for a first infraction can vary anywhere from $10-$200.

The numbers that are quoted in our legislations are grossly over a realistic mark and are utilized to strike fear into our drivers into wearing a seatbelt. And when these same governments allow us to eat greasy food, smoke cigarettes laced with rat poison, and consume alcohol that can destroy families; I question why they make this decision for us and attempt to have us believe that it is justified.

As we progress through this debate, we will examine this concept in a holistic manner. We will look at the skewered statistics that manipulative governments publish to show that their legislation is necessary, we will examine cases where the seatbelt caused extensive injury, and we will continue to surge through varying excerpts from legislations around the world that have opinions on this subject matter.

At the end of the day, this rests on two main points.

  • It is not the government's position to tell us whether or not we wear a seatbelt. It is their position to mandate the speed at which we drive, our level of consciousness as we operate a motor vehicle, and the safety of minors that we are responsible for while operating that motor vehicle. But it is not their position to dictate any further. They keep their hands out of our pocket when it comes to everything else governing our safety, so why do they insist on doing so here?

  • The other is the measures that are handed out. Seeking restitution in the amount of an individual's two week pay check is hardly justifiable and is, in my opinion, more criminal than the act of not wearing a seatbelt.

    Opinions aside, this is not the government's position to speak. If you feel that seatbelts save lives and are a great measure to have in all motor vehicles. That is great and I respect your decision to wear that seat belt. But I also respect the decision of another individual to not wear that seatbelt, and I do not feel that they should face punishment for making such a decision.

    It should be our decision to make, not a decision already made for us.

    Citations



  • Ontario Seatbelt Laws
  • American Seatbelt Laws
  • Seatbelt Legislation


    Socratic Method



    1. Do you feel the punishment fits the crime when it comes to seatbelt infractions?
    2. Why do you propose the government mandates seatbelt usage, but permits citizens to smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, and actively participate in other death defying activities?
    3. Being honest, do you wear a seatbelt?

     
     


    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". - Benjamin Franklin



  • posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:23 PM
    link   





    posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:30 AM
    link   

    First Rebuttal



    I shall begin this rebuttal with a response to my opponent's opening statement, I will address his Socratic questions, further my own case to unequivocally prove that seatbelt laws are not justified, and conclude with a few questions of my own.

    As I read through the majority of my opponent's opening statement, I fail to see much of anything that is applicable to the topic at hand. He spends his time discussing how driving is a privilege and not a right, the need to insure our vehicles, and then obtusely rambles about cigarettes and alcohol. His tone comes across as a parent to all of society. Driving is a privilege? No, driving is a right of mine. As a grown man, it is my right to drive to see my family that is hundreds of miles away. Now mind you, rights can be taken away from individuals due to their behaviour, but that does not equate a right to a privilege. Freedom is a right. If I violate our social norms, I can lose my freedom. But it is still a right of mine to have.

    My opponent's assertion that we as tax paying citizens have no rights to these luxuries is ludicrous.



    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    In Canada the legal for purchasing cigarettes is between 18-19. Again not freely available. Which is looking out for our safety.


    But yet a 14 year old child can walk down the street with a cigarette in his or her mouth and no police officer can do a damn thing about it. If it was health that was their concern, this would be illegal as well. But it's not, and it shows that health is not their concern. As I progress through this debate, I will examine these discrepancies in our legislation and give reasons to why things are the way they are. While it is not the crux of this debate, my opponent has already agreed with me on this point to show that my position does carry weight.



    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    it would appear that it would have to be a extremely serious infraction to warrant a $500 fine.


    Remember here, we are dealing with seatbelts. For the fun of it, can any of us possibly fathom a situation where a $500 fine for a seatbelt infraction would be justified? Even if it is an extreme situation, how the hell is $500 a justifiable means of restitution? It's not because our seatbelt laws are not justified.

    Before I quote the following text, I would like to prepare our readers for what they are about to read. My initial question posed directly to my opponent was as simple of a question that we could get; I asked if he felt the seatbelt laws are justified. So in response to me asking him if he felt they were justifiable, this was his response:


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    In most cases yes. I stated earlier that I don't agree with the points deductions for seat belt fines but the normal monetary fine is reasonable.


  • In most cases...
  • I don't agree...
  • normal monetary fine is reasonable

    He has clearly stated that, in some cases, he does not agree with our seatbelt laws. If he does not agree with them, he is implying that he does not feel they are justified. Now my opponent has and will do a song and dance around this subject matter to put a show on for our readers, but deep down he clearly does not agree with the punitive measures handed out for seatbelt infractions. I am sure he'll respond to this spending a large portion of his next reply on this error in judgment, but the fact remains.. he does not agree with some of the seatbelt laws.

     
     


    Seatbelts Save Lives... ? Really?



    Before I begin to show how the statistics surrounding seatbelts are as ridiculous as the Canadian winter is cold, I would like to simply question whether or not they do save lives. An image can say so much more than I ever could. So let's have a look.



    A children's school bus. I am sure we have all seen one or been on one before. Guess what? No seat belts. If seat belts are designed to save lives, why the hell would we be sending millions of children to school every day on a vehicle that is not even equipped with a seat belt.

    The following statements are all being copied from the following website: Seatbelts on School Buses?

  • In fact, crash tests have shown seat-belts could create more drawbacks than advantages.
  • The tests indicated that the use of a lap belt on forward-facing seats could increase the risk of head injuries during a severe frontal collision. In a head-on collision, the most common type of school bus crash, the occupant's head could hit the seat in front, resulting in severe or fatal head and neck injuries.
  • A 1999 study by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) suggests that adding seat belts to school buses will cause additional head injuries and probably additional deaths in some crashes.

    We talk about saving lives and protecting our citizens. Well it is no secret that our children are the one commodity that we strive the hardest to protect. But the one means of transportation that millions of children use to travel every single day have intentionally avoided the use of seatbelts. It makes you question the validity of what we are preached, even if just a little. Is that fine a little less justifiable now, knowing what we know?

