Instigator / Pro
4
1498
rating
32
debates
67.19%
won
Topic
#5374
Drunk Driving should not be illegal
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
7000series
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
6
1511
rating
21
debates
35.71%
won
Description
The debate is about whether drunk driving laws should be substantially loosened or not. I do not have to prove absolute legalization of drunk driving only that the laws need to be loosened significantly and certainly enforced a lot less than the status quo. No semantics. I have the harder case to make so any sort of shenanigans from con to twist the debate even more in his favor than arguing as intended should be a conduct violation.
Round 1
The problem with drunk driving laws is that they restrict our freedoms and in some cases cause more deaths and destruction than they prevent. As per the debate's description I only have to prove that the laws surrounding Drinking and driving should be loosened. I will do this because DUI checkpoints should be considered unconstitutional, field sobriety tests are essentially as reliable as flipping a coin and because drunk driving charges are often an excuse to violate other rights. Not to mention some people are just good drunk drivers.
CONSTITUTION
The stopping of a vehicle in a traffic stop is considered a seizure. The 4th amendment of the United States constitution protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. The courts have considered pretty much any stop that is not for DUI purposes but to catch other law breakers unconstitutional. This means that if a mass murderer just killed 200 people and is reported to have jumped in a random car trunk to get away and be on the way to kill another 500 then police cannot set up a checkpoint to stop every car and check their trunks. However for whatever reason they have somehow been granted the authority to completely stop traffic and subject every random car to unreasonable search and seizure on the off chance they catch a drunk driver.
DANGEROUS
Checkpoints are ineffective and can create dangerous circumstances. We all have apps on our phone like the WAZE app. This app allows you to spot police presence and navigate to going around the checkpoints. What this means for society is that instead of a drunk driver taking a direct path home on a major street you have allowed them to drive a longer distance and through neighborhoods where kids could be playing outside. Not only does this create a dangerous circumstance within residential areas but it also keeps the drunk driver on the road longer and makes us all less safe.
COPS ARE JUST GUESSING
When it comes to whether cops are arresting drunks or not it is just guess work by them. The NHTS conducted a study to see if cops were any good at actually detecting if somebody was drunk from a field sobriety test. The test involved getting subjects drunk. Half were drunk and half were sober and the cops put them through field sobriety tests. It was determined that the police were no better at predicting who was drunk than a person flipping a coin would be.
Police departments are routinely sued and lose cases for putting sober people behind bars for being drunk.
Unrelated Punishments
Some people are losing their other constitutional rights to DWI/DUI laws. A man is reported to have lost his gun. So the laws are an excuse to take completely unrelated rights away, which is unfair. Lets not forgget some people drunk drive better than others drive sober.
Conclusion
These laws allow sobriety tests which result in false arrests and violate your constitutional rights. The laws have unfair punishments and things need to be loosened significantly.
The problem with drunk driving laws is that they restrict our freedoms and in some cases cause more deaths and destruction than they prevent.
Here are some countries without DUI laws
1: Guinea-Bissau
- crash rate: 32.2/100,000
2: Togo
- crash rate: 28.7/100,000
3: The Gambia
- crash rate: 29.6/100,000
Now compare that with the US
- 0.08% blood-alcohol limit
- crash rate: 12.9/100,000
Now compare that with Sweden
- 0.02% blood-alcohol limit
- crash rate: 2.2/100,000
Compared to Sweden, US citizens are 10x more likely to die in an alcohol related accident.
DUI laws do work. But are they constitutional?
Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Keyword: unreasonable
It is completely reasonable for the police to search your vehicle, because as a driver, you share the road with other people.
DUI laws are completely constitutional, and DUI laws discourage drunk driving.
Conclusion: DUI laws are justified.
Round 2
The countries con listed are all in West Africa and are very poor nations that have a few things in common. Anyone with 5 minutes I encourage you to do a google maps search and look at satellite images of the roads you find. You will undoubtedly fins a few modern roads in these countries but often they are roads that look like this picture https://images.app.goo.gl/XcNXKNrXWKGgiamo7
In other words roads that are unmaintained and easy to lose control on in areas with no police presence and often desert roads like the one pictured that will kick up dust and blind drivers. There is practically no sidewalks so people walk in the roads, lions and other wildlife walk over the road.
The drivers are also worse, not because they are drunk but because they have an average IQ of below 70 https://zinahissa.medium.com/list-of-african-countries-by-iq-95b2c3befd40 . A low enough IQ to be considered mildly mentally retarded. So you can expect an increase in accidents if the average driver is a retard. There are considerably better explanations for the traffic fatalities than lack of DUI laws, particularly when countries like south africa also rank high in traffic fatalities but do have DUI laws.
