The Instigator
SperoAmicus
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
civilian_kritik
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

It Should Not Be Considered Rude to Drink in the Morning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,148 times Debate No: 1135
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

SperoAmicus

Pro

Traditional rules of etiquette suggest that a person should not drink alcohol in the morning or early afternoon, and many Americans frown upon the practice of early drinking. I believe that this is silly, and that expecting this silliness of others is ruder than the person who drinks in the morning.

Now, I am not advocating that a person should be allowed to drink before or during work, nor am I advocating daily drinking, driving under the influence, or morning drunkenness. I am only suggesting that a person should be able to drink a beer with brunch or lunch or a big breakfast without being thought rude.

Some people can drink without impairing their judgement, and some people can find it a helpful way to loosen tensions. I personally rather enjoy the flavor and feel of a good beer. There is no reason why these things should be restricted to the evenings.

Furthermore, I would even postulate that limiting alcohol to the evenings only encourages someone to drink irresponsibly. Abuse of alcohol, of course, causes a great number of social ills, and people should be accustomed to the experience of responsible drinking, even in the morning. Pushing alcohol into the evenings can help to amplify the experience of having "two lives," one at day and one at night. This is amplified by the psychology of alcohol, the data of which suggests that a person who is in a certain state (such as drunkenness) is likely to recall and focus on memories and experiences previously conducted in that state.

Finally, if I concede that a beer can sometimes be inappropriate, it is far more inappropriate and even insulting to express offense at such a minor social infraction.
civilian_kritik

Con

This is going to be fun! Thanks ahead of time! :D
While SperoAmicus' stance is interesting, it poses quite a few problems. First I will address Spero's (I hope you don't mind me using a shortened form of your name. If you do, I'll stop! :D) arguments, and then move onto some of my own.
The first argument given is that it is "silly" for people to think that it is rude to drink in the morning/early afternoon. Beyond this, we are given no reason to believe why this is the case. This statement then becomes an unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no analysis, facts, or warrants given to help it along.
The second argument given is two-fold. In it, Spero provides two reasons as to why drinking a beer in the morning is good. The first is, essentially, that it tastes good. The second is that the alcohol is good for loosening tensions. While each of these could be construed as a good thing by themselves, it is obvious that they are absolutely non-unique to morning drinking. As it stands, beer tastes nearly the same any time of day (unless, of course, it has been sitting outside of a fridge for a few hours). This, of course, means that Spero's first point doesn't really support his/her idea at all. Additionally, alcohol always loosens tensions. Much like the first reason, the second is not a unique reason that drinking in the morning is any better than drinking at night.
The third argument is that drinking as strictly a night-time activity is bad. Spero's main contention here is that at night, irresponsible drinking takes place, causing a multitude of "social ills" to occur. The same problem found in the second argument reappear here. Spero assumes, once again, that this problem is something that is limited strictly to night-time drinking. Anyone who has either drank excessively in the morning or who knows someone who has knows very well that this is not the case. Beyond this, Spero assumes that individuals who drink at night have absolutely no ability to limit their drinking where people who drink in the day do. Spero never explains why this is the case (nor does he/she properly address this point). Instead, he/she seems to claim that the night-time drinking individuals are those who become heavy drinkers. Finally, Spero claims that drinking only at night ensures that people will believe that they have two different lives (one at night [presumably the drunk one] and one during the day [the sober one]). Once again, there is absolutely no reason given to believe that these roles can't be reversed OR that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing (this will be discussed in detail soon).
Now, to move on to my arguments.
First, and foremeost, it must be pointed out that Spero never gives us any reason to believe that drinking alcohol will be limited to the morning/early afternoon. This is, of course, one of the easiest ways into alcoholism. All of the negative repercussions of this disease are widely known (although if they need to be addressed, I will be more than willing to bring them up).
Second, as mentioned above, Spero seems to be advocating that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing. Despite this, he/she never provides any reasons as to why this is the case. Let's, then, entertain the notion that having two different lives is, in fact, a good thing. There are at least two good reasons as to why this is the case (all of which stem from Spero's arguments). Before delving into the reasons, however, it must be recognized that Spero is advocating actions which make the INDIVIDUAL happy (i.e. the beer tastes good, it helps loosen tensions, etc). To this extent, it becomes obvious that having two different lives runs along this same vein. The first reason as to why having two different lives is a good thing is that it provides an excellent opportunity for the individual to flourish (both professionally and personally). Partying it up at night is an outstanding way to promote oneself on the social scene. Having another "life" during the daytime ensures that we are more than able to be successful at work. The second reason ahving two different lives is a good thing is that an individual gets two completely unique methods by which to explore life. Experience is one of the most important aspects of living; leading two different lives provides the perfect opportunity to see, act, and be more of the world, easily fulfilling one's need for experience.
My final argument is that Spero provides no good reason to believe that drinking either at night or during the morning provides any sort of unique benefit to society. Sure, he/she contends that drinking at night causes more "social ills", but as explained above, drinking at ANY time causes these same problems to occur.
At the end of this round, a few things become obvious:
First->Spero has a hard (if not impossible) time substantiating any of his/her claims. There is no analysis or facts/figures that give us any reason to believe anything he/she says.
Second->If Spero does provide some sort of analysis, it does not help to prove his/her point. He/she uses the most generic responses which are applicable to both night and day drinking.
Finally->Spero fails to address the "social ills" that drinking all throughout the day would cause (including alcoholism).
Thanks! :D
Debate Round No. 1
SperoAmicus