    I will now respond to the Socratic questions posed by my opponent.

    1. Are you willing to pay the insurance premiums that would be charged to us for not wearing a seatbelt?

    - I would strongly oppose higher rates of insurance due to not wearing a seat belt. I know where you are going with this and I will fully buy into this, as it doesn't make current seatbelt laws any more justifiable. Should I pay higher insurance rates if I listen to the radio? Insurance rates today are a joke as it is, so I don't it makes a difference either way.

    2.Do you agree that driving is a privilege and not a right?

    - I could not disagree more. I have a major problem with people who try to tell others what is and is not a right of theres. If I am a sixteen year old child who is driving his or her parent's vehicle, then yes.. driving is a privilege. But as a grown man who bought a vehicle and pays for everything that is required, operating a motor vehicle is a right. As I've stated before, rights can be taken from us. This does not equate to being a privilege. I have a right to freedom, a right to live, etc., but the governments of the western world liberally take away the freedom of others and the life from people. Doesn't mean that these are only privileges.

     
     


    Socratic Questions



    1. Do you think $235 for a first seat belt infraction is justified?
    2. Do you believe that your right to live is only a privilege?
    3. What do you feel is the difference between a privilege and a right?
    4. Has your child ever taken a drive on a school bus?
    5. Do you believe the people producing seatbelt statistics operate in an altruistic manner?



  • posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:57 PM
    link   
    Seatbelt laws are not sufficiently justified.

    First reply

     


    I'll start with the "song and dance" promised by my opponent early. It'll be a short tune with few steps though as it's a simple melody. What I will give you
    will be an example of my opponent trying to twist my words. Consider it the encore for my little performance.


    He has clearly stated that, in some cases, he does not agree with our seatbelt laws.


    Exactly. I don't agree with the losing points but do with the normal monetary fine. I agree with the laws overall. Just one aspect of it I don't think we need.


    If he does not agree with them, he is implying that he does not feel they are justified.


    Wrong. They are justified. They save lives, as I'll show again as I did in my "rambling opening".



    I am sure he'll respond to this spending a large portion of his next reply on this error in judgment, but the fact remains.. he does not agree with some of the seatbelt laws.


    Wrong again. Although I will spend a little time on this, only because I have a question for you on this:

    Socratic question 1.

    How did this statement by me:

    "In most cases yes. I stated earlier that I don't agree with the points deductions for seat belt fines but the normal monetary fine is reasonable."

    turn into this statement by you in the very next sentence?

    "In most cases...I don't agree... normal monetary fine is reasonable"

    I'll be interested to read the answer.

    Anyway, lets move on to the next point

    School buses

    I thought we were debating seat belt laws, not lack of seat belts on school buses. Since it was brought up, I'll address it a though both here and further in my opponents question.

    From my opponent's own link.

    www.safety-council.org...


    Seat-belts were designed for cars, and have saved thousands of lives. School buses are designed with safety (but not seat-belts) in mind; they are not built like cars.


    Since the emphasis of my opponents argument is on the millions of kids that ride buses...


    the school bus is the safest way for children to get to school. On average over the past 10 years there has been less than one fatality per year inside a school bus.


    My opponent says they avoided the use of seat belts on buses when his own link shows ample studies done on whether they would work. He even quoted you a few lines of it in his post. They showed that seat belts wouldn't improve the safety of our kids.

    Socratic Question 2.

    Why would you advocate for adding seatbelts to school buses; when they have clearly shown to do more harm than good?

    I wonder if statements such as this contribute to that line of thinking...


    that our children are the one commodity that we strive the hardest to protect
    .

    I don't know about our readers but I know I haven't ever considered my daughter a "commodity".

    So let's move on to more imperical data that clearly shows that seat belt's save lives and reduce injury.



    Click It or Ticket

    The chart clearly shows fatal injuries being reduced as seat belt usage goes up.

    Seat belt's save lives. It's that simple. The use of them should be common sense but unfortunately it appears that it is lacking. Seriously, if wearing a seat belt can save you from getting ejected from the car or keep you from going through the windshield of your car, why wouldn't you wear it. It can save you from serious injury. I think that alone justifies the laws.

    Also, they save us money. The extra amount of money needed to care for all those people who would have been injured had they not been wearing a seat belt would be astronomical. Billions upon billions of dollars of extra spending on an already heavily overburdened health care systems. I'll go into this in more detail in my next response.

    On the monetary front; I did a little searching to find what that $500 dollar fine that my opponent likes to use as an example was for. You know when he said this...


    Remember here, we are dealing with seatbelts. For the fun of it, can any of us possibly fathom a situation where a $500 fine for a seatbelt infraction would be justified? Even if it is an extreme situation, how the hell is $500 a justifiable means of restitution? It's not because our seatbelt laws are not justified.

    Emphasis mine.

    According to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario,which my opponent linked early, you would be fined up to $500 dollars for not using a child safety seat in your car.
    I'll be honest, if you get caught driving with a small child not in a proper safety seat, I think $500 dollars isn't enough of a fine. You should have your license revoked and have your ability as a parent questioned.


     


    I will address the question of driving as a right in my next post. It's late and I need to work tomorrow. It deserves better attention then I can give it right now so I'll open my next post with it.

     


    I'll finish by addressing my opponents questions posed to me.

    1. Do you think $235 for a first seat belt infraction is justified?

    Yes I would say that is too high. I wouldn't object to fines ranging to $100. I'm not sure of the relevance of this number but I'm sure you'll explain to me
    why you picked this arbitrary amount.

    2. Do you believe that your right to live is only a privilege?

    The right to life is just that, a right.

    3. What do you feel is the difference between a privilege and a right?

    A privilege is something you earn, a right is something you have that can't be taken away unless you infringe upon someone else's rights. I will address this further in my next response also.

    4. Has your child ever taken a drive on a school bus?

    Yes she has. 5 days a week on a full school week. I feel comfortable with her taking the bus. As I have shown earlier, school buses are safe means of transporting our children to school.

