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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your panel did an excellent job with your rebuttal and provided enough amuniition along with some very explicit reasons why an audience needs and should believe your side of the issue, I do. Lowering the drinking age would make it available, legally, to teenagers, and that's exactly what lowering it would do - give a drink to a teenager. I know many teenagers who should not drink and most shouldn't drink until they are 25 from what I see. Young people take risks; they think they are invincible and that together with alcohol makes for some pretty scary scenes that I don't want to come across at midnight on the roads.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this argument. I myself don't think that the drinking age should be lowered because we already have adults (21+ ) who are intoxicated in public and are receiving DUI's/DWI's what would happen if the drinking age was lowered? There would be a lot more accidents, a lot more offenses.
ReplyDeleteI liked the point that you guys made about educating the younger drinkers but it would take a lot of time and energy to do that. Underage drinking is a serious problem and it happens everyday; however, if we lower the age I feel like it would be a nightmare.
Rebuttal of Banning Smoking in Century College:
ReplyDeleteIt is not good to solve a problem by creating another problem. The fact is that smokers in Century College have been desginated areas for smoking and if that is the case, why should they be deprived of their right because someone choose a difference habit as oppose theirs. It is unjust! The issue should have been extending the range or diameter of these desgnated smoking areas not on alienating people's right to life.
Thanks.
John Nwabugwu.
Actually, no they didn't. The thing about the European nations "Myth" isn't true because the reason those countries drink is because they're depressed, and the only ones that do so are the ones to the north, near the Arctic circle (i.e. Northern Finland) because of lack of sunlight. Secondly, they still didn't cite their sources, so they might as well be making everything up. This would not fly in a real debate.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you respond to each point, one at a time. This is defnitely effective. But I agree with Mallory's point about source citation--this is important as well.
ReplyDelete