#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
There should be higher penalties for people who get caught not wearing a seatbelt
Agree
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 26
|
|
1
point
|
I think it's stupid, it should be their choice. We don't say you get fined if you go climbing with bad ropes, so how is this any different? Only responsibility in this case should be parents making young children wear seatbelts, or tour companies getting passengers to. Side: Disagree
You are forgetting the medical costs to hospitals who have to take these people in, do their damn best to keep them alive, and then having them die anyway so they can't collect the cost. Among other reasons. Not wearing a seatbelt affects everyone involved, not just you. And children tend to follow the examples of their parents. Side: Disagree
Yes, but you're not driving a car. They are two different activities with two different levels of safety procedures, risks, etc. Wearing a seatbelt takes what, 2 or 3 seconds? Going climbing with ropes signifies a clear intent to putting your life at risk, but driving responsibly (while not without risk itself) doesn't. One is a thrill-seeking activity, the other is a means of transportation and part of daily life. You can't compare the two and get the same results. Side: Disagree
Climbing can totally be part of daily life! And so can things like horse riding. Cars are just as dangerous, just because more people use them doesn't change the fact. Also seatbelts can be awful, for example my mother didn't wear them when she was pregnant with me because if there was an emergency stop I could have been damaged. You shouldn't have to wear them. It should be personal choice. I'm sick of this 'nanny state' ideology, that everyone has to be protected from themselves. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
I think your ropes example is a bit off. Let me use ropes in a different example. The difference between wearing a seat belt and not is the difference between climbing with your rope having a little too much slack or not using one. I say this because comparing it to normally using rope is normal and by comparison wearing or not wearing a seat belt and not needing it. The seat belt and rope is something you use but do not focus on. You should be focused on the road driving or the wall you are climbing. No rope you fall and you might still be OK or depending how far you fall (or how bad of an accident) you might die. A safety line still means you are going to fall but you might only fall 10 feet. It's going to hurt it you fall and that rope stops you but it is far less than falling down the entire wall. A seat belt might well injure you but there is a good chance that you will be injured less if you are wearing it as opposed to not. Side: Agree
1
point
Seat belts are made not only to protect users, but the family of the user. If the user dies, there is no fine, if the user live that is indirectly affecting the family of the user, thus defeating the purpose of the fine in the 1st place. No seat belt fines should not be higher, instead they should be nonexistent. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
The seat belt may save lives, the fine does nothing but ensure that people follow the seatbelt law. Yet if everyone isn't following the seat belt law then it's not perfectly ensured, therefore it's virtually useless. All it does is give the government money from people who don't have the time to follow their rules or cause people who normally follow the rules, but have a momentary lapse of judgement, to have to pay a silly fine. Side: Disagree
1
point
Actually this law has made more people buckle up. Your example males perfect sense but that isnt our present case. If there is no offense for not wearing a seatbelt then people just wont wear it. This would increase the number of car crash fatalities. Most of which could have been just car accidents if seatbelts were being worn. All it does is give the government money from people who don't have the time to follow their rules The seatbelt takes like 6 seconds to put on. It isnt a waste of time. It is in fact a life saver and this is why the government gives the money it collects from these laws to the police stations and companies that manage the road so we can reduce the number of fatalities. Side: Agree
1
point
If there is no offense for not wearing a seatbelt then people just wont wear it. I'm pretty sure out of the people who wear their seatbelt, some wear it just because they know it can protect them. If everyone was just wearing seat belts because the government was scaring them into doing it, how is that just? The seatbelt takes like 6 seconds to put on. It isnt a waste of time. It is in fact a life saver and this is why the government gives the money it collects from these laws to the police stations and companies that manage the road so we can reduce the number of fatalities. Waste of time or not, it's money taken from people for not doing what the government has scared them into doing. The way you explained it you made it seem the only money police officers get is from seat belt violators. Meaning if seat belt violators didn't violate the rule, there'd be no money for the police. Yet I know this isn't the actual case, but the way you explained it also says that the only thing seat belt laws are good for is getting people to pay the police to get them to wear their seatbelts, it's a vicious circle. Side: Disagree
