Drunk Driving

The goal of traffic laws is to ensure every single person drives as safely as possible. We of course know that some people can drive better than others, but that does not prevent us from using a single standard. Even if you could drive much faster on the roads and still drive more safely than normal humans (because you are a good driver), that does not mean that you should be allowed to do so --- because every person is required to drive as safely as they can manage, and must follow laws set up for this very purpose.

We can agree that some people are less affected by alcohol than others, and some people are very good at driving and can drive safely even while affected by alcohol. However, nobody can deny that every single person on Earth can drive safer when sober than they can while drunk. As a result, we can safely conclude that drunk driving decreases everyone's ability to drive, always, and without exception.

FourTrouble's argument hinges on the idea that as long as you drive as safe as other people you should be allowed to drive while drunk. While this might be a good argument, it still isn't perfect. Since the purpose of traffic laws is to maximize each individual's chances of causing an accident, and every single person is less mentally capable of driving while drunk, the only valid conclusion is that nobody should be driving while drunk. This fact should not be contested lest one denies the purpose of traffic laws. 

Specialized driving and drunk driving are not the same. Specialised driving means you drive a vehicle to the best of your ability. But to drive while drunk means to intentionally make the roads slightly more dangerous. Drunk driving violates the purpose of traffic laws: driving your vehicle as safely as you can. Thus, drunk driving does indeed stick out as an unnecessary evil that should be removed. 10.000 deaths each year are caused by people who thought that this danger of drunk driving didn't matter, and their stories are more than enough evidence to show that drunk driving kills, and therefore we should ban drunk driving.

Unless FourTrouble denies that even perfect driving doesn't ensure a 0% death chance he cannot deny that even an experienced drunk driver is a greater traffic risk while drunk.

FourTrouble's logic for claiming that drunk drivers don' deserve punishment is that they neither intend nor cause harm. Yet some people drive recklessly without causing harm and without intending harm. By his logic, they too don't deserve punishment. With us getting such strange results when applying FourTrouble's logic, we can make no other conclusion than to deny its validity. Surely, we don't punish those that actually harm themselves -- we don't punish those that die in a car crash.

Traffic laws do not punish harm, they punish unnecessary increases in the chance of harm --- a category drunk driving falls into.

FourTrouble's argument, at least his claim that "DUI laws serve no purpose in our justice system", fails.

Thought you would be interested based on your previous interest of yours in this topic.

Hey, Benjamin

Without discouraging your enthusiasm I'd like to discourage you from posting arguments that address specific debates in progress.  It's not against the rules or anything, it's just that debates should have a chance to excel without the prejudice and confusion introduced by arguments made by non-participants.  Suppose you make such a good argument that  a debater uses it in the debate and now one debater is essentially arguing against two participants? Or suppose you beat a debater to an argument which allows the counterargument an unfair opportunity to prefute?  What if your argument is so much more persuasive than the arguments made in the debate that it prejudices voters against an objective evaluation of the actual arguments made?   Moreover, by taking a position within the debate before the debate is completed, you have essentially disqualified yourself as an objective voter- which is a bit of a shame since debates have a hard enough time attracting interested readers to vote.

I think this kind of counterargument is totally appropriate, even commendable in response to a completed (post-voting) debate but when submitted during an active debate, I think there's some chance of introducing unfair bias disadvantaging some hard working debaters.  You're making a lot of great new contributions to the site and I don't want you to daunt your good work, I just wanted to express my concern about the potential for interference this type of post might represent.

I was not planning to vote, as my votes tend to be a bit bad anyways; and the argument I present can't be used as the debate is in the voting phase, but I understand your concern. I have reported my post and you can delete it if you want.

I don't think any action is warranted, I just wanted to express my concern.  Again, thanks for your contributions to the site.

It should be against the rules.

I might be voting on one of those, so I really can't read your review right now. I might come back to it later.

I advise anyone considering voting on said debates, to do likewise until after voting.

If an argument hinges on a stupid idea, then it would be a stupid argument.

Though a debate is not necessarily about the good sense of an argument.

Presented appropriately, one could successfully argue that 2+2=5.

I don't necessary support the side I argued in this debate btw. I just thought it would be a challenging topic to argue, and I don't enjoy easy debates. 

So you are saying that DUI laws are the very reason drunk drivers drive safely because they force drunk drivers to step up their play whilst sober drivers slack of.  I might agree. Hower, I do still uphold that everyone should drive as safely as possible, and that drunk driving is unnesesarily increasing risk of harm, whislt other types of specialised driving simply requires other types of driving skills. One could say that drunk driving is a STYLE of driving, while driving other vehicles is a METHOD of driving, and a method (like normal driving) is influenced by alcohol, making the extra risk unnecesary and directly caused by the alcohol.

Not the only reason drunks drive safely -- their own survival also motivates heightened care.

I agree that people should drive as safely as they can. But the role of the law is limited in this respect.