http://www.car-accidents.com/country-car-accidents/philippines-car-accidents.

html
Gosh, there is no data pointing to the drunk driving.
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/factsheet/pdf07/fs5_16.asp
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_trans.asp

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
2007 Drunk Driving Statistics
As high as 48 (Hawaii) % in the US in 2007
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/auto-accident/drunk-driving/statistics.html
As high as 46% in (North Dakota) in 2008
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/auto-accident/motorcycle-accident/statistics.html?ref=http
%3A//search.yahoo.com/search%3Ffr%3Dyfp-t-701-s%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss
%26ei%3DUTF8%26rd%3Dr2%26p%3Ddrunk%2520driving%2520statistics
2007 National Statistics

In the United States, motorcycle accident deaths increased by 6.6%, accounting

for almost one in eight motor vehicle deaths.
There were 5,154 motorcycle fatalities nationwide, and 2007 was the 10th straight
year of increase.
Biker deaths hit an all-time low in 1997. Since that time, they have increased by
128%.
In 2007, 49% of bikers killed in crashes were age 40 or over.
31% of motorcycle crash fatalities occurred in the under 30-year-old group in
2007.
20% of crash fatalities occurred in the 30- to 39-year-old group in 2007.
27% percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal accidents had a blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) over 0.08 percent.
In 2007, 36% of all bikers involved in fatal crashes were speeding, compared with
24% of passenger car drivers.
26% of bikers involved in fatal crashes were riding without a valid license in
2007.
There are about 75% more motorcycles registered now than there were 10 years
ago.

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/auto-accident/drunk-driving/statutelimitations/pennsylvania-drunk-driving-laws.html?ref=http
%3A//search.yahoo.com/search%3Ffr%3Dyfp-t-701-s%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss
%26ei%3DUTF8%26rd%3Dr2%26p%3Ddrunk%2520driving%2520statistics
When is a driver considered to be legally drunk in Pennsylvania?
Non-commercial drivers age 21+ are considered legally drunk when their blood
alcohol level is .08 or more.
Drivers of commercial vehicles are legally drunk when their blood alcohol
concentration is .04 percent or greater.
School bus drivers are legally drunk when their blood alcohol level is .02 or more.
Drivers under 21 are legally drunk when their blood alcohol concentration is .02
or more.
http://www.answers.com/topic/driving-under-the-influence
In the Philippines, there is no limit for alcohol in drivers

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070806065027AAVpSeX
If I recall correctly, Senate President Manny Villar introduced a bill for the purpose when
he was still chairman of the Senate finance committee. Under his bill, Villar proposed
that persons found guilty for the first time of drunk driving must face a suspension of
their drivers license for one year and be made to pay a fine of P1,000. On the second
offense, a fine of P5,000 and a five-year suspension of the drivers license will be
imposed. I dont recall the bill having gone past the committee level though.
In Makati, Jejomar Binay wants to be stricter not only against drunk driving but also
"drugged driving." Last year the Makati City Council passed an ordinance imposing a
fine of P2,500 or imprisonmentor bothon persons who drive their vehicles while
under the influence of drugs or liquor.
The city government acquired testing kits to be used in checking the blood-alcohol level
of intoxicated or drugged drivers. Suspected drivers can also be taken to the Ospital ng
Makati, which now conducts testing on a 24-hour basis. So Makati traffic officers dont
need to rely only on physical manifestations of being intoxicated or drugged, which
might not be able to hold up in court when cases are filed against those caught redhanded. Just like in the US, the testing is mandatory if you are caught violating traffic or
driving errantly.
In Makati, drivers who register a .13-percent blood alcohol level are considered unfit to
drive and will be charged according to the drunk-driving ordinance. Interestingly, Gibson

would not have been legally drunk in Makati. (Maybe, Filipinos really have a high
tolerance for alcohol, otherwise how do you explain the more lenient standards for blood
alcohol tests?)
RA 4136
(f) Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug, a
fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than five hundred pesos, or
imprisonment of not more than three months, or both, at the discretion of the
Court.

http://www.lto.gov.ph/Stats2008/SumNewRenewalPhils_LTO2008.pdf
VII 3,071 42,975 8,473 112,607 1,589 12,576 1,858 28,868 90 2,050 61,300 199,772 415
2,453 76,796 401,301 478,097
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/visayas/view/20080920-161829/LTOhelmet-order-opposed-ridiculed
LTO data in 2005 showed that of the 60,000 motorcycles registered in Negros Oriental,
23,000 are in Dumaguete City, almost all of which are driven by motorists without
helmets.
http://pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&sec=reader&rp=5&fi=p050629.htm&no=48&date=
Statistics show that 30 percent of young people below the age of 18 are already driving
motorcycles although the law provides that only Filipinos 18 years old and above can be
issued a valid driver's license.
http://www.negroschronicle.com/final/sept_28_08/9.pdf
jay dejaresco

Hi ID, Mel

you may also want to pattern your speech on this one. it is very simplistic - it enumerates
the points which i sought to establish, and then goes on to explain each point. This is how
speeches should be made, right mel? hehe.
NOte: This was my speech vs. UP
Terrence Anton T. Callao
----- Forwarded Message ---From: Terrence Anton Callao <terrence_callao@yahoo.com.ph>
To: abbymyrrhyap@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2009 1:19:35 PM
Subject: debate points

Hi Abby,
The debate format I am familiar with is the Modified Oxford-Oregon Style. This involves
four speakers on each side.
First Speaker - Necessity
Second - Beneficiality
Third - Practicability
Fourth - Rebuttals
Each speaker must necessarily establish why it is necessary (for the first speaker),
beneficial (for the second speaker) and so on. There is a very thin line between Necessity
and Beneficiality. The affirmative necessity speaker may point out the inherent flaws in
the current situation (status quo), while the affirmative beneficiality speaker may of
course point out certain advantages derived from adoption of the proposition. The
negative necessity and beneficiality speakers will just have to do the opposite.
Regarding practicabily, you have to focus on at least two things - legal and financial
feasibilty. Does the constitution allow the proposition? Are there laws prohibiting the
proposition? Is there financial capability to ensure effective execution of the proposition?
These are just some of the points you have to be clear on in PRACTICABILITY. Note
that Practicability is not PRACTICALITY. Practicability talks about feasibility.
Practicality talks about efficiency, and is therefore absorbed in Necessity and
Beneficiality.
During interpellation, you are supposed to ask questions which have been mentioned in
the other speaker's speech. Thus, if you are the one being interpellated, and the other
speaker asks you a question which does not relate to your speech, you may say, "Mr.
Interpellator, I never mentioned that it my speech. Please ask something more relevant."
At any rate, if the question is easy to answer, just answer it. Hehe.
You will find one of my draft debate speeches vs. UP. Hope this helps.

Terrence Anton T. Callao