The Instigator
Lil_b_from_the_pack
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Creamecicle2014
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

drinking age being lowered

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 4 votes the winner is...
Creamecicle2014
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 40128
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Lil_b_from_the_pack

Pro

the drinking age should be lowered because kids are drinking anyways and getting away with it, so lets at least let them do it safely instead of the way there drinking sneaking around and stuff.
Creamecicle2014

Con

The drinking age should not be lowered because alcohol is a dangerous substance and causes many problems for adults let alone minors. Alcohol can cause brain cells to become damaged and at 21 your brain cells are not completely developed so even then it can cause harm to the drinker, and it will only cause more harm to the brain of a younger person.
Debate Round No. 1
Lil_b_from_the_pack

Pro

that doesent matter, if a person wants to hurt themselves thats there own privilege, the government should not have any say in what age ti should drink, if i wanna drink then im going too
Creamecicle2014

Con

Drinking can affect more people than just yourself. If you start drinking at an earlier age, you become more likely to be an alcoholic and alcoholism can affect your family, friends, loved ones, and other people around you who are strangers. Almost the same as suicide, the government should try to intervene in the event that you make such a poor decision as to ruin your life with alcohol.
Debate Round No. 2
Lil_b_from_the_pack

Pro

but if you lower the drinking age then kids wont have parties unsupervised and then it will be safer, kids have parties without supervision because parents wont let them drink because its illegal, it would benefit everyone
Creamecicle2014

Con

Who would benefit when the teens are openly drinking without fear of punishment? The officer who has to report the death of the kid to his/her parents when he/she was driving home drunk after the party that he/she was openly drinking at? Or how about the parents of the kid who now have to pay for a funeral of their 17 or 18 year old child who is now dead because they made a poor decision to attempt to drive while intoxicated. there is no benefit in this situation at all save the crime systems being less cluttered with petty under age drinking arrests.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iruini09 3 years ago
iruini09
Lil_b_from_the_packCreamecicle2014Tied
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: i feel like it
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
Lil_b_from_the_packCreamecicle2014Tied
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: RFD - Argument goes to Creamecicle2014, he made a lot of statements that were indeed true, though next time would recommend using sources that corroborate his statements about how the brain isn't as developed at younger ages, etc. Pro's argument was pretty much, "legalize it because kids are doing it anyways, and therefore make it safer for them." This argument failed to recognize as Con pointed out how individuals under the influence are more likely to cause harm to others. Conduct is tied as neither one really stood out in this category. Spelling and grammar go to Con, as Pro often began posts/sentences without a capital letter, as well as a couple typos. Sources are tied as neither Pro or Con supplied any.
Vote Placed by noprisu 3 years ago
noprisu
Lil_b_from_the_packCreamecicle2014Tied
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 was proper in his speech and formatted his arguments is an easy manner. Pro also did not properly keep and argument. Pro merely presented the perfection fallacy that because the alcohol laws don't work in the first place, we should just lower the law. Pro did not also give an alternate plan of action, but neither did Con. While that is not required, it is a very strong tactic in debates.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
Lil_b_from_the_packCreamecicle2014Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro argued that if it the legal age was lowered it would be better, because kids are going to drink anyway (might as well not be illegal). that was convincing.