    5. Do you believe the people producing seatbelt statistics operate in an altruistic manner?

    Honestly, no. I'll qualify that by saying that statistics can be manipulated to show many different outcomes. I am sure that not every group that is producing the numbers are in it for selfish reason's. Some honestly do care about the safety of other's. The manipulation of data to meet ones ends is a devious but common practice. I won't deny that.



    posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:04 PM
    link   

    Rebuttal #2



    I will begin this rebuttal with a direct response to my opponent's Socratic questions.

    My opponent has asked the following question:


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    How did this statement by me:

    "In most cases yes. I stated earlier that I don't agree with the points deductions for seat belt fines but the normal monetary fine is reasonable."

    turn into this statement by you in the very next sentence?

    "In most cases...I don't agree... normal monetary fine is reasonable"


    That's simple, it didn't. I did not turn your words into a sentence. I merely took the exact words you said and repeated them in a list. If anyone takes two seconds to scroll up and see, they will notice this. I didn't put it in a sentence as my opponent as attempted, I merely listed specific terms that you used. Your overt disagreements with the seatbelt laws are a little tough to overlook.

    I will now respond to my opponent's second question, which is just as off its mark as the previous.


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Why would you advocate for adding seatbelts to school buses; when they have clearly shown to do more harm than good?


    Now gauging by the time that my opponent has submitted his reply, I can only assume that it was late and he overlooked what exactly I was saying. My opponent is not one to typically overlook the facts, but yet again he has. I have not advocated the use of seatbelts on school buses. I have merely indicated the lack of usage of seatbelts on a specific vehicle that is utilized to transport our children. If seatbelts were as "critical" as we are supposed to believe, then I firmly believe that they would be utilized. But the flaws of seatbelts are exposed and due to these flaws they are left off of school buses.

    These flaws are not as prevalent in motor vehicles, but they still exist.

    I ask that our readers please take the time to scroll up for another second and confirm that what I speak is accurate and that my opponent has yet again misread the facts.

     
     


    I will now acknowledge the responses that my opponent has made to my previous questions. To begin, let us look at the first question that I posed.

    I stated... Do you think $235 for a first seat belt infraction is justified?

    My opponent's response...


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Yes I would say that is too high. I wouldn't object to fines ranging to $100. I'm not sure of the relevance of this number but I'm sure you'll explain to me
    why you picked this arbitrary amount.


    This is too much he says.

    Now I ask that our readers take the time to review the following content.

    Manitoba Seat Belt Fines

    The province of Manitoba has a fine of $235 for first time infractions on seat belts for its drivers. Now my opponent has admitted on two occasions now that he disagrees with the seat belt laws and he feels that these monetary amounts are excessive.

    Another source of information where seat belt fines are issued in the amounts of up to and over $1000. Seat Belt Penalties.

    If a driver has four unbelted passengers, they will receive a fine of over $1200 and lose 9 points on their license. Is this justified? No, it's not. The act that is being punished is wrong, 100% wrong. I agree that it is and should be punishable by law. But the amounts that are being quoted to "deter" these behaviours are completely ridiculous. My opponent wants to get into a battle over the validity of seat belts and that they need to be worn. I agree, they are important. When I ride with a child in my vehicle, I buckle them up immediately. But as an adult, it should be my decision to make whether or not I want to wear a seatbelt.

    I am not prepared to hand over my civil liberties in order to enjoy a little bit of safety. I am a grown man who can make this decision on his own.

    Having first offense fines in the amount of $235 or even $1200 is a joke.

    My opponent will probably state that this is very rare to occur, but what if that $1200 fine was you or a friend? Would you agree with it? What if it was just the $235 for a first time infraction, even driving by yourself. Is this justified?

    No, it's not!

    Next my opponent agrees that our right to life is a right. So he also agrees that rights can be removed from us, as capital punishment is alive and well in the western world. So if he attempts to state that driving is a privilege because it can be revoked, the logic is completely flawed by his own admission. Rights can be removed from us just as privileges can. And contrary to my opponent's belief, driving is a right that all capable individuals possess. It is also a right that we are more than capable of losing if our behaviours deem it so.

    Next I asked my opponent if he felt the statistics surrounding seat belts were being published by organizations who operated altruistically.


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Honestly, no. I'll qualify that by saying that statistics can be manipulated to show many different outcomes. I am sure that not every group that is producing the numbers are in it for selfish reason's. Some honestly do care about the safety of other's. The manipulation of data to meet ones ends is a devious but common practice. I won't deny that.


    This right here is an indication of my opponent's character. Prior to taking this debate, my opponent and I chatted regularly. I think very highly of him. After reading this section, I think even more of him. He could of easily lied to benefit his own position, but he chose to speak honestly. I commend him for that and I hope our readers appreciate the transparency he displays.

    But alas, he does agree that the statistics that he quotes and uses to further his own position can and are manipulated by biased organizations that have an invested interest. I did have a link that discussed this, but I am winding down on my twenty four hour window and I just don't have the time to search for it. So I will try to find it for my next response. But it is like anything else, these people are operating with an agenda themselves and obviously they won't be publishing numbers that are going to hamper their ability to operate with a substantial profit. So when considering the numbers, take them with a grain of salt.

    But the skewered statistics aside, I concede the fact that seatbelts save lives. I would be ridiculously naive to attempt to overlook this fact to win my debate. But eating salads and excercising will prolong your life as well. Not smoking or consuming alcohol can save your life as well. And these are all decisions that we as individuals are capable of making. I am not issued a fine for living a "dangerous" lifestyle, so why am I issued one for not wearing a seat belt.

    If I am not putting anyone else at risk, why am I forced to wear one? And why are the punitive measures to deter this behaviour absolutely ridiculous?

    How could a single parent from a low socioeconomic status be expected to pay a substantial fine like this, while keeping the house warm and food on the table for his or her children?


