Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated
Debate Rounds (3)
I will begin my own argument based on two contentions:
1.) Elimination of the drinking age would be medically irresponsible.
Underage drinking has detrimental effects on both a long-term and short-term basis. On the short-term side of the spectrum, underage drinking can cause the following effects: Decelerated reactions from the cerebral cortex, central nervous system, frontal lobes, hippocampus, an various other parts of the brain. Upon intoxication, these decelerated reactions can induce memory loss, loss of motor skills, and a reduction in the body's senses. When alcohol affects the undeveloped brain of a person under 21, extremely detrimental things can occur. Underage drinking has been related to chronic long-term problems such as depression, violence, and suicide.
2.) An elimination of the drinking age would encourage more detrimental behavior among youth.
A decrease of the drinking age has been related to the use of illicit drugs among young drinkers. A complete elimination of the drinking age would encourage more you to use narcotics, and at a younger age. It would be irresponsible to condone drinking for those younger than 21 due to the correlation between underage drinking and drug use.
Drinking is not a right for the government to decide. Drinking is a moral issue that should be given to the individual and the parents to decide when exactly is the right time to drink. Drinking is like smoking, many individuals choose not to smoke, and so many individuals choose not to drink. The only ones that chain smokers and excessive drinking hurts the most is the individual.
Elimination of the drinking age is medically unsafe and is proven to increase the use of narcotics among young drinkers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a tough row to hoe from the get-go, and his case was more in line with one to *lower* the drinking age, rather than *abolishing* it. Con pointed out the medically irresponsible aspects of allowing "any age" to drink, and Pro never really addressed it, choosing to spend the rest of the debate quibbling about illicit drug use. Arguments to Con, as Pro never justified abolishing the drinking age, and I might recommend to Con either limiting it to "reducing" the age, or providing a more coherent case justifying why *any* age (presumably even infants and toddlers) should be allowed to drink. Everything else seemed equal enough not to warrant scoring.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.