Pro

SperoAmicus forfeited this round.
civilian_kritik

Con

Evan, the affirmative always has a burden to prove what they say, just as I have a burden to prove what I say. The great thing about running negative, though, is that the only burden I have is to clash. I feel that I fulfilled this burden handily. Spero, as the affirmative, has the burden of proof, which he/she failed to fulfill. Beyond that, his/her points, as illustrated in my first constructive, are generic at best. At this point, it is obvious that he/she failed to prove that drinking in the morning is not rude.
Spero, if you want to start another round with this (or any other) topic, I'll be more than happy to take you up on it! :D
Debate Round No. 2
SperoAmicus

Pro

This was originally written to be posted for Round 2, but I'd missed the deadline by somewhere between 5 and 12 minutes.

By and large, civilian_kritik posted a fair reply, but has not, as is pointed out in the comments section, presented a reason for drinking to be considered rude in the morning that wouldn't apply to another time of day.

~~~~~

Thanks civilian_kritik! Sorry for taking so long, but I hope it's fun.

In short, the thorough extent of the matter is threefold:

1) Restrictions are an infringement on a person's rights, and as that person is equally a member of society, they should be avoided without a greater reason.

Therefore, my opponent needs to explain why morning prohibition is a desirable rule of etiquette.

2) Rudeness is defined as a violation of a standard which leads to a minor offense onto another person.

Therefore, my opponent must explain why morning drinking is an offense onto another person.

3) Distinctions based on time are arbitrary and silly, as what occurs in the morning is not inherently distinct from what occurs in the evening.

Therefore, my opponent must explain why his arguments apply to the mornings, but not to the evenings.

Following this premise, I argued a few things:

- Morning prohibition is silly.
>Beyond this, we are given no reason to believe why this is the case. This statement then becomes an unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no analysis, facts, or warrants given to help it along.

But silliness refers to something done without reason, to amusing consequences. My opponent, however, has validated this claim in his opening remarks. "This is going to be fun! Thanks ahead of time! :D" The only reason this debate should stand out as fun enough to be thankful for, is if it is based upon a silly subject.

Therefore, despite his claims to the contrary, my opponent has conceded that morning prohibition is silly.

I also argued,
- Drinking tastes good.
- Drinking loosens tensions.

>While each of these could be construed as a good thing by themselves, it is obvious that they are absolutely non-unique to morning drinking.

But the arguments do support that drinking is a good thing, and that the morning prohibition imposed by the rules of etiquette are undesirable without a greater reason.

I also argued,
- Isolating ones drunkness to evenings leads to a false perception of a separate "night life."

>Spero's main contention here is that at night, irresponsible drinking takes place, causing a multitude of "social ills" to occur. The same problem found in the second argument reappear here. Spero assumes, once again, that this problem is something that is limited strictly to night-time drinking.

But in most beer-drinking countries, such as Germany or Denmark, morning or early afternoon drinking does not cause the same social ills seen at night.

>Anyone who has either drank excessively in the morning or who knows someone who has knows very well that this is not the case.

The only people who drink in the mornings in the U.S. are either people who are naturally rude, or who cannot help themselves. This does not hold true for the relevant majority who abide by the rules of etiquette.

Furthermore,
>Beyond this, Spero assumes that individuals who drink at night have absolutely no ability to limit their drinking where people who drink in the day do.

But people drink at night for different reasons than they would the morning. At night, they drink to celebrate that the day is over, and consequently, are prone to get excessively wild. However, as I've said, during the day people would drink because it tastes good and helps them to unwind.

>Finally, Spero claims that drinking only at night ensures that people will believe that they have two different lives (one at night [presumably the drunk one] and one during the day [the sober one]). Once again, there is absolutely no reason given to believe that these roles can't be reversed OR that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing (this will be discussed in detail soon).

