should kids drink ALCOHOL
Debate Rounds (3)
Kids haven't developed enough to take in alcohol, they would damage parts of their body ! :(
My brother in law gives his 6 year old the bottoms of his beer..all the time-> probably 10oz combined each time, and it really bothers me. So I made him look up on the web ......and now my 6 year old god son sick to the skin
Con challenged me to this debate, and as such he is upholding that kids should not drink alcohol. Since the should implies a normative command based on an ideal standard or model, I expect my opponent to use the next round for describing what his standard or model is, how to value the consumption of alcohol by minors based on it, and why its implications matter in this debate. My opponent assumes full burden of proof, and as such I will use a predominantly kritik case to question and challenge his mindset with reasonable objections, while listing one important contention of my own. Therefore, I will not be proving that kids should drink alcohol, merely that there exists no obligation for kids to not drink alcohol like Con's case and position suggest.
As Con has denied us the pleasure of defining the resolutional terms, I will define the terms
Kid - a human being below the age of 18
Alcohol - A beverage containing ethyl alcohol
Should - a normative command "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"
⇾ Pro Case ⇽
By the mere act of engaging in debate, I am exercising my right of self-ownership via my physical body as well as my cognitive functioning. Through debating, my opponent and I both implicitly recognize our individual right to exclusively control our individual bodies. Consequently, we understand that the anti-coercion principle is surmised as well. Therefore, communication with individuals necessarily presumes self ownership and anti-coercion. Deviating from argumentation and self ownership to the extent of using force to prohibit an expression of self ownership violates both of the principles previously established; it is therefore, immoral and illogical. 
Robert LeFevre writes, "Each person owns himself and all of his functions, including those of sex, digestion, cognition, and so on. Among the greatest satisfactions available to human beings are those which recognize other persons as equals in the property ownership of self. Although a man may wish an exclusive association with a particular friend, and while it may be possible to contract for such an exclusive relationship, the fact remains that each party to any association always remains the owner of himself." 
Kids have self-ownership as persons, and as such have exclusive control over their own bodies in this respect. This directly negates the supposed obligation of kids to not drink alcohol, which reduces to nothing more than deriving an 'ought' from a societal 'is'.
Summary: Through the act of debate we presuppose self-ownership and anti-coercion. This provides a framework for ethically and logically upholding the legality of cigarettes as the least bad option. Deviating from this framework by using a force to prohibit an expression of self-ownership is immoral and illogical. Furthermore, it implicitly concedes a lack of argumentation justification. Therefore, there exists no moral obligation for kids to not drink alcohol.
⇾ Con Case ⇽
"Of course it is, it has alcohol !"
I can only assume my opponent is answering the question: is it morally wrong for kids to drink beer? If so, his response offers no warrant or implication, which reduces his statement to a baseless assertion and non sequitur.
"Kids haven't developed enough to take in alcohol, they would damage parts of their body ! :("
An infant is developed enough to "take in alcohol," so a 'kid' is well within a margin of safety in claiming that he is developed enough to "take in alcohol." As for the concern of bodily harm, I contend that it has no implication in this debate because Con has yet to provide a framework for valuing such self-harm, and I have presented argument to the contrary that there is no obligation to not partake in dangerous or risky behaviors.
"My brother in law gives his 6 year old the bottoms of his beer..all the time-> probably 10oz combined each time, and it really bothers me. So I made him look up on the web ......and now my 6 year old god son sick to the skin"
Something bothers you =/= normative obligation. At any rate, anecdotal evidence is not a strong argument.
Your turn, Con.
george_ily forfeited this round.
Extend my arguments like Russia's arbitrary geographical monopoly on the use of violence during the Renaissance.
george_ily forfeited this round.
A scinitillating conclusion from my rhetorical foe!
Extend my arguments like FoodSaver® Vacuum Bags extend the life of perishable produce.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by yoda878 4 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: FF- Very disappointed in con! :(
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.