The Instigator
SportsGuru
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Idontcare
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

State's should fight to lower the drinking age

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: 4/15/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,663 times Debate No: 3655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

SportsGuru

Pro

First, I wish my opponent good luck and may the best debater win.

The one definition(taken from Black's Law Dictionary) I have is:

Justice: giving an individual his/her fair due.

Observation 1: "States's" is a typo made on the Facebook page and is actually mean to be "States". This is the only logical conclusion as it breaks grammar rules in its current form and the change I mentioned is the only one that makes the topic make sense.

Observation 2: The "states" that are being referred to in the topic refer to the states of the United States of America. This is the fairest possible conclusion as both debaters live within the United States meaning one does not have an unfair advantage based on where one lives. It is also the most logical conclusion as the maker of this topic (not me) lives in the United States.

I advocate that the states fight to lower the drinking age in order to achieve justice. Since we live in a society that attempts to be as just as possible, the goal of achieving justice must be held high.

For my first (and more conventional argument), I say that the lowering achieves justice by righting a wrong. The current law provides no warrant for the age limit being a fair due because there is none. With a lower age limit, it would be much easier to have a just reason to have the restriction. Thus, the lowering of the age limit would remove injustice and thus cause justice.

WARNING: Off-the-wall argument ahead!!

This is a more unconventional argument that shows how a victory in the fight to lower the drinking age would create justice in the long run. For readability, I will bullet how the success of the states' fight to lower the drinking age will lead to this justice.

1.States win the fight and the drinking age is lowered.
2.As common sense would dictate, more drunken related accidents and deaths would happen as the amount of drinkers would rise because more people would be able drink legally. However, this is not because of the age of those legal. This is simply because there are bozos in every age group, from 19 to 99, that do foolish acts. Thus, this increase cannot be used to justify keeping the age limit where it is.
3.More people would drink to relieve themselves of the depression of losing their loved ones causing more drunken accidents and growing chaos.
4.Eventually, the spiraling ball of chaos and deaths would make the leader of the United States realize that nihilism is the most logical philosophy to adopt.
5.In order to save more lives, the president realizes that he must kill as many people as possible to prevent more lives being born that would be killed. Hence, as commander-in-chief, he orders all nuclear weapons, intercontinental-ballistics missiles, etc., etc., to be fired.
6.Invriably, at least some of these weapons will fall in other countries. They will interpret this as threat to them selves and will volley weapons back, thus starting a nuclear war.
7.All humans die either from the nuclear war directly or from the resulting radiation. A (multiple) god(s) decide what the proper punishment/reward is. This(These) higher power(s) would be perfect in knowledge, wisdom, and justice concerning any situation and hence would be able to make the most just decision. Thus, ultimate justice is achieved. This would also have the added bonus of fixing almost every current problem including national debt, world hunger, and every human disease that has ever existed.

Now I made the claim in the seventh bullet that at least one God/higher power exists, which obviously needs to be defended. I will defend the claim by stating that god is defined in Merriam-Webster's dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Since the whole well-being of the dictionary depends on its factual accuracy, they would not define something that does not exist. Thus, at least one god, or some other higher power, with the aforementioned qualities, must exist.

With my warrants now given for my claim, I must wait for my opponent to respond.
Idontcare

Con

Thank you for this debate and i will enjoy having it with you.
Before i Begin i do have to say wow, you took it to the next level WAYYYY to the next level, but now to business.

First of it is completely Legal for there to be a drinking law it is a power granted to the states under the 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively"

this means that anything not said in the Constitution and is allowed to be controlled by the states, that's why every state has a different drinking law, they decide what age they feel is responsible enough to drink, Therefore there is no "injustice" so lowering the drinking law is not causing "Justice"

now for the more crazy one, which i'm not sure that can even be called an argument, or that i should even respond to it.

The Number of drunken related deaths would increase as a direct result of lowering the age because it would allow people who normally didn't have open access to alcoholic beverages would now have unrestricted access to it, rapidly increasing the chances of the younger kids, of being drunk, which would not only stunt development of them but it would increase the # of teen Pregnancies, and car accidents, the only thing stopping some from drinking is the law, and their fear of breaking it, causing a massive encores in the crimes as a direct result of the lowered age.

The whole idea of a nuclear war is just stupid, because a more likely idea is i don't know, maybe change the law again, and you know if were all dead you can't say that everything would be better because everything would be gone, and I personally am a Lutheran so in my eyes God would send all of the now dead sinners to hell, so i could argue that their condition would be considerably worse than before, regardless of their drinking habits.

Well thats what i've got so far and again thank you for this debate and your one argument.
Debate Round No. 1
SportsGuru

Pro

You are welcome for this debate and I will also enjoy debating this.
Now, down to business indeed.

My opponent first commits a straw-man fallacy as he argues that it is legal for a drinking age limit to exist, citing the U.S. Constitution as showing that the states have the right to rule over whatever the national government does not. If you notice, nowhere in my first round argument do I say that it is not legal for an age limit to be in place. I stated that the current age limit is unjust because there is no warrant for it being just. Furthermore, the national government as shown here (http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov...) controls the drinking age limit. Thus, in light of the information I have presented, my opponent's whole attack on my first argument should be ignored.

Concerning my second point, it must be considered an argument as it fits definition 3b of Webster's (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). However, I will be fine if you ignore it and hence concede it. :)

My opponent's first paragraph that "attacks" my second argument actually supports it. This whole paragraph reaffirms my second and third bullets. So, I must thank my opponent for this affirmation.

My opponent then attacks the rest of my argument with three main point which I will address.

1.The government would change the law back rather than take the course of action I asserted.