1
point
 If everyone was just wearing seat belts because the government was scaring them into doing it, how is that just? I dont think saying if you arent wearing your seatbelt you will pay 50 dollars is "scary". Your mindset will typically be "I do not want to pay that." The way you explained it you made it seem the only money police officers get is from seat belt violators. Meaning if seat belt violators didn't violate the rule, there'd be no money for the police. I re-read my argument and didnt find me saying or even hinting at th fact that this is thier only income. All that was said was that police get money from the government to enforce seatbelt laws in order to help save lives. Yet I know this isn't the actual case, but the way you explained it also says that the only thing seat belt laws are good for is getting people to pay the police to get them to wear their seatbelts, it's a vicious circle. Yet again not the case. If I meant to say this I would have said it but thats not my point at all. My entire argument is primarily about the safety of seatbelts amd why the need more enforcement. This "vicious circle" doesnt exist if I may say. Side: Agree
1
point
I dont think saying if you arent wearing your seatbelt you will pay 50 dollars is "scary". Your mindset will typically be "I do not want to pay that." It's not 'scary' in the typical sense, but it's a scare tactic. They are punishing people for not following that law, not like the fine is actually helping people. Take prison for example. It's a scare tactic that actually serves the purpose of keeping the criminals a way from the public, while a fine for not wearing a seat belt does not actually do anything. That fine basically says rich people don't have to wear seatbelts, or poor people will always have to go to prison for not wearing one. All that was said was that police get money from the government to enforce seatbelt laws in order to help save lives. They get money from seat belt fines, to help pay for people to enforce the law that fines people for not wearing seat belts. How does a vicious circle solve anything? My entire argument is primarily about the safety of seatbelts amd why the need more enforcement. I never said seatbelts aren't safe, I just don't think we need a fine for not being safe. Why are bungee jumpers not fined? How about extreme sports players? Hell driving a car is a dangerous enough activity, yet we are not fined for that, just not wearing a seatbelt. Smoking cigarettes is not illegal because mostly the government does not want to nanny people, yet they are doing just that by making lacking a seatbelt illegal. They recognise smoking as bad for you, and they leave pamphlets everywhere, and make tons of commercials to get you to stop, yet they never come out to make it illegal. I feel that they can do the same thing for seat belts. This "vicious circle" doesnt exist if I may say. I showed you how it does in an earlier topic. Side: Disagree
1
point
That fine basically says rich people don't have to wear seatbelts, or poor people will always have to go to prison for not wearing one. Since when? You pay for what you did. Regardless if you are poor or not. They are punishing people for not following that law, not like the fine is actually helping people. This fine helps organizations and police forces to further press for seatbelt awareness. This helps people remember to put one on. They get money from seat belt fines, to help pay for people to enforce the law that fines people for not wearing seat belts. How does a vicious circle solve anything? How is this strategy vicious? If it just helps people put seatbelts on this is a great circle. Why are bungee jumpers not fined? How about extreme sports players? Hell driving a car is a dangerous enough activity, yet we are not fined for that, just not wearing a seatbelt. Dp these help with mass transit? America is heavily dependant on cars. Bungee jumping doea not make America function. Cars do. Extreme sports? How does seatbelt safety correlate with extreme sports especially since these dont relate to each other. Racecar drivers are literally restrained in their vehicles. They know that is an extreme thing to do. Smoking cigarettes is not illegal because mostly the government does not want to nanny people, yet they are doing just that by making lacking a seatbelt illegal. Cigarettes can be lived without. They also dont relate with cars and seatbelt safety. Cars are necessary now a days for Americans and you are almost out of luck if you do not have one. Therefore there must be precautions in place and that safety precaution is your seatbelt. Literally just taking 6 seconds to increase your chance of living should not be much of a problem. They recognise smoking as bad for you, and they leave pamphlets everywhere, and make tons of commercials to get you to stop, yet they never come out to make it illegal. I feel that they can do the same thing for seat belts. Smoking is long term. Seatbelts are quite quick and necessary since you want the greatest chance of living. Laws of motion tend to favor seatbelt use. It's not 'scary' in the typical sense, but it's a scare tactic. They are punishing people for not following that law, not like the fine is actually helping people. Take prison for example. It's a scare tactic that actually serves the purpose of keeping the criminals a way from the public, while a fine for not wearing a seat belt does not actually do anything. Laws serve a purpose and most are for order or protection. This is a law for your safety. This law makes people buckle up and increase there chance for survival. The examples you gave are a little to far off key to correlate them to seatbelts and those laws. You get ticketed for not putting your blinker on or even speeding. You can get a ticket for having broken taillights. These laws are to ensure your safety and the safety of others. Side: Agree
