CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If 18 is old enough to bear arms and die in the military it is certainly old enough to have a beer. If eighteen years-old can vote for senators or president, or be a father or mother, than they should be responsible enough to have the freedom to drink. In any case college kids will drink or have sex and prohibitions won't change anything. Therefore, set the drinking age at 18. For younger persons
learning to drink responsibly and very occasionally can be allowed by parents under their supervision as part of learning to be an adult.
I think the idea behind drinkng laws is to keep kid's minds on school. Whether or not it is effective is to be judged by the measure of the teenager/young adult. Addictive behaviors can develop at any age, but those years are the most "explorative" for the typical person. Adding the restraint, at the very least, will reduce the occurence of such. Besides, those years are the few that will dictate the course of ones life. It's probably best as a reasonable individual to wait until you're on steady ground before you pick up regular drinking habits.
I think the idea behind drinkng laws is to keep kid's minds on school
In my experience of school (which is prodigious), those persons who are wont to imbibe alcohol are those same persons who are wholly inattentive and feckless in school. I have long considered it a grand foolishness to educate them at all. Rather they should be subsumed into apprenticeships after the first 2-3 years of post-primary.
Addictive behaviors can develop at any age, but those years are the most "explorative" for the typical person.
And if these laws do indeed work, they are in effect denying that crucial period of development to the individual in question.
Adding the restraint, at the very least, will reduce the occurence of such.
I have yet to find any correlation between drinking laws and the reduction of alcohol consumption amongst teenagers. Historical case study: Prohibition in the United States was the progenitor of multiple black market alcohol industries. On this smaller scale, the same logic applies - unnecessary legislation is a self-destructive entity.
Besides, those years are the few that will dictate the course of ones life.
As does college, wherein alcohol is venerated.
It's probably best as a reasonable individual to wait until you're on steady ground before you pick up regular drinking habits.
There is, however, a direct correlation between alcoholism and joblessness.
Although you are right in pointing out that "in any case college kids will drink or have sex and prohibitions won't change anything", however by repealing the limitations of alcohol consumption based on age, it would give them easier access to alcohol because there is no longer any form of restriction that would make obtaining alcohol more difficult and troublesome.
Furthermore, even if someone who is aged 18 may be considered to be mature enough to make decisions on his own, if the age restrictions on alcohol consumption is removed altogether, what's stopping kids at an even younger age from consuming alcohol? Especially for teens going through puberty, when hormones are running wild, going through changes both physically as well as emotionally, and them potentially going through a rebellious phase, alcohol may further cloud their judgement.
if the age restrictions on alcohol consumption is removed altogether, what's stopping kids at an even younger age from consuming alcohol? Especially for teens going through puberty, when hormones are running wild, going through changes both physically as well as emotionally, and them potentially going through a rebellious phase, alcohol may further cloud their judgement.
How about their parents? Parents have more effect on their children than government. If alcohol laws are so