One during the day, where they must be respectable.

One at night, where they needn't be.

This leads to less-silly rules being broken at night. Consequently, rules of etiquette should not be overly limited on the basis of the time of day.

As to my opponent's arguments....
>First, and foremeost, it must be pointed out that Spero never gives us any reason to believe that drinking alcohol will be limited to the morning/early afternoon. This is, of course, one of the easiest ways into alcoholism. All of the negative repercussions of this disease are widely known (although if they need to be addressed, I will be more than willing to bring them up).

But why would morning prohibition do anything more than needlessly enhance alcohol's mystique, and therefore, desireability?

>Second, as mentioned above, Spero seems to be advocating that having two different lives is, in fact, a bad thing. Despite this, he/she never provides any reasons as to why this is the case. Let's, then, entertain the notion that having two different lives is, in fact, a good thing.

It may be a good thing, if one weren't filled with the social ills alluded to before.

>My final argument is that Spero provides no good reason to believe that drinking either at night or during the morning provides any sort of unique benefit to society. Sure, he/she contends that drinking at night causes more "social ills", but as explained above, drinking at ANY time causes these same problems to occur.

But I have! It tastes good and calms nerves, both of which are beneficial to the individual.

See above.
>First->Spero has a hard (if not impossible) time substantiating any of his/her claims. There is no analysis or facts/figures that give us any reason to believe anything he/she says.

It also becomes obvious that:

First->My opponent has provided no reason for a specifically morning prohibition that cannot be provided to the evening as well.

>Second->If Spero does provide some sort of analysis, it does not help to prove his/her point. He/she uses the most generic responses which are applicable to both night and day drinking.

Second->My opponent provides no positive explanation of why anything he says results in rudeness.

>Finally->Spero fails to address the "social ills" that drinking all throughout the day would cause (including alcoholism).

Finally-> Neither does my opponent, who needs to find a social ill which applies to the morning.
civilian_kritik

Con

The first, and possibly most important, thing that must be brought to light is Spero's assumption that morning drinkers will abide by their own rules of etiquette. In this world, morning drinkers will be kind, courteous, and only drink a beer (maybe two). This argument, like most of Spero's, has within its structure absolutely no reasons to believe it.

Spero contends that I must show why morning prohibition is good. This is absolutely not the case. Remember, the proposition is: "It should not be considered rude to drink in the morning." All I have to show is that it is rude to drink in the morning, not that morning prohibition is the best avenue possible. By the end of this constructive (in combination with the other that I have posted), I believe that it will be more than evident that drinking in the morning is most definitely rude.

Spero's second argument is that I must show that morning drinking will offend another person. My first response is that morning drinking is considered rude for a reason and that reason is not simply to spite Spero. Among other things, the smell of alcohol can be infinitely offensive. Also, remember that Spero provides absolutely no reason to believe that individuals who drink in the morning won't be doing so to fulfill any sort of craving (this ties in with the new rules of etiquette argument articulated above).

Spero's third response is that distinctions of time are "arbitrary and silly". My first response is that if they are so silly, then there should be no good reason that Spero and countless others around the world abide by them. Somehow in this mindset, Spero finds it easy to claim that I must show why my arguments are specific to the mornings. My first response is that Spero's arguments aren't even unique to morning drinking. My second response is that my arguments actually provide reasons and analysis as to why drinking the morning is a bad thing. Finally, it is obvious not only that I have lived up to Spero's standard, but that he/she absolutely has not.