2.I can't say everything would be better because everything would be gone.

3.The higher power would send everyone to hell meaning they would be in a worse place.

1.However, as you stated, "the only thing stopping some from drinking is the law, and their fear of breaking it, causing a massive encores in the crimes as a direct result of the lowered age." Thus, the changing of the law would not have an effect on the situation as those that caused the chaos would not listen to the law. Thus, even if the government did change the law, it would not prevent the chain of events that I have set up.

2.First, not everything would be gone. The earth would still exist along with some life (i.e. cockroaches). Moreover, things would be better. Almost all man-made problems would be removed by nuclear war. Isn't fixing problems in a situation making a situation better? Moreover, nowhere did I say that nuclear war would make everything better, rather I said that it would help create justice. Hence, we can see my opponent has committed the straw-man fallacy

3.Once again, my opponent has committed the straw-man fallacy. I did not say that people would not be in a better place, I said that justice would be served. My opponent has conceded all the characteristics of the aforementioned God. Thus, he concedes that this higher power would make the most just decision. As the whole point of the argument was to show that justice would be served, my opponent has conceded this part of the argument. Moreover, my opponent cannot prove that all people would go to hell, so any future concerning it must be ignored.

With both of my arguments successfully defended, I must ask that my TWO arguments be extended and will wait for my opponent's rebuttal.
Idontcare

Con

unforutanally i am very short on time i will not be able to make this round i am sorry.

However i will be able to make the next one so feel free to post your final round.
Debate Round No. 2
SportsGuru

Pro

Since my opponent has not posted any arguments in the last round, I will being my final round by reiterating my arguments.

States should fight to lower the drinking age to create justice. Since we live in a society that attempts to be as just as possible, the goal of achieving justice must be held high if not as the highest goal. The victory creates justice in the short term and the long term.

Short-term:

The lowering achieves justice by righting a wrong. The current law provides no warrant for the age limit being a fair due because there is none. With a lower age limit, it would be much easier to have a just reason to have the restriction. Thus, the lowering of the age limit would remove injustice and thus cause justice.

Long-term:

1.States win the fight and the drinking age is lowered.
2.As common sense would dictate, more drunken related accidents and deaths would happen as the amount of drinkers would rise because more people would be able drink legally. However, this is not because of the age of those legal. This is simply because there are bozos in every age group, from 19 to 99, that do foolish acts. Thus, this increase cannot be used to justify keeping the age limit where it is.
3.More people would drink to relieve themselves of the depression of losing their loved ones causing more drunken accidents and growing chaos.
4.Eventually, the spiraling ball of chaos and deaths would make the leader of the United States realize that nihilism is the most logical philosophy to adopt.
5.In order to save more lives, the president realizes that he must kill as many people as possible to prevent more lives being born that would be killed. Hence, as commander-in-chief, he orders all nuclear weapons, intercontinental-ballistics missiles, etc., etc., to be fired.
6.Invriably, at least some of these weapons will fall in other countries. They will interpret this as threat to them selves and will volley weapons back, thus starting a nuclear war.
7.All humans die either from the nuclear war directly or from the resulting radiation. A (multiple) god(s) decide what the proper punishment/reward is. This(These) higher power(s) would be perfect in knowledge, wisdom, and justice concerning any situation and hence would be able to make the most just decision. Thus, ultimate justice is achieved. This would also have the added bonus of fixing almost every current problem including national debt, world hunger, and every human disease that has ever existed.

My reasoning for the existence of this higher power is in the first round.

My opponent's attacks in the first round were shown not only to be irrelevant, but that they were flawed besides their irrelevancy. Thus, both of these arguments should be extend to the end of this debate

Now, I must make two notes to the voters:

1.Although I do not think this will be a problem with the three judges, I will say that what my opponent does not bring up does not count against me. Even if I "get away with highway-robbery" with certain arguments, as long my opponent does not bring it up, it does not matter. Basically, all I asking is that the voters (judges or otherwise) not base their decision on arguments created by them that are not present in the debate,
2. Although I also don't think this will be a problem with the judges, I will mention it to be safe. What I will mention is that any new arguments by Con in the third round are abusive as I will not have a chance to respond. Hence, they should not be considered.

As both of my arguments stand and Con has not fulfilled his burden of refutation, I must urge a vote in affirmation of today's topic: States should fight to lower the drinking age.

Thank you.
Idontcare

Con

Idontcare forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Then, I will have to get Achmed the dead terrorist to KEEEEEELLLL YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!! (and yraelz, and kleptin and i-win-347)
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
"Note: change "crude" to "crudely""

And what if I refuse?
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Note: change "crude" to "crudely"
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Actually, I have never done policy and just did L-D for the first time at districts 2 days ago. Personally, I do not feel like I would enjoy doing an event that can crude be described as "Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Cross-Examination. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Cross-Examination." over the course of over an hour. And hey, L-D'ers can come up with crazy arguments too! :)
Posted by tyion 9 years ago
tyion
the sports guru must do policy debate because i know in policy debate everything in the world always leads to nuclear war and i can only see a policy debater running this argument
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
It is too bad. I would of enjoyed defending my slippery slopeish argument
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
No refutation from CON in round 2 or 3, therefore, I vote PRO.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
False alarm. My copy of the latest version is not on me right now. I only have the third pocket edition with me. Carry on.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
It appears that that definition is from the 5th abridged addition
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Sorry if it is inaccurate. I will have to check up on that before L-D districts. If you do not mind, could you provide the correct definition(s) of justice?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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 MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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 ss0987 9 years ago
ss0987
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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 Issa 9 years ago
Issa
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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 WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
SportsGuruIdontcareTied
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