Group 1 to Group 4 Rebuttal

First, your example with Chief Seattle is severely outdated. You are talking of an era during the 1850's when America's Declaration of Independence wasn't even 100 years old. Second, Native Americans have been given their rights just as anyone through the perseverace of leaders of the American Indian Movement. The American Indian today has just as much access to better themselves and advantages than anyone else. They own casinos, real estate, and have treaties that were signed many years ago to let "bygones be bygones". Take a member of this panel for example; since this assignment was based on personal experience, she is a Native American that had lived on a reservation for eighteen years and has come a long way through her personal drive to acheive many goals, and has no hard feelings for what has happened to her ancestors in the past. What happened to the American Indian peoples nearly 200 years ago was in fact terrible, but one must remember that in order to acheive happiness and productivity, they should always look ahead and see what is in front of them now. How can you make your life better and how can you progress to a happier and more productive future for oneself without letting the past go?

**The drinking age in America should not be lowered - rebuttal!**

First, we’d like to address a few major inaccuracies, and explain why we will NOT be arguing a lengthy response. The idea of moonshine being created because of the lack of alcohol sold is a poor argument. We were taught in our history classes that moonshine was created because alcohol was banned completely. There is no correlation here to the drinking age limitations. There was also an inaccurate analogy regarding Mexican drug traffickers and several incidents of a slippery slope. One thing does not necessarily lead to another, and young adults did not riot and make moonshine because the age limit was increased again.

In response to the education point, we agree. Education is a powerful tool and we believe that there would be more responsible drinkers if they were properly educated. An increase in education, while beneficial, does not mean that the age limit should be lowered. The cost and time of educating the teenagers would greatly exceed the benefit of lowering the drinking age.

The forbidden fruit idea, while logical in theory, does not perform well practically. The opposite of this has been proved true. Research has shown that when the United States lowered their drinking age, more youths consumed alcohol. Even more worryingly, they continued to drink more as adults. The states that kept their drinking age at 21 saw fewer people drinking, and fewer adults drinking too.

The European argument is a common one! You’re right there aren’t as many drunk driving accidents in Sweden, or many other European countries. This is NOT due to more respect for alcohol. European countries do not have fewer drinking problems than in America this is a MYTH. European countries actually have higher rates of intoxication and binge drinking, which is directly correlated to drinking and driving. The reason there are fewer of them is due to public transportation. It is so expensive to drive in Europe that many people use public transportation, which runs almost 24 hours a day. Why would you drive home, risk losing your license, along with paying a huge fine when you can catch the night bus outside the club or bar?

Lastly, we’re not talking about stopping young people from drinking. You are right, if they want to drink then they will drink. That does not mean that the law should be changed. We cannot stop people that want to steal from stealing, and yet we still have anti-theft laws. We cannot stop young people from drinking, but we do need to let parents and responsible adults have control over it. Here’s the most important part of our counter-argument: What is the advantage to society if the age limit were decreased? The advantage to 18 year olds is clear; they are able to drink legally and will do so. What is the advantage to the rest of us? We think you’ll find that list rather small.

Smoking At Century College Should Be Banned: Rebuttal

Although some students that smoke may feel alienated or discriminated against when asked to move to a smoking shelter or designated smoking area, it does not make it ok for them to completely disregard the health of the people around them. Smoking is a choice. Smokers choose to take on the risk of lung cancer and heart disease, but non-smokers should not have to worry about their health because they had to walk through smoke. Although smokers would like to smoke wherever they please, they should remember to be considerate of those that do not smoke.
Century College is a learning environment and we must all learn to work together in this. Stress and boredom may be reasons people smoke, but it does not outweigh someone’s health that made the choice not to smoke. Considering security officers are not out waiting at the door to fine all the smokers, there seems to be little chance that Century has lost any focus in their mission to educate students.
A smoking ban at Century College could be that push someone needed to quit smoking. Many health insurance companies offer free or reduced price programs to help people stop smoking. Even if you didn’t completely quit you would at least have nicotine gum or patches to get you through your classes.