1
point
Since when? You pay for what you did. Regardless if you are poor or not. True but if you can't pay a fine, or don't the sentence is prison. Meaning for people making it day to day paycheck to paycheck that can't afford gas money all the time, they will be facing prison for slipping up. While rich people will pay that 50 dollars no problem and continue to not wear that seat belt. This fine helps organizations and police forces to further press for seatbelt awareness. This helps people remember to put one on. Yet some people still don't meaning it's not perfect. So if it's not perfect they are using it only to get money from people. If they really want to try to get people to wear seatbelts, make more commercials and do other things like giving out more pamphlets. How is this strategy vicious? If it just helps people put seatbelts on this is a great circle. A sequence of reciprocal cause and effect in which two or more elements intensify and aggravate each other The law makes the rule to wear your seat belt or pay a fine. You don't wear the seat belt, you now pay a fine. The fine money goes to paying officers to fine you, and so on. Dp these help with mass transit? America is heavily dependant on cars. The rest of this statement I don't get. Are you implying seat belts help the car industry? Cigarettes can be lived without. So can seat belts. They also dont relate with cars and seatbelt safety. It's an analogy. People who smoke are a danger to their life, and by cause and effect a danger to those who depend on them. people who don't wear seat belts are too. There is no law on smoking, a dangerous activity or extreme sports, there is a law on not wearing a seatbelt, another activity alleged to be dangerous. herefore there must be precautions in place and that safety precaution is your seatbelt. Literally just taking 6 seconds to increase your chance of living should not be much of a problem. You insist on continuing to point out the safety and easy in seat belts as if I'm against them. I'm against seat belt laws, I'm also against smoking laws. I feel that seat belts are good for you and you should use them if you want but not be forced to, while smoking is bad for you and you should quit but not be forced to. Laws serve a purpose and most are for order or protection. How do seat belt laws protect people? Not seat belts, the laws alone. This law makes people buckle up and increase there chance for survival. Yet everyone doesn't. If they want to wear a seatbelt they have that opportunity to yet if they don't want to wear a seatbelt they will have to pay. You get ticketed for not putting your blinker on or even speeding. Because by doing one of those activities you endanger others. Yet by not wearing a seatbelt who do you endanger? You can get a ticket for having broken taillights. Again others can be harmed when you turn without letting them know. These laws are to ensure your safety and the safety of others.* How do seat belts ensure the safety of others? Side: Disagree
1
point
True but if you can't pay a fine, or don't the sentence is prison. Meaning for people making it day to day paycheck to paycheck that can't afford gas money all the time, they will be facing prison for slipping up. While rich people will pay that 50 dollars no problem and continue to not wear that seat belt. You are no longer on topic. You are straying from your original topic or even the topic at hand. Yet some people still don't meaning it's not perfect. So if it's not perfect they are using it only to get money from people. If they really want to try to get people to wear seatbelts, make more commercials and do other things like giving out more pamphlets. Perfection was never mentioned. I never touched on the prime basis of perfection. Also they have plenty of phamplets, commercials, websties, assemblies, school meetings, road way signs, etc. The law makes the rule to wear your seat belt or pay a fine. You don't wear the seat belt, you now pay a fine. The fine money goes to paying officers to fine you, and so on. And more people put their seatbelts on. The get the "Click it or ticket" message. Therefore your embodiment of a circle has a fracture in it. The rest of this statement I don't get. Are you implying seat belts help the car industry? Seatbelts are necessary because they reduce the number of fatalities by car accidents. Mass transit is one of the only ways America functions collectively and effectively. Safety precautions are necessary just like in plane travel. So can seat belts. Not quite. These belts save lives and prevent deaths. Cigarettes do not save lives but in fact hinder them. It's an analogy. People who smoke are a