    Socratic Questions



    1) Would you mind offering an estimation on how many people you believe have been killed due to somebody else not wearing a seatbelt?
    2) How do you feel about Manitoba having a $235 fine for first time infractions of their seat belt laws, and is it justified?
    3) Do you agree that seat belts can kill?
    4) When you are driving in your vehicle alone, do you feel it should be your decision to wear a seatbelt?


    Thank you.



    posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:40 PM
    link   
    First let's get to the promised right vs. privilege aspect of this debate that I, unfortunately, didn't have the time to cover in my last post.


    operating a motor vehicle is a right



    I have a right to freedom, a right to live, etc.,



    it is my right to drive to see my family



    driving is a right that all capable individuals possess


    See a trend?

    My opponent has decided that driving is a right. For himself and all "capable" individuals. Would my opponent consider a blind person "capable" of the right to drive? How about a hearing impaired person? These people are quite capable, in most aspects of life yet they cannot drive. In fact they aren't allowed the privilege of driving. They would be allowed the right of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, the right to counsel, etc...

    In fact, our rights are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    No where in that document does it state that driving is a right. In fact, I believe that my opponent may have our country confused with our neighbour to the south.


    I am not prepared to hand over my civil liberties in order to enjoy a little bit of safety

    emphasis mine

    In America, property is protected as a civil liberty. You know, that car you say is your right.


    The Charter also omits any mention of, or protection for, property.


    Civil Liberties in different countries

    Remember, you are still a Canadian citizen. We may be debating seat belt laws in general but both you and I are still guaranteed our Rights under the Charter, not the US Constitution.

    Last, but not least on this, a statement from my opponent that contradicts his stance on this "right".


    My opponent's assertion that we as tax paying citizens have no rights to these luxuries is ludicrous


    Which leads me too my first two questions:

    Socratic Questions

    1. When did luxuries become rights?

    2. If you believe that driving is a right, shouldn't a blind or hearing impaired person be able to drive?

    3. If driving is a right, how can it be taken away by something such as a few of speeding tickets?

    Alright, let's move on.

    The cost of non seat belt use on the Health Care system.

    Every year, car accidents and crashes cause many, many injuries. Most require medical care to some degree. This medical care costs money. This money comes out of our pockets. It doesn't matter if you are Canadian, American, Australian or from any other developed country. You pay either through taxes or higher insurance premiums, depending on whether you have a Socialized or Private Health Care. One way or the other, you pay.

    Let's look at Canada.


    Health care costs are between one-and-a-half and two times as high for
    individuals not wearing seat belts as they are for belted drivers and
    passengers involved in collisions.


    ogov.newswire.ca...

    From my opponents link from Manitoba.


    4,900 lives saved, 100,000 injuries avoided, and $8.4 billion in social and health costs saved.


    How much higher would our taxes be I wonder? I know I already pay enough freakin' taxes. If legislating seat belt use can save me some money on taxes, so be it.

    Now let's look at one state in America.

    Unbelted Crash Victims Cost Health Care System Double the Charges of Belted Occupants; Study Estimates $190 Million Saved in 10 Years By Increasing Seat Belt Use


    A new study finds that hospital costs for unrestrained vehicle-crash victims in Minnesota are nearly double (94 percent greater) the charges for injured vehicle occupants that are belted.


    Seems pretty consistent. An unbelted driver or passenger costs the Health Care system about twice as much as a belted one.

    It saves money. It saves lives. It isn't a universal right. If it takes legislation to implement the reduction in lives lost and saves us money, again I say, so be it.

    I would like to take some time and address some of my opponents points raised in his last post.

    I hope you, the reader and judges, are enjoying the verbal gymnastics displayed by my opponent. It's impressive but lets look at a a couple of things.


    That's simple, it didn't. I did not turn your words into a sentence. I merely took the exact words you said and repeated them in a list.


    But he says this initially.


    He has clearly stated


    Which implies the "list" he gave was, in fact, my statement. Which means that his list is a statement. Attributed to me erroneously, but a statement none the less. I'll request the same as my opponent and ask you to scroll back up to see that this is exactly what he implied.

    Now I see that my opponent has dropped the $500 fine that I showed to be justified and moved on to a $235 fine as an example of a outrageous monetary penalty. I suppose he is hoping that you won't bother to check the link provided for this because it also says on that page that Manitoba has the highest rural compliance and the third highest urban compliance in Canada at 92.4% and 93.3% respectively. This extremely high rate of compliance is attributed in part to this fine. So the threat of this fine has lead to some of the highest compliance rates in our country. Although I do find the penalty to high, especially coupled with points loss but it seems to be having the desired affect, and thats whats important.

    Next, he rolls out a link from Australia that says the fines could range up to 1245 dollars. I can only guess that he is hoping again that nobody actually checks the link. It clearly states that these fines would be for someone with unbuckled passengers under the age of 16. The actual fine for having 4 adult passengers unbuckled is 238 dollars. Thats roughly $60 each. Now that you see it in real terms, it doesn't sound nearly as bad as my opponent makes it out to be.


    as an adult, it should be my decision to make whether or not I want to wear a seatbelt.


    It is your decision. You also have to realize though that that decision breaks the law and you should expect to pay the consequences if caught.


    I am not issued a fine for living a "dangerous" lifestyle


    In fact you are, and some times even worse penalties. Drinking and driving is the first thing that comes to mind. How about dealing drugs. Doesn't get much more dangerous than that lifestyle.

    Lastly, as a good will gesture, I'll help my opponent with a problem he was having.


    he does agree that the statistics that he quotes and uses to further his own position can and are manipulated by biased organizations that have an invested interest. I did have a link that discussed this, but I am winding down on my twenty four hour window and I just don't have the time to search for it.


    I think you'll find a lot of relevant information on this subject here.

    You'll find a lot of discussion on that there.


    Finally, I'll address the questions posed to me by my opponent.

    1) Would you mind offering an estimation on how many people you believe have been killed due to somebody else not wearing a seatbelt?

    I really have no idea. I would guess though that it would be a low number. A quick search didn't turn up any relevant numbers.

    2) How do you feel about Manitoba having a $235 fine for first time infractions of their seat belt laws, and is it justified?

