Instigator / Pro
1
1529
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Drunk driving should be legal.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
1
0

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

FourTrouble
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Cars
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Contender / Con
0
1696
rating
67
debates
70.15%
won
Description
~ 577 / 5,000

"Drunk" means "having a blood-alcohol level of .08 or above." "Driving" means "the control and operation of a motor vehicle." "Be," "should," and "legal" have their ordinary meaning. Basically, this debate is about the DUI laws in most states. The criminal offense is "driving while you have a blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater, regardless of whether the alcohol has had any effect on you."

This is a normative topic, so burdens of persuasion are equal on both sides. Starting points are equal. Pro must show that drunk driving should be legal. Con must show the opposite.

Added:
Instigator
--> @coal

I'd like to know your deal with the Oxford comma.

Added:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6169/post-links/267088

My RFD

Added:
Contender
--> @FourTrouble

Thank you. It was a good debate. Well done.

Added:
Instigator
--> @fauxlaw

Thanks for the debate.

We'll see what the voters think now.

Added:
Contender

Here are my sources for R3:

1 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-alcohols-effects-1-2860

2 https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/

3 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

4 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data

5 https://www.sallerlaw.com/20-facts-to-understand-a-dui-arrest/

5 https://driversed.com/trending/driving-under-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work

7 https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fmotorvehiclesafety%2Fimpaired_driving%2Fimpaired-drv_factsheet.html

8 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

9 https://www.responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FAAR_3974_State-of-Drunk-Driving-Fatalities_Shareable_JPGS-V2-Pg10.jpg

10 https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/dui/

Added:
--> @FourTrouble

Right now the phrasing risks the special licensing as an exception with it still generally being illegal for the vast majority of drivers. It needlessly risks an unfavorable interpretation of the resolution against you.

Take marijuana as an example. In a state where it is criminal to use recreationally, if someone proposes legalizing it, no one says 'but it's already legal, since cancer patients may use it medicinally.'

If someone argues the right to bare arms should apply when visiting the white house, that secret service may carry loaded weapons, hardly means said weapons are generally legal there for any normal civilian.

Added:
Instigator
--> @Ragnar

I don't follow what you mean. "Path for legality" (presumably you mean licensing?) is not "opposed" to "general legality." It's how the regulated space of driving already works.

Added:
--> @FourTrouble

If doing this again I advise clarifying the resolution, as you seem to be arguing for there to be a path for legality, as opposed to general legality.

Added:
--> @RationalMadman

I don't assume he's correct, merely that it is a good topic. Even more so since the status quo is he's wrong.

Added:
Contender
--> @FourTrouble

Thank you. I should advise that, during a debate, I tend to avoid comments so that voters are not influenced by any commentary outside of the debate, itself. Strictly a personal rule b y which I mean no offense. The only exception I try to make is if I need to add my sourcing outside of the debate to conserve all characters/spaces needed within the debate, for the debate, which is allowed by DArt policy.

Added:
Instigator
--> @fauxlaw

Nice argument. This will be a fun debate.

Added:
Contender

I'll take it, regardless.
FourTrouble: welcome to DArt. Good luck.

Added:
--> @Ragnar

not really, please see my other debate with him to see why it's wrong from all angles.

Added:

Good topic.