Jamie, John M., Natalia

Century college Should Not Ban Smoking on Campus

John Nwabugwu

Fue Yang

Shivana Maharaj

Century college Should Not Ban Smoking on Campus.

When colleges redirect their major focus to unnecessary issues pertinent to them, they tend to loss focus on their mission. In view of the aforementioned, Century College should not ban smoking on campus. The choice to smoke or not to smoke should be solely individualized and should not be alienated. Banning smoking in a public places like Century College means a total alienation of the fundamental right of the individuals involved as far as the substance been smoked is not illegal. My personal experience attests to this. As a former smoker, I felt so alienated when asked to move farther than I should. I can imagine what life would have been if I was asked to stop smoking in my college. Besides, smoking is not the only perceived so called unhealthy habit to legislate in Century College. I believe it is an act of discrimination to focus just on smoking, leaving behind numerous habits that are also categorized as unhealthy too, likes drinking alcohol. In agreement to the foregoing, Henry Wechsler, PhD, a research fellow with the Harvard School of Public Health asserts that “Alcohol is such a major issue (in college)….’’ Finally, Century College should take cognizance of the rationale why students resort to smoking in the first place. While contributing on this subject to his internet audience, Chris Woolston alerts that students smoke because of stress and boredom. Should Century College ban this stress and boredom relieving activity, what should be the fate of this marginalized group?

A Rebuttal Paragraph

Yes, it makes sense to see smoking as been harmful to health. I however, do not think that focusing our attention on one out of so many health hazards that cloud our college is appropriate. One big question that people who think that smoking should be ban in our Equal Opportunity College should answer is this: To what extent does this multi bidirectional act affects our health than other health precautionary practices? We should understand that every coin has two sides. If this is the case, is it not wise to reconsider banning smoking since it has not been linked to any social vise in our college. Besides, ways of living still remains an individual decision in our society. Therefore changing it will result to nothing but that outbreak of law.

Not Everyone in the U.S. has equal access to a happy life.

Not everyone in America has equal access to a happy, productive life. There are many groups of people who are deprived of their god given right to live and thrive in the United States. According to the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." On the other hand, as we were fighting for these rights there were others fighting us for the same rights. One example of these people are the native Americans. The population of people who lived and thrived off of the land before we came and conquered. Chief Seattle is an example of a leader who had to compromise in order to ensure any rights for his peoples future. The U.S. government presented Seattle with an offer to purchase over two million acres of his peoples land. It was than that Chief Seattle realized there was no stopping the white man. Seattle made the decision to protect his people by working with the white men who could ultimately destroy his people. His impassioned speech he gave in response to the U.S. government is still widely read and respected today.

The drinking age ought to be lowered, rebuttal

As for our opponent’s arguments, they might as well have produced their facts on pure speculation based on the fact that they provided no specific examples of research done. Furthermore, they state that alcohol decreases motor functions. Yes, this is true, however, with proper education and in a responsible environment, drinkers wouldn’t be allowed to leave or go anywhere without adequate supervision of a sober person, for at least two hours after their last drink. Also, they have provided inaccurate facts. Alcohol actually damages the myelin (the fatty tissue on one’s spinal cord), which according to Professor Hinrich, the Psychology professor at Century College among other places, doesn’t develop until one is 21 years of age. It doesn’t do significant damage, however, unless the drinker is already a severe alcoholic. On the other hand, it damages the brain no matter what age you are, therefore rendering their argument null. Might we also add that the brain never actually stops maturing. It’s noted for its ability to maintain plasticity and adapt to new situations and environments throughout an individuals entire life. Also, they bring up insurance premiums. This wouldn’t be an issue if kids were more educated in the way they drink and the responsibilities they must encounter. Also, your premiums will increase that dramatically even if you get into an accident without alcohol being involved. They have no evidence that lowering the drinking age would cause more accidents, whereas we have provided historical proof that keeping it like it is would do exactly that.