    I feel it is a high number for a fine, especially when coupled with the points demerit. Is it justified? It could be justified by the high compliance rate I showed earlier.

    3) Do you agree that seat belts can kill?

    Yep.

    4) When you are driving in your vehicle alone, do you feel it should be your decision to wear a seatbelt?

    Frankly, it is my decision whether I wear it or not. If I chose not to and get caught, I pay the price of my trying to break the law. The choice hasn't been taken away from you but you must pay for that decision if caught.

     



    This right here is an indication of my opponent's character. Prior to taking this debate, my opponent and I chatted regularly. I think very highly of him. After reading this section, I think even more of him. He could of easily lied to benefit his own position, but he chose to speak honestly. I commend him for that and I hope our readers appreciate the transparency he displays.


    Thanks mate. The feeling is mutual. Respect is something earned not given. You sir have earned my utmost respect through my time on this board.



    posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:42 PM
    link   

    Rebuttal #3



    We find ourselves here once again, doing the same dance that so many have done before us. We're both skipping and jumping on the subject matter, trying to convince our readers what is and is not the facts surrounding this concept. My opponent says I am guilty of "verbal gymnastics", but I would say the same about himself. But then again, that's the beauty of a debate. I'm not going to fault my opponent for doing what he can to further his own platform.

    I'll address the specifics shortly as we progress through this final rebuttal.

    First my opponent decides to spend a portion of his rebuttal discussing what is Canadian and what is American. Well, I didn't know we were restricted in our discussion. Granted my opponent and I are both Canadian, the topic at hand is talking about seat belt laws in general. So my opponent trying to narrow the subject matter and fault me for acknowledging what is relevant for our American counterparts is a little off its mark.

    Before further responding to my opponent's rebuttal, I would like to address what I consider to be the crux of the topic at hand. I believe this will be the determining factor in who comes out the victor for this debate, and I am sure others will agree.

    I have provided links to websites that show current fines for seat belt infractions and indicated how excessive these amounts are. My opponent has overtly agreed that these amounts are excessive and also feels that the demerit points is unjustified as well. But he relies on the fact that seat belts save lives and it possibly saves us money in the long run. Even if this does save us money and even if it does save lives, which is a completely other subject matter up for debate as my opponent has already agreed that these statistics are produced by organizations with an agenda, it does not justify the amounts that are quoted by governments.

    My opponent agrees that the fines are excessive, but feels that they are justified because of the statistics he reads.

    Well, let's apply that logic to other aspects of our judicial system.


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Although I do find the penalty to high, especially coupled with points loss but it seems to be having the desired affect, and thats whats important.


    Let us apply capital punishment to any and all antisocial behaviours. Any violations of our social norms should be punishable by death. It is an excessive penalty, but it will deter the antisocial behaviour.. and apparently this is our ultimate goal. So if it is going to provide the ideal resolution, why not? Would my opponent agree with this? He justifies excessive punishments for seat belt infractions, so what about everything else?

    No, death for any antisocial behaviour is not justified.

    It is imperative that the punishment fit the crime. And the isolated action of not wearing a seatbelt is not an action that justifies a fine of over $200.

    I would now like to take a moment to address my opponent's questions.

    1. When did luxuries become rights?

    And you accuse me of verbal gymnastics? Amazing. (I say this with a smile on my face) My opponent is a smart guy. Very smart. But he doesn't need me to tell him that. However, for this debate he is conveniently playing a little "uninformed" to help himself out. Maybe I'll rethink that previous transparency statement. (Kidding)

    But when did luxuries become rights? It is a right of mine, as a capable adult, to operate a motor vehicle. With more and more rights that we as citizens are afforded, does our lifestyle not become more luxurious? The problem here lies in the manner you choose to define "luxuries". I'm not saying that the right in and of itself is a "luxury". I was meaning to imply that this right allows for a "luxurious" lifestyle. Call me a verbal gymnastic if you wish, I'll wear my tights with pride.

    2. If you believe that driving is a right, shouldn't a blind or hearing impaired person be able to drive?

    Once again you are dumbing yourself down. This confuses me. You know what I am saying, just as our readers do, but you are attempting to inject confusion where there is none. I clearly said that driving is a right for capable adults. A blind man is not capable of operating a motor vehicle, thus it is not a right for him or her. A hearing impaired person, in my opinion, is capable of operating a motor vehicle so I feel it is their right.

    This is a simple concept that my opponent is trying to muddy.

    3. If driving is a right, how can it be taken away by something such as a few of speeding tickets?

    Allow me to quote my opponent before I answer this question.


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    The right to life is just that, a right.


    Do we agree that my opponent has answered his own question? Our right to life can be removed from us for our behaviours. So why couldn't our right to driving be removed for our behaviours? Because it can be removed from us, it does not imply that it is not a right. We have both agreed that life is our right, and yet it can be taken from us legally by the governments of the world.

    This point reinforces that driving is a right to capable adults.


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Next, he rolls out a link from Australia that says the fines could range up to 1245 dollars. I can only guess that he is hoping again that nobody actually checks the link. It clearly states that these fines would be for someone with unbuckled passengers under the age of 16. The actual fine for having 4 adult passengers unbuckled is 238 dollars. Thats roughly $60 each. Now that you see it in real terms, it doesn't sound nearly as bad as my opponent makes it out to be.


    Please take a moment to consider what my opponent has and and done here.

    For one, he has agreed that a fine of over $1200 is a legal option of the Australian government. It is issued to drivers who are operating a motor vehicle with four passengers who are not buckled. Over $1200! Let's pose a completely realistic scenario.

    A high school student gets his or her license and is out with friends one evening. We'll say five of them altogether. None of them wearing a seatbelt, and all of them fifteen years of age. This kid will receive a fine over $1200 for operating a motor vehicle with himself unbuckled and four passengers that are unbuckled. Is this justified? Is $1200 really what is going to prevent this from happening again? Wouldn't community service be a better route?