Next, Spero move on to his arguments that I refuted. The first of these is that morning prohibition is something that is done without reason. First, I would like to point out that morning prohibition isn't what should be being debated, as it strays from the original resolution. Second, as explained above, there are multiple reasons why morning prohibition is in place. Additionally, I never conceded that morning prohibition is silly. What I stated was that I hoped that it (meaning the debate) would be fun. Even if the topic is unsavory, the debate (no matter how skewed it gets) is still an educational and worthwhile experience.

Spero's next response is that alcohol's good taste and the fact that it loosens tensions are two excellent reasons as to why drinking is a good thing. This point I will most definitely concede. The problem is that these are two things that happen no matter what time of day a person drinks. Much like the majority of his arguments, Spero fails to make this one specific to morning drinking. At this point, Spero, once again, provides no unique reason as to why drinking in the morning should not be considered rude. At the risk of sounding like a child, if I have to show why drinking in the morning is rude, he/she most certainly must show why it is not.

The next few arguments are essentially the same, so to save time (and space) I'll group them and make one response. Of all of the reasons that Spero provides, he/she gives no unique explanation as to why morning drinking is unique and different from night drinking. Once again, there is no analysis provided that explains why the social ills that happen at night will not happen during the day (the only thing that Spero provides here is a little bit about drinking in Germany and Denmark; my response here is that these two places are most certainly not the US [which is where the debate takes place]).

Spero's last argument in an attempt to show that morning prohibition makes alcohol infinitely more desirable. This is most definitely not the case. Remember, drinking in the morning is already considered rude. Despite what Spero is insinuating, there is absolutely no reasons given to suggest that alcohol has become any more popular since it was first considered rude.

Finally, my arguments are hardly given any attention whatsoever.

At the end, it becomes obvious that, once again, Spero has absolutely failed to show how his/her arguments are unique to morning drinking. Beyond that, he/she has also failed to prove any of his/her arguments. Finally, he/she has been unable to properly respond to any of the attacks that I have made.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
In debate, you would be absolutely right. The burden would be slanted much more towards the affirmative. However, because this web site allows people to frame resolutions however they choose, that will not always be the case.

In this particular debate, your job is to argue the converse of the resolution, which is that it is rude to drink in the morning. All you have done up to this point is attempt to disprove the affirmative. That means that if all of your arguements are 100% correct, you would still only deserve a tie, because while you have disproved that it should not be rude, you have yet to prove how it is rude.

Basically, I think you're stuck on debate rules, while this site requires a lot more offense on neg to be successful.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
Kritik, you have so far failed to prove that drinking in the morning should be considered rude. There is no affirmative burden here. The debate goes two ways.
Posted by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
DARNIT! I have the response fully typed up, and I missed the deadline by like five minutes!
Posted by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
I never saw it as rude...i just thought it went along with haveing something in ur stomach when u drank...i.e. alchohol gets into ur blood system faster on a empty stomach...ahh wat evr im just a 13 year old with nothing to do but look at dumb debates
Posted by stilldirrtyja 9 years ago
stilldirrtyja
this is stupid. I don't think it's rude. I think it makes the person an alcoholic or very close to becoming one.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Modus.Operandi 9 years ago
Modus.Operandi
SperoAmicuscivilian_kritikTied
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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
SperoAmicuscivilian_kritikTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SperoAmicus 9 years ago
SperoAmicus
SperoAmicuscivilian_kritikTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
SperoAmicuscivilian_kritikTied
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:30