-Mallory, Alecksandra

The Drinking Age Ought to be Lowered

"By denying the obvious pleasure of drinking and not teaching it by example, is anyone really surprised that we've loosed upon the world a generation of feral drunks?" –Jack Hitt.

The legal drinking age ought to be lowered for several reasons: proper education, past experiences, and the law's inability to stop the consumption of alcohol by minors. Proper education of minors on the topic of drinking responsibly is exactly what is needed in this day and age. Young adults go to college and lose themselves in binge drinking, something they could avoid if they were more educated on this manor. Colleges around the country are starting to step up and take responsibility by making students partake in a mandatory class on D2L called "Alcohol and College Life", which teaches students to drink responsibility and several ways to make sure they won't harm themselves. These classes are extremely informative, teaching students everything from how to deal with a hangover, to the consequences of drinking irresponsibly. Furthermore, in other countries alcohol isn't treated as a "forbidden fruit" to teenagers and youths are allowed to drink. Because of this, and we'll use Sweden due to personal experience, the number of accidents involving drunken driving is significantly lower than in the US. There are several reasons for this, but the main reason is education. Swedish kids are taught to drink responsibly by following the examples of their elders. Unlike in the US, where underage drinking is punished heavily and children are taught that drinking is bad, thus leading to the "forbidden fruit" state of mind.
Our second reason, past experiences in history, gives us a look at what happened during Prohibition. As everyone knows from their US History classes, when Prohibition was instated, it merely encouraged people to go "underground" to drink. Due to the lack of alcohol being sold, moonshine, a very, very potent and highly illegal drink, was created and because of this, fights broke out and organized crime was on the rise; this lead to protests, violence, and deaths. We see the same things happening today in the drug war. Because, and we'll use marijuana as an example, marijuana is illegal, it is highly sought after and people go to great lengths to get it. As we see with what is happening in Mexico, drug trafficking is on the rise and so is the violence attributed to it. Organizations want money, but have to smuggle and traffic drugs across the border to get it. People get caught doing it and get in trouble. Fights break out and people die. The slippery slope in not lowering the drinking age is that people will get alcohol no matter what, and inevitably some will get caught, some will fight, and some could die.
Lastly, we will talk about the law itself. According to the opening article on "Debating the Drinking Age" in Back to the Lake the current law only prohibits the sale or purchase by minors and possession of alcohol in public by minors. It does not, however, prohibit the consumption of alcohol by young people. Therefore, this law is counterintuitive. It will not, and historically has not, stopped young people from drinking. Based on all of this evidence, it is easy to see that the drinking age ought to be lowered.

We will post the rebuttal in another post.

-Mallory, Alecksandra

Smoking Should Be Banned At Century College

Have you ever had to walk into Century College through a haze of cigarette smoke which caused you to cough or make breathing difficult? The health warnings no longer apply only to the person smoking the cigarette but also to those standing nearby. The effects of secondhand smoke are harmful to all. With the increase of health advisories for smokers and non-smokers, Century College should ban smoking on campus.
According to the American Cancer Society, each year 3,400 non-smoking adults die from lung cancer and 46,000 die from heart disease due to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke immediately affects the heart and blood circulation in a harmful way but over a long period of time it can also cause heart disease and lung cancer. Secondhand smoke can also cause certain respiratory illnesses to worsen, for example, people who have asthma can often have a severe asthma attack if exposed to smoke.
Although Century College has attempted to keep smokers from non-smokers by making smoking shelters available and signs designating where you make smoke, many students still stand near the doorways. Many non-smoking students feel frustrated when these smoking shelters are not used and they have to walk through cigarette smoke to get to class. Century College does have a policy for designated smoking areas that includes a $25 fine if caught smoking in a non-designated smoking area. However, this does not seem to be enforced often enough.
Since so many smokers on campus are disrespectful to non-smoking individuals by not following Century College’s policy, we feel that smoking should be banned completely at Century College.

Jamie, John M., Natalia