    $1200 for a seat belt infraction is completely ridiculous and the citations provided in this debate indicate that this is a legal route for the government of Australia to take.

    Another point that I would like to address is my opponent equating the not wearing of a seatbelt to selling drugs or drinking and driving. Many would consider not wearing a seat belt to be a bit of a "risky" behaviour to the individual and nobody else. My opponent has already agreed that the number of individuals killed due to somebody else not wearing a seatbelt is probably next to zero. So me not wearing a seatbelt is not going to affect anybody else. But me drinking and driving or selling drugs is going to affect other people. I could be ruining the lives of other people. So why would he equate not wearing a seatbelt to these actions? Well that's simple, to get that knee-jerk reaction from our readers.

    But what I was alluding to when I referenced a "dangerous" lifestyle was more along the lines of bungee jumping or skydiving. These are risky behaviours that pose a risk to ourselves and nobody else. Thus a much better comparison. Are these behaviours punishable by law?

    How many people do we end up paying for their health care because they were in an accident while participating in a risky behaviour? Contact sports are risky, eating unhealthy foods is risky, smoking and drinking is unhealthy, yet all perfectly legal.

    Not wearing a seatbelt is nothing more than a risky behaviour that poses a risk to the individual. Nobody else. Other risky behaviours that pose a risk to only the individual are completely legal. If we are mandating the use of seatbelts because it saves lives and saves money, then lets mandate that skateboarding, contact sports, harmful substances, etc., are all going to be illegal.

    When the risky behaviour only poses a risk to ourselves, we are permitted to make that decision. Offering these ridiculous amounts of money as deterrents of not wearing a seatbelt is ludicrous and completely unjustified.

    Socratic Questions



    1. If the ideal outcome is simply to deter the unwanted behaviour, then do you feel that excessive punishments are justified?


    Thank you.



    posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:19 PM
    link   
    It seems that rights vs. privilege have become a focal point of this debate. Which I feel they should. Your rights shouldn't be taken away from you unless you infringe upon someone else's rights. A privilege can and will be removed from you for such thing's as speeding tickets and seat belt fines.

    Let's look at a few things that my opponent has said....


    So my opponent trying to narrow the subject matter and fault me for acknowledging what is relevant for our American counterparts is a little off its mark.


    I would say that it is not off the mark at all. The right of property is relevant to our neighbours and rightly so. It's enshrined in their Constitution.

    BUT.

    My opponent said this...


    I am not prepared to hand over my civil liberties in order to enjoy a little bit of safety


    Which implies he feels that it his right to property that is being taken away. His personally. It's right there in his own words. Yet, as a citizen of the best country on the planet, that right isn't afforded to him through our Charter.

    Also, I would like to point out this statement...



    I clearly said that driving is a right for capable adults


    A right is something afforded to all person's, not just to one's deemed capable. That is a slippery slope I would prefer not to ever start down.


    Our right to life can be removed from us for our behaviours.


    Somewhere during this debate, the idea that our privilege to drive is equated to crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty has entered the discourse. My opponent has stated a couple of times now that capital punishment is a removal of our rights on the level of losing our driving privileges. Let us just understand what exactly is being said here. Treason, Murder, Terrorism are on the same level as a seat belt fine.

    Thankfully, our great nation doesn't practice this antiquated and barbaric practice.

    Anyway let's have a look at some more numbers.









    I did say earlier that stats can be manipulated to help with the desired outcome but the numbers themselves don't lie. The use of seat belts reduces fatalities on our roads. That is a fact. It has also been agreed to by my opponent.


    I concede the fact that seat belts save lives


    So let's look at a few other numbers.


    In Canada–where laws are primary, fines are adequate, and use is encouraged with periodic waves of strict, well-publicized enforcement–belt use averages 92 percent. The United States, by contrast, averages 70 percent.


    www.nhtsa.dot.gov...

    Something else we haven't touched upon yet in this debate is the difference between Primary seat belt laws and Secondary seat belt laws.

    Primary laws are ones that a Law Enforcement Officer can pull you over and ticket you for the seat belt infraction. There is no other offence needed to warrant the stop.

    Secondary laws require their to be another infraction before a seat belt fine can be issued. They can not do a traffic stop just on you not wearing a seat belt.

    States in America with a Primary law have a higher rate of compliance compared to the states with Secondary laws. There is also a trend towards a reduction in deaths when a state changes from a secondary type law to a primary type.

    www.nhtsa.dot.gov...

    The majority of people are in favor of having Primary laws. 64% believe they are the right way to go in seat belt enforcement.

    Lets address once and for all this issue of fines. I have stated that I feel that some fines are too high. I have also stated that I don't agree with loosing points added to a fine.

    If it was one or the other, that wouldn't bother me at all.

    My opponent has scoured the net to come up with the highest monetary penalties that he could find for a seat belt infraction.

    The first was $500, I showed how that was justified.

    Next were for $235 and $1245, I showed how the first was a deterrent that was working. The other was for a a fine against having four children under 16 unbelted in the car. Both justifiable circumstances.

    Since I have shown you how these fines are indeed justifiable, my opponent has turned to generalities.


    And the isolated action of not wearing a seatbelt is not an action that justifies a fine of over $200.


    When you are putting children at risk, you better believe that a fine in excess of $200 is justified.


    My opponent agrees that the fines are excessive, but feels that they are justified because of the statistics he reads.


    Yes I do. Not for the statistics I read but for the facts that those stats state.

    Ok, so lets use the USA as a guide for seat belt fines. I can't quote all of them to you, it would be a waste of character space. What I'll do is give you the high end fine and the low end fine. The rest are readable at this link.

    Seat Belt Laws

    The low end is $10, applied in numerous states.

    The high end is $200, applied in Texas.

    Also, there are only three states, including the aforementioned Texas, that fine the person $100 or more.