Sweden's reductions in death they admit does not come from enforcemt of laws but from engineering. They have a 2+1 road plan where the 3rd lane can switch directions. This has reduced deaths by 155 people a year. They have increased visibility for over 12000 pedestrian crossings over the last 5 years. they expect this to halve the rate of death again. They have lowered speed limits on busy roads and in major cities. They have also built physical barriers to keep bikers safer from drivers. https://qz.com/319940/why-sweden-has-the-worlds-safest-roads It makes more sense to attribute their low fatalities to these things especially when they directly state enforcement of anything has very little impact on how they have reduced death.
It is completely reasonable for the police to search your vehicle, because as a driver, you share the road with other people."
Reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle has been determined to clear articulable suspicion of a crime, and several parts of the country have banned dui checkpoints because they agree that randomly driving down the road does not qualify as reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. So yes courts have determined what qualifies as reasonable and randomly driving down the road doesn't qualify. my other arguments about violating rights and being unfair for example by taking away the right to own a fire arm have been dropped as is my argument that some drunk drivers drive better than some sober drivers.
My argument that cops are just guessing when it comes to field sobriety tests has been dropped so has my argument that dui checkpoints make roads unsafer because drivers will avoid them by driving on the road more to get around them and possibly going through residential areas where children play to do so.
My argument that cops are just guessing when it comes to field sobriety tests has been dropped
Conceded: Police officers are for the most part just guessing.
some drunk drivers drive better than some sober drivers
Irrelevant: Let's focus on trends in the data, not outliers.
and possibly going through residential areas where children play to do so
Can you give me some data? I didn't think so.
Children don't play out in the street at 11 PM.
Several parts of the country have banned DUI checkpoints
Most of the country has agreed that DUI checkpoints are constitutional.
Now that that's done with, let me reiterate:
Readers, it is that simple.
Round 3
It's the final round of this debate so let's talk about what I have proven and what points con has dropped even in his own arguments.
Violates rights
I have argued that DUI checkpoints qualify as an unreasonable search and seizure, violating the 4th amendment. refer to my last round where I stated the following;
Reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle has been determined to clear articulable suspicion of a crime, and several parts of the country have banned dui checkpoints because they agree that randomly driving down the road does not qualify as reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. So yes courts have determined what qualifies as reasonable and randomly driving down the road doesn't qualify.
Nobody can accept con's appeal to authority because there are also supreme courts who agree with me as well and I gave a reason for why they should agree with my interpretation, while he has just appealed to the authority of judges.
I pointed out in my first argument that it was unfair to strip somebody of rights such as gun ownership based on the bullshit judgement of cops which con concedes have terrible judgement and particularly when the rights being stripped have nothing to do with the crime in question.
Dangerous
I have argued that DUI checkpoints can make roads more dangerous because it often forces drivers to take longer rides home keeping them on the streets longer than a direct route would and often rerouting them through residential areas to avoid the checkpoints on main roads. I argued that potentially children could be at risk, his argument in response is that parents shouldn't let their children play outside that late anyway or that it's just a few extra kids dying and no big deal, but I would like to point out that a kid doesn't have to be out playing. He could be coming home at night from a visit to the grocery store, as a pedestrian or walking from his driveway to the house. It's not unheard of from drunk drivers to randomly crash through a house while riding around at night, it could be a child's bedroom they crash through. I'd rather have an increased police presence catching reckless drivers than a presence that diverts drivers away from police to endanger the rest of us or the flashing lights ahead that gives drunk drivers a chance to throw some tic tacs in their mouth and avoid suspicion so they can continue endangering the lives of others
Rebuttal
My rebuttals all stand such as my arguments for why South Africa is dangerous to drive in. My opponent hasn't really defended his position he merely keeps moving the goal posts and as a result the judges should vote me the winner of this debate
Forfeited
if ur like mildly drunk, sure i don't see a problem
Think of drunk driving like Mario kart and the people as coins.
Fun fact:
People that are sober cause 75% of car crashes
I say we ban sober and driving!
It's not the drunk drivers, it's the drunk crashers that make us look bad!
It sucks when that happens vutbitis still easier than debating a schizophrenic.
Oh no! It's a competent opponent!
I have some statistics myself
Wylted, prepare for a salvo of statistics!
I always felt like it is a lie that alcohol makes you dumb and reckless. It enhances your creativity and social skills and makes you more in touch with your emotions.