The Instigator
jayjay
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

More underage clubs

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,373 times Debate No: 17506
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

jayjay

Pro

I think there should be more underage clubs so teenagers can go and hang out and dance with friends without throwing a huge party, plus it's a good way to meet new people.
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you, Pro, for starting this debate.

For some strange reason, I decided to put up a video of 'nigahiga' telling us why he does not like clubs. I don't think it really will help my case, but take it from Ryan Higa! :D



I'd like to begin by providing some definitions and standards for which we will debate this topic.

Definitions

1. Underage club: Depending on the club, you may be at least 18 or at least 21 to enter [1]. However, if Pro would agree, I'd like to keep this debate to a club for anyone under 21.

Now my opponent mentioned that "teenagers can go and hang out..."
Therefore, there is a second definition.

2. Teenager: Anyone between the ages of 13 and 19 [2] [3] [4].
Since the legal age to attend a club is 21, we can agree that 20 year olds should also be allowed to enter.

(I'm assuming this debate is for the United States)

As a result with these definitions, we will be debating that "There should be more clubs for 13 - 20 year olds in the United States."

Refutations

"I think there should be more underage clubs so teenagers can go and hang out and dance with friends..."

There are multiple instances in which teens can hang out rather than at clubs.
  1. At school. Most teenagers attend school and can see all their friends during their classes and break times for 7-8 hours a day. Also, some schools have proms or dances and students can get together there.
  2. During the weekend. Whether it's at a park, at a restaurant, at a sportsfield, or just at home, kids have the opportunity to relax with their best friends during their two free days.
  3. After school. Kids can get togther at the library or at one another's houses to study and work then have fun and relax.
  4. During vacation breaks. All schools have a fall/winter/spring/summer break in the United States and provide ample opportunities for teenagers to get together and do what they want.

"...plus it's a good way to meet new people."

Meeting new people is not always good, especially when the person is bad, i.e., enjoys too much alcohol, too sexual/perverted. Furthermore, you could always meet stalkers and pedofiles. And nobody wants that.

Regardless, you can meet new people at school if you go and interact with them. You can meet new people at church, at community services, at the gym, at the movie theater, at a sports practice, in the park, at a dining place, on Facebook, or even right outside your house. Pro has yet to prove why meeting new people is a good thing in the first place.

Arguments

1. Underage clubs are not financially secure. Nightclubs get most of their profit from alcohol [5]. But when you're under 21, the legal drinking age, you cannot buy a drink. Therefore, the profit from alcohol is lost, which can either deter a businessman from starting an underage club in the first place or create many failed enterprises.

2. Entering a club costs money. How many teenagers have jobs that are going to provide them with enough money to hit the clubs? Are they just going to steal from their parent's wallets?

3. Kids should be studying, not going out to suck up a ton of time with their friends, especially at night. They need good sleep to perform well in school and they need to study to do so, as well.

4. Nightclubs can be violent. Imagine bumping into your ex, who dumped you for someone else. Imagine coming face-to-face with the school bully. Maybe you'll accidentally spill something on a group of jocks. Clubs are just another place for people to go at one another.

For these reasons, we do not need more clubs for younger people.
Back to Pro.

Sources:
1. http://wiki.answers.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://mw2.merriam-webster.com...
4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
5. http://www.ehow.com...


Debate Round No. 1
jayjay

Pro

Around where I live there is an underage club called the vibe for teens 16-20. Some of my older friends go there they say that even though there is no selling of alcohol they do still make good profit. This place has a lot of supervision so there is no alcohol or drugs. At 1:30 am all teens that are 16-17 all have to leave at 2:00 every person in that club is allowed to light one cigarette. Also in the United States it is legal for an 18 yr old to smoke. I do realize smoking is bad but we aren't talking about that. The only thing that the club sells is water and soda. Which with that they make three fourths of there profit.
XStrikeX

Con

Thanks for the response.

My opponent mentions her own personal experience, a club called the Vibe. This is not very credible, reliable information, firstly, but I will still refute it.

"Some of my older friends go there they say that even though there is no selling of alcohol they do still make good profit."

Your "friends" is hardly a reliable source. Nonetheless, how exactly would your friends know if a business was doing well or not? Just because a lot of people may go does not necessarily mean the business if financially stable. Also, please mention more than one club that could possibly be financially secure.

"This place has a lot of supervision so there is no alcohol or drugs."

This is one factor that will turn away many potential young customers, contributing to even more financial issues. Who supervises? How many supervise? What happens if alcohol/drugs is/are found? Not enough information is given.

"At 1:30 am all teens that are 16-17 all have to leave at 2:00 every person in that club is allowed to light one cigarette."

How are you going to find which person looks like a 16 year old or 17 year old? Not everyone will have a drivers' license, so you can't check their age. And 1:30 AM? That's ridiculously late! Teens should be in bed sleeping at that time so they'll be all ready for school.

And considering smoking... That is a major issue, and we are talking about that. If every underage club did that, imagine the increase in lung cancer. Even those who don't want to smoke but still want to party have to put up with the smokers. Secondhand smoke is dangerous as well! These clubs will just offer another way for teens to be exposed to cigarettes and eventually addicted. This is not a good effect.

My opponent has not refuted any of the Opposition's arguments. Therefore, they still stand.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
jayjay

Pro

This is a link to an underage club in Seattle

http://en.wikipedia.org...
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for providing your first source.

If you look at the source, you'll find that "Activities at underage clubs were attracting the attention of the public and a club called The Monastery was particularly notorious for allegations of sexual abuse, child prostitution, and drug and alcohol use."

None of the arguments of Con have been refuted. All of the arguments of Pro have been refuted.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
jayjayXStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmmm. Pro doesn't say much, but Con doesn't really dispute her claims: place to dance, good way to meet people, etc. Con argues that there are disadvantages meeting people can be bad, and that there are alternatives. So would it really be bad to have more clubs? I can't give the debate to Pro, because she didn't argue directly against Cons points, but even a weak rebuttal would have won.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
jayjayXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an effort this time, but it was not enough. She was badly overmatched by Con who made a good argument and completely refuted hers. Pro loses conduct for posting a link as her argument.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
jayjayXStrikeXTied
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 makes no actual argument, and defends against nothing that Con attacked with.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
jayjayXStrikeXTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 'Twas quite apparent. Pro's argument were very lacking in actual elaboration and explanation. As well, none of Con's arguments (which were more detailed, with reliable sources,) were ever directly refuted.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
jayjayXStrikeXTied
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: No contest. Pro didn't even have any arguments, no rebuttals, while CON provided several arguments that were not responded to.