    The rest are mostly $25-$50. These are in no way extreme and the cases my opponent has offered are the exception not the rule. As I have stated all through out the course of this debate, I don't agree with excessive monetary fines but normal ones are ok. The places with the excessive fines also seem to be the places with the highest compliance. So by default, even if they are high monetarily; the Law Enforcement Officers aren't handing as many of them out. And let's face it, if you know your going to pay a 200, 300, 400 dollar fine for not wearing your seat belt, why the hell would you chose not to wear it?

    I only have two questions this round for my opponent:

    Socratic Questions

    1. What are the seat belt fines in the rest of the provinces in Canada?

    2. What are the compliance rates of the provinces?


    Lastly, I will answer my opponents question.

    1. If the ideal outcome is simply to deter the unwanted behaviour, then do you feel that excessive punishments are justified?

    Although I am required by the rules to offer a yes or no answer, I feel this question is too subjective to have it in such black and white terms.

    If we are just sticking to the debate topic, then yes. The excessive punishments have proven to be a deterrent. If they deter the undesirable behaviour, then they are not being meted out regularly.


    Seat belts saves lives. They save both physical and monetary stress on our health care systems. They are effective in reducing injury to occupants in vehicles during crashes and accident's.

    And that is why seat belt laws are justified.



    posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:30 AM
    link   

    Closing Remarks...



    Ladies and gentleman, the time has come to rap up our remedial exchange and look to our attentive readers for some feedback. I tip my hat to my opponent as he is a worthy adversary. If this debate is to come back with an unfavorable verdict for my side, I will take satisfaction out of this win for my opponent. With that said, I hope the readers agree that I have mopped the floor with him.

    So anyone who is reading this, thank you for taking the time to acknowledge our efforts.

    Let us begin.

    This debate has been a tug of war battle over a few concepts. The leading contender of which appears to be the argument of rights vs privileges. I feel that capable adults have the right to operate a motor vehicles, pending an appropriate history of behaviour. I feel that the individuals who are operating these motor vehicles should be able to make this decision for themselves and not face the ridiculous fines that governments have mandated. My opponent has agreed with me that it's a logical conclusion to state that nobody has ever been killed due to somebody else not wearing a seatbelt. So if we are permitted to make other decisions pertaining to our safety, why should our public officials intrude on this aspect and make the decision for us?

    I would now like to take a moment to review the final Socratic questions posed by my opponent.

    1. What are the seat belt fines in the rest of the provinces in Canada?

    If you are seeking numbers to indicate each provinces legislations, I think you could have taken the time to do this yourself in your own rebuttal. I have taken the time to look for these numbers and I honestly can not find anything. The only provinces that I can find anything on is Ontario & Manitoba, which I have already quoted throughout this debate. I do apologize, but I have looked. In your conclusion, maybe you can provide us with some.

    2. What are the compliance rates of the provinces?

    Again, I wish you could provide me with a link so I can offer a rebuttal to this. I have searched and the only information I can pull are for the provinces of Ontario & Manitoba. And indicated by yourself, the compliance rates are as high as the monetary amounts that we as tax paying citizens are expected to pay.

    Let's move forward.

    Time and time again throughout this debate I have quoted varying fines that violators of this legislation will face. Time and time again my opponent has responded to these statistics with an open and honest opinion. Let us now take a moment to review some of the comments made by my opponent.

    This was his response to the following question:

    1. Do you feel the punishment fits the crime when it comes to seatbelt infractions?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    In most cases yes. I stated earlier that I don't agree with the points deductions for seat belt fines but the normal monetary fine is reasonable. They are really not much more than a parking ticket.


    Bolding Mine

    So on this first example my opponent concedes that he disagrees with the point deductions that drivers face when guilty of violating a seat belt mandate. For someone who is trying to make our readers believe that these laws are justified, speaking in disagreement is an odd choice of approaches.

    Let us look at the next statement by my opponent. I proposed the following question.

    2. Why do you propose the government mandates seatbelt usage, but permits citizens to smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, and actively participate in other death defying activities?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    In a word, greed.


    Greed! Not safety, greed!

    My opponent has done a song and dance talking about how these laws are for our safety and they are justified because of the lives they save. But when I succinctly asked my opponent why these laws are law, he states that it is due to governmental greed. Not safety... GREED.

    And these laws are justified? I don't think so.

    Let's move forward and continue to review the words of my opponent throughout this debate.

    I posed the following question which is an accurate number of the fine for first offenses in the province of Manitoba.

    1. Do you think $235 for a first seat belt infraction is justified?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Yes I would say that is too high. I wouldn't object to fines ranging to $100. I'm not sure of the relevance of this number but I'm sure you'll explain to me
    why you picked this arbitrary amount.


    Once again my opponent concedes that he disagrees with cut and dry legislation. Last time he disagreed with the point deductions that were implemented. This time he disagrees with the monetary amount being issued. With seatbelt fines, we see a combination of monetary fines and point deductions. My opponent, who's responsibility it was to justify these laws, has stated that he feels the monetary amounts are too excessive and the point deductions are wrong. Yet we are to believe that these are justified? But my opponent will say that they save lives. Or wait, no.. it's because of governmental greed. (The words of my opponent.)

    Now the crux of my opponent's presentation throughout this debate has been the statistics. Well when I engaged my opponent on these statistics... let us review what he had to say. The question I posed...

    5. Do you believe the people producing seatbelt statistics operate in an altruistic manner?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Honestly, no. I'll qualify that by saying that statistics can be manipulated to show many different outcomes. I am sure that not every group that is producing the numbers are in it for selfish reason's. Some honestly do care about the safety of other's. The manipulation of data to meet ones ends is a devious but common practice. I won't deny that.


    Bolding Mine

    So he concedes that the statistics that are being published are open to manipulation by biased corporations that have an invested interest. My opponent agrees that the numbers that we are turning to that are supposed to justify seatbelt laws, are skewered.

    Let's look to a few more.

    2) How do you feel about Manitoba having a $235 fine for first time infractions of their seat belt laws, and is it justified?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    I feel it is a high number for a fine, especially when coupled with the points demerit.


    3) Do you agree that seat belts can kill?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    Yep.


    And let us conclude with one more.