danger to their life, and by cause and effect a danger to those who depend on them. people who don't wear seat belts are too. There is no law on smoking, a dangerous activity or extreme sports, there is a law on not wearing a seatbelt, another activity alleged to be dangerous. As a student in Advanced Placement English Language your analogies do not connect correctly or effectively with seatbelt due to the heavy differences between them. You insist on continuing to point out the safety and easy in seat belts as if I'm against them. I'm against seat belt laws, I'm also against smoking laws. I feel that seat belts are good for you and you should use them if you want but not be forced to, while smoking is bad for you and you should quit but not be forced to. I know you are against the law. These laws are required in order to save and protect lives. If the driver has 4 passengers, including himself for a total of 4, in the car with him and they have seatbelts on but he doesnt and they get into am accident the drivers body can potentially kill all of the other passengers since his body will be "flung" around. Yet everyone doesn't. If they want to wear a seatbelt they have that opportunity to yet if they don't want to wear a seatbelt they will have to pay. If you get caught you have to pay. Yes, but they are endangering themselves. Like I said before the government must regulate such a mass industry and promote safety measures. Seatbelts help with this just like airbags do. Because by doing one of those activities you endanger others. Yet by not wearing a seatbelt who do you endanger? Yourself and any other passengers and if your body flies out of the car who sees this? Others. They freak out and bam. Now we have a pile up and these things happen. You are putting your passengers in a high risk situation. Again others can be harmed when you turn without letting them know.These laws are to ensure your safety and the safety of others.How do seat belts ensure the safety of others?* Already answered. Your argument is slipping in context and your diction amd quite frankly your syntax is slipping from its initial point as well. Side: Agree
1
point
You are no longer on topic. You are straying from your original topic or even the topic at hand. I was answering the question you gave me. So if it's off topic it sprung from an off topic statement on your part, as is the case with this portion of the dispute. Perfection was never mentioned. I never touched on the prime basis of perfection. Also they have plenty of phamplets, commercials, websties, assemblies, school meetings, road way signs, etc. Then why does there need to be fines? And more people put their seatbelts on. The get the "Click it or ticket" message. Therefore your embodiment of a circle has a fracture in it. Or ticket. That portion does not need to be there, it's a scare tactic. Seatbelts are necessary because they reduce the number of fatalities by car accidents. A topic I never disagreed with. Mass transit is one of the only ways America functions collectively and effectively. Safety precautions are necessary just like in plane travel. Yet if one person does not wear their seatbelt no other person accept that person is at risk. Not quite. These belts save lives and prevent deaths. Cigarettes do not save lives but in fact hinder them. This reversal may be from an error on my part. I am saying cigarettes are bad for you. yet they are not illegal. Not wearing a seatbelt is bad for you yet it's a fineable offense. That seems odd. As a student in Advanced Placement English Language your analogies do not connect correctly or effectively with seatbelt due to the heavy differences between them. I believe in clearing up my analogy that it will make more sense to you. These laws are required in order to save and protect lives. So why are there no laws against cigarettes? If the driver has 4 passengers, including himself for a total of 4, in the car with him and they have seatbelts on but he doesnt and they get into am accident the drivers body can potentially kill all of the other passengers since his body will be "flung" around. Could you show me evidence of this unlikely scenario, and what about cases where the driver is solo. Those 'click it or ticket' commercials often show solitary drivers, getting ticketed. Yes, but they are endangering themselves. And smokers are not? How about people who overeat, or (as I said before) do extreme sports? Side: Disagree
1
point
Then why does there need to be fines? How else will you put your seatbelt on? Or ticket. That portion does not need to be there, it's a scare tactic. Prove that it is. It more like punishment. Like detention. So why are there no laws against cigarettes? Dude you tell me that. I have no clue lol. Lobbying maybe? I am not sure. I will make a debate about that. Could you show me evidence of this unlikely scenario, and what about cases where the driver is solo. Those 'click it or ticket' commercials often show solitary drivers, getting ticketed. Evidence for unbuckled car crashes And smokers are not? How about people who overeat, or (as I said before) do extreme sports? True they endanger themselves. But can any of them be instantaneous? Police love to speak to young teens who are new to driving because they have a high risk or crashing. Usually causing an accident shortly in the first three months. Side: Agree
1
point
How else will you put your seatbelt on? Allow me to answer this with a question. How else will people stop smoking if there is no law preventing it. The answer to both is, that people who care for safety will do what is safest for them, while people who don't will not. Prove that it is. It more like punishment. Like detention. Prove that 'click it or ticket' is a scare tactic. Well let me break down the characteristics of a scare tactic. it's a method someone in power uses to get others to listen to them without using force. The or in there represents the ultimatum that either you do this or you do that. Ultimatums are most commonly threats. For instance, "You behave or you will be kicked out of this house" a scare tactic, threat, ultimatum issued by parents to an unruly 18+ year old child. As for it being more like a punishment, the threat of punishment for non compliance when no one could really be hurt for not complying, is a scare tactic. Dude you tell me that. I have no clue lol. Lobbying maybe? I am not sure. I will make a debate about that I believe that the reason may be people don't want a nanny. The reason alcohol was not made illegal for long was because people, who know what's bad for them, will always reject laws that try to prevent them from doing it. it's happening with marijuana, and it's happened with gun control laws. Evidence for unbuckled car crashes Maybe some facts, and not a dramatic video? But can any of them be instantaneous? Police love to speak to young teens who are new to driving because they have a high risk or crashing. THis is an alternative to a fine. When a person does not wear a seatbelt they are causing the harm. The damage is done, and the money they get can do no good to the life of the people in the crash, the family of them, or the next people that get into a crash and don't wear their seatbelt because 50 dollars is a cheap fine. Side: Disagree
1
point
Your link kept applying to marijuana which doesnt match seatbelts at all. Literally. You still never proved that smoking can kill on the spot. Your examples dont save anyone. Seatbelts do. That is why these analogies dont pair up. Enforcing the wearing of seatbelts doeant do any harm. Side: Agree
1
point
Your link kept applying to marijuana which doesnt match seatbelts at all. My link was another dramatic scare tactic video, so the premise is the same. They take most likely real facts and distort them dramatically. You still never proved that smoking can kill on the spot. I did not prove smoking can kill on the spot, but I proved other things, that are still not illegal, that can kill on the spot. Your examples dont save anyone. My examples are not to save anyone, I didn't say smokign or extreme sports does. My exmaples show how people can do what they want that can harm them yet the police, or the government make no physical effort to stop them. That is why these analogies dont pair up. In fact the analogies, compare legal extreme sports to legally riding with no seatbelt. if you do extreme sports, police do nothing even though you cankill yourself. If you ride with no seatbelt police take money from you, for the purpose of paying themselves to be there to take money from you for riding with no seat belt. Enforcing the wearing of seatbelts doeant do any harm. I don't think I said it does harm, if I did my apologies. I said that forcing us to wear seat belts does not do anything positive because the people who care will, while the people who don't care will take that risk. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
Your examples are the opposite of what the purpose of seatbelts are for. I say seat belts are for protecting people. my examples are showing how seatbelt laws are just extortion. This also isnt really a scare tactic. They are trying to prptect you. Trying to protect you...by scaring you. Like Scared Straight Programs. Can you prove that seatbelt enforcement is just a scare tactic? Can I see a link? Mostly common sense but here's a link Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
The laws are just laws. They dont even scare you. They may not scare all, but they are made to scare people into the proper way of thinking. Whether it's acceptable or not, it's undeniable. It is a fine. Not a threat. The threat of a fine. 'Click it or ticket' is a threat. If one says "I will destroy you if you touch my soda." They are both threatening them and if they do it, punishing them. Common sense doesnt follow your path of thinking nor you reasoning if you just call it a "scar tactic". Common sense says to me that if the money I pay for not wearing my seatbelt isn't helping me to where my seatbelt that it's stupid to pay the fine. Common sense says to me that if I'm being threatened to pay a fine for not wearing my seatbelt even though paying the fine won't protect me, that I'm supposed to be scarred. Whether I am or not. Also this entire thin can be solved by just putting your seatbelt on. What entire thing? The fine laws? If the fine laws can be solved by me wearing my seatbelt then that is the only reason they exist, if the only reason the seat belt laws exist is to get me to wear my seatbelt then they solve no purpose other than to get me to do something I could have chosen to do or not to do but would have made no difference. You know what could also make me wear my seatbelt, a pamphlet. Side: Disagree
1
point
You arent understanding the basis of American Law and Policies. It is a fine. Just put it on. If your common sense tells you to not wear a seatbelt that is a bad version of common sense. The fine isnt a scare tactic. You still havent given me proof of your claim. Also if a phamplet worled people would put them on wouldnt they? But some stipl dont so lets show people why they matter. Thats it. The state has its laws to protect people. Side: Agree
1
point
It is a fine. Just put it on. This is sounding personal. This is not about me or you, this is about the presence of the law in totality. If your common sense tells you to not wear a seatbelt that is a bad version of common sense. Again, this is not personal. My common sense tells me to wear a seatbelt, but for the people who don't they are being fined for being dumb? Maybe we should fine people for not wearing jackets when it's cold. Or for touching their eyes after touching germy areas. We obviously should not, we should inform them how to be healthy and how to stay safe, but not nanny them into it with fines that only help pay to get the people to fine them. The fine isnt a scare tactic. You still havent given me proof of your claim. Did you read that article? do f3 and search seat belts. One of the 1st ones talks about how it's obviously a scare tactic it's just an accepted one. Also if a phamplet worled people would put them on wouldnt they? But some stipl dont so lets show people why they matter. Just like with fines, they are not perfect. At least when there is no fine no one has to give up money for a useless reason. The state has its laws to protect people. So why do they not protect people from doing dangerous sports, smoking cigarettes, not wearing their jackets, not washing their hands before they eat, and a whole ton of other stuff that we have pamphlets on but no fines or jail sentences? Side: Disagree
1
point
Do any of your example make America function as nation? No. Literally you can just click it. It is what the police and the government would want. Totality? Everybody can just click it. Even though police, the government, citizens, foreigners, etc advise seatbelt safety it is a scare tactic? No. It is a law for the entire nation. Your examples do not relate with the mass scale of seatbelts again. Side: Agree
1
point
Do any of your example make America function as nation? SO by this logic seat belt fines make people function as a nation. Even though police, the government, citizens, foreigners, etc advise seatbelt safety it is a scare tactic? No. It is a law for the entire nation. I don't think this can continue until you know what a scare tactic is. a strategy using fear to influence the public's reaction Now get this. By saying 'Click it or ticket' what are they trying to do? They are trying to get you to wear your seatbelt obviously, but what is there if you don't wear your seatbelt. The threat of a ticket, threat defined as. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course A threat is used to scare, that is a fact. They are using a threat to scare you into doing what is best for you, that makes it a justified scare tactic. Your examples do not relate with the mass scale of seatbelts again. You continually jump back to me being against seatbelt. I am declaring this as a point of argument, that we will no longer cross. I am not against seat belt. I am against seat belt laws. So get this. If people don't wear their seatbelt they can get hurt. Not will but can. If people are doing extreme sports they can get hurt. Not will but can. Now tell me, after explaining it in what I'm sure is the simplest of terms I could muster, how those examples are not the same. Side: Disagree
1
point
Lol I have just beem prolonging this argument. I just wanted to keep arguing with you. I need some long debates sometimes. Hopefully none of that sounded offensive. I tried to take the more oppressive stance but ehh ot is too hard. I crumble too easily. Sorry if I aggrivated you buddy. Side: Disagree
1
point
2
points
"All it does is give the government money from people who don't have the time to follow their rules" You make it sound like it takes an actual amount of time. It takes seconds ... if that is way too long. What is hitting a string of red lights? Life altering event. Your dispute to her the statement is that it is wrong to fine someone for being too thoughtless, lazy, or indifferent to take 3 seconds to put it on. That is absurd. Side: Agree
1
point
1
point
1
point
In all honesty, there shouldn't be because of the simple fact that humanity and its stupidity cannot learn anything unless something bad happens. People should know right off the bat that they need your seat belt on. If they don't put it on, don't punish them, let them face the consequences of their actions. If they get hurt its nobody's fault but their own. People these days won't learn how to be safe without facing the higher consequences of their own actions . Side: Disagree
1
point
I think people should be responsible for their own actions, getting into a car accident is punishment enough for not wearing their seat belt. It does not hurt anyone else other than the one whom chose not to wear their seat belt. I don't think there should be any penalties for not wearing a seatbelt. Side: Disagree
1
point
|
