The Instigator
jayjay
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
jc496
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Being able to drink at 18

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,941 times Debate No: 17504
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

jayjay

Pro

I think an 18 year old should be able to legally drink because, at 18 you can legally smoke and you can join the military. A lot of teenagers drink anyways before 18 and even though it's illegal they still. Of course you can get kicked out of sports for drinking and it could cost you a scholarship, but if it's legal then teenagers can drink without feeling bad. At 18 a lot of people drive drunk so they don't have to call their parents/ guardian to come get them and so they won't get in trouble the thing is that if it was legal they could call a parent or guardian to come get them and they wouldn't be in trouble for illegally drinking and then they still don't have to drive drunk.

I encourage voters to vote for pro

Please and Thank you
jc496

Con

I'd like to thank the Pro for creating an interesting debate. I will hope that this debate will turn out quite fruitful.

First of all, I'd like to say that the Pro's arguments are NOT logically adequate, and therefore, invalid.

"A lot of teenagers drink anyways before 18 and even though it's illegal they still."

The Pro is implying that we should amend a law, simply because the law is broken by some. Should we allow murder, simply because there are a lot of murderers out there? Should we allow domestic violence because there are a bunch of wackos who beat their wives? (I'm using two extremes here). This is NOT a logical reason

Next, the Pro states,

"Of course you can get kicked out of sports for drinking and it could cost you a scholarship, but if it's legal then teenagers can drink without feeling bad."

Is the Pro implying that we should amend a law, just to make the lawbreakers feel better?! That's totally illogical. In the same way, it would be illogical to allow murder, in order for murderers to feel better.

And then...

"At 18 a lot of people drive drunk so they don't have to call their parents/ guardian to come get them and so they won't get in trouble the thing is that if it was legal they could call a parent or guardian to come get them and they wouldn't be in trouble for illegally drinking and then they still don't have to drive drunk."

Okay... first of all if you're 18, you don't have a guardian anymore. You are an adult. Duh. And also... if you're drunk, do you think you'd be able to call your parents? Like honestly... the pro is making absolutely no sense here.

So far, the Pro has given NO logical reasons as to why the drinking age should be lowered. As the burden of proof lies on her, I technically don't have to give any reasons. However, I will.

Alcohol has been proven to be a health impediment. Giving a teen alcohol will only bring them 3 years closer to a huge number of problems, such as cirrhosis, pancreatitis, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, alcoholic dementia, problems with sexuality, etc. Alcohol also increases the chances of a person getting cancer, especially breast cancer. Is it smart to give a new adult the reason for all of these problems? No, not in my opinion. At least wait until they've spent some time in adulthood.

So, these are my reasons. I await the Pro's response

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
jayjay

Pro

Ok first I will start out by saying i might have made my self unclear, but since at 18 you are legally allowed to smoke and fight for our country we should be able to legally drink. Also i wasn't meaning law breakers should feel better about breaking the law i was meaning since it's not illegal they wouldn't feel bad about it.

Back to you Con
jc496

Con

The Pro's clarifications mean very little, as she still has not given any logical evidence as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink. The only thing she says, that's close to rationalization, is

"Ok first I will start out by saying i might have made my self unclear, but since at 18 you are legally allowed to smoke and fight for our country we should be able to legally drink."

And? The pro has failed to explain WHY this is unjust, so her argument is invalid. Is she implying that anyone who is allowed to smoke or fight for their country, automatically gains the right to drink? It would be good for the pro to actually give LOGICAL REASONS as to why this isn't right. She has failed to do so, therefore her argument is nullified.

And then,

"Also i wasn't meaning law breakers should feel better about breaking the law i was meaning since it's not illegal they wouldn't feel bad about it."

Lawbreaker: (noun) a person who breaks or violates the law.


Legal drinking age is the age at which a person is permitted by LAW to consume alcoholic beverages.


Therefore, anyone who violates the legal drinking age, breaks the law. They are lawbreakers


"A lot of teenagers drink anyways before 18 and even though it's illegal they still."

The point she has appeared to have made in the first round, is that people violate the legal drinking age. So? The words the pro has said, point to the law being changed for the convenience of the lawbreakers. I would like for her to defend that statement, or retract it.

And also, the Pro has utterly ignored my point of drinking being a health impediment and hazard. I ask the pro to rebut my arguments, or accept defeat.

Back to you, pro

Debate Round No. 2
jayjay

Pro

Even though alcohol hurts you health so does a lot of other things like smoking, using electrical devices, etc.

Also since other things hurt your health then so there for it shouldn't be any worse then those.
jc496

Con

"Even though alcohol hurts you health so does a lot of other things like smoking, using electrical devices, etc."

And? That still does not justify lowering the drinking age. Perhaps the other things like smoking should be prohibited to an older age as well (I'm not saying I support it, but I'm giving an example). The Pro has succesfully rebutted none of my arguments, and has used no logical reasoning whatsoever.

To close, I'd like to thank the pro for the opportunity to debate.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CogitoErgoSum 5 years ago
CogitoErgoSum
I am con.

Your argument is:
"If its illegal, they will feel bad" - right, because morality is no longer an issue because morality is strictly based on law. And if its legal no one has to feel guilty or ashamed. Who does that serve? The immature alcoholic youth?

"they will do it anyway so lets legalize it" - murder and rape will continue as well so lets legalize them, too. After all, if legal no one will have to feel bad about it and it will lower the crime rate!

"They cant get in trouble for wasting their parents time giving rides" - if they asked their parents for a ride, FIRST, and their parents said no, and the youth goes to the parties anyway... whose responsibility is it? You seem to think that the youth are responsible enough to make these decisions, but you want to put responsibility on the parents.

"they can smoke or join the service at 18" - how many of them have the intellect, the maturity, the self-discipline, the will... to join the service?

"inebriation wont cause bad judgment if its legal, so lets condone it so more youth can do it"

"18 year olds have the maturity to make this decision" - if they were mature, they wouldnt do it in the first place, nor would they start smoking.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
con was on the right side of the argument, and also obviously the more skilled debater. This debate is a given.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I think you're on the right side, but your arguments could be stronger and more organized.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
jayjayjc496Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con was rather rude, since he did not consider the fact that Pro was a new member on this site, he did make substantial rebuttals to Pro's meandering claims...He accurately pointed out that the law should not be amended if it has already been broken, and that Pro's assertions did not follow a consistent line of reasoning...Con's final round was poorly written, and Con exploited that as well. I suggest Pro to expound her arguments and continue to practice, if she wants to better her skills.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
jayjayjc496Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro continues to make arguments that seem like little more than personal opinions about the oppression that Teenagers suffer. She needs to read up about how debates, proof, and logic works or she will continue to accrue nothing but a losing record.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
jayjayjc496Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro would have done better arguing for personal freedom associated with adulthood, regardless of good or bad effects. Pro's arguments were weak and con shot them down by comparison to any other crime. References must be tied to specific claims they are supporting, not given as reading assignments.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
jayjayjc496Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins argument for obvious reasons. Pro would benefit from supporting her argument with facts that affirm her contentions. Simply saying that something else is worse by comparison does not make a difference because two wrongs do not make a right. Con would have been given points for sources but loses that for failing to show what information came from which source, and for posting them in the comments.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
jayjayjc496Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate goes, hands down, to jc496. Pro's argument was HIGHLY illogical, as well as being all over the place--wasn't organized well. Con's case, on the other hand, was much stronger, and he used sources to back up his claims.