    1. If the ideal outcome is simply to deter the unwanted behaviour, then do you feel that excessive punishments are justified?


    Originally posted by GAOTU789
    If we are just sticking to the debate topic, then yes. The excessive punishments have proven to be a deterrent. If they deter the undesirable behaviour, then they are not being meted out regularly.


    So my opponent believes that any punishment that deters a behaviour is justified. Is that justified in and of itself? Would he agree with the severing of limbs for stealing? I mean, if it were proven to deter the behaviour. I won't spend too much time on this because it speaks more than words ever could. It is what it is and I am sure my readers will see this for what it is.

    Completely unjustified.

    I would now like to conclude my side of the debate with some closing thoughts. It is the opinion of this writer that western civilization has been slowly demising through the years. The individual rights and abilities of the individual are slowly being removed and being replaced by black and white legislations to assure our safety. Why some may feel this serves the greater good, I believe it is restricting those among us that want to be capable and responsible for themselves.

    Who am I hurting for not wearing a seatbelt? Health bills that our tax payers might be forced to pay? We as tax payers are paying through the nose to maintain the health of individuals who live unhealthy lifestyles. Those that live a McLifestyle and run to the drive-thru for every meal. The quantity of greasy food that our society consumes is catastrophic. Yet do we mandate what food we can and can not eat? No, we don't. We permit the individual to live their life because they are not hurting anyone else.

    And my by opponent's admission, government mandates seatbelt usage because of greed.

    I opened this debate with a plea to our readers. Do not offer a judgment on this debate regarding what you believe in. If you genuinely feel that seatbelt laws are unjust, do not side with me just because of that. Side with who you believe presented a better case. Raise the arm of one of us who put forth a better case and best represented their position.

    Keeping that in mind, take into account the words of my opponent that I have quoted in my closing statements. How many times can we possibly concede that the monetary amount being quoted is excessive, or the point deductions are wrong, or the sole reason that these rules are implemented in the first place is due to greed.

    How can he state this and possibly think he can win the debate?

    Hold him accountable.

    My opponent has made some strong points in presenting this. But he has slipped up time and time again and has openly agreed with me that seatbelt laws are unjustified. He has just taken the split second to make sure he has not used the term "justified".

    I think I have presented a strong case, but I believe I should be deemed the victor on the fact that my opponent has contradicted his position countless times throughout this debate. He will have the final words and will try to redeem himself, but when he's stuck his foot in his mouth so many times already... does what he have to say next really matter?



    posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:27 PM
    link   
    Well, I obviously shouldn't have gave chissler the extra time to write his closing! Oh well, it was a great weekend. My apologies for the delay.This has been a fantastic contest. It was interesting looking at these numbers in depth.Thanks to Vagabond for giving us such a great topic to argue and thanks to chissler for arguing it with me.
     


    Seatbelt laws are not sufficiently justified

    Closing

    Throughout the course of this debate, I have been asked several questions about my opinion on some of the penalties associated with seat belt infractions. In response, I complied and offered my opinion. My opponent tried hard to exploit this statement I made in my opening.


    There's few things you'll find I agree with when it comes to our Government's and what they legislate


    Now, knowing this is how I feel, my opponent asked a lot of questions that began with "Do you think" or "Why do you" or " Do you believe". I replied with my thoughts and believes. This was a small part of my case and was nothing more than my opinions. It wasn't fact, although it is fact based,my opponent tried to make this the focal point of his side.

    My opinion.

    Not the numbers showing how many lives seat belt's have saved.

    Not the links showing the savings in man hours and money to our health care systems.

    Not the forty three states in America that charge $50 or less for a fine.

    Remember, my opponent has asked this of you twice.


    If you genuinely feel that seatbelt laws are unjust, do not side with me just because of that. Side with who you believe presented a better case. Raise the arm of one of us who put forth a better case and best represented their position.



    I ask that you put your personal opinions aside and read what we have to say. Take our words into consideration and determine who made a better case. Do not conclude this debate saying who was right or wrong, conclude this debate saying who presented a better case for their argument.


    What I have given you is facts. The number of fatalities isn't skewered data. It's a raw number. Although there have been some interesting side points in this debate, my argument for the main topic of this issue has all been fact based.

    I have even taken my opponent's links and shown you how the sensationalist numbers of $500 and $1245 were not the horrible fines they were presented as. They are justified monetary penalties for the endangerment of children. I showed the normal fine for a seat belt infraction in these jurisdictions were $90 and $60. Completely justified.

    Also, I asked my opponent a few questions in my last rebuttal. I can only assume in his effort to discredit my opinion, his search for facts may have been a little unfocused.

    Through this pdf and thiswebsite, I came up with these numbers for Canada.


    SASK-115-92.9
    ONT-110-92.1%
    BC-109-91.7%
    MAN-230-91.3
    QUE-80-91.1
    NS-128.75-91%
    PEI-110-88.2%
    NB-168-87.2%
    NF.100-87%
    YK.75-86.9%
    ALB-115-83.4
    NWT-100-80.2

    It shows that most provinces are levying fines around a $100. It also shows that compliance across Canada is generally higher than the numbers I showed earlier from the US, which have generally lower fines and also have secondary seat belt laws. This straight comparison shows that the deterrents work. The laws work. They save lives and they save money.

    I believe that I have shown you here the better case in whether seat belt laws are justified by giving facts not opinions. I believe I have indeed shown that seat belt laws are justified.

    Thank you



    posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:24 PM
    link   
    GAOTU789 has won.


    chissler, "Eating take out food can kill me just as quick as not wearing a seatbelt,"

    *Wonders what those Canucks are eating these days* ?




    +1 for GAOTU789 - (good point)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO-
    " How much more would the insurance companies be charging us if they weren't mandatory."





    +1 for GAO - (good response)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    chissler -
    "I am not issued a fine for living a "dangerous" lifestyle"

    GAOTU789-
    "In fact you are, and some times even worse penalties. Drinking and driving is the first thing that comes to mind..."





    new topics
     
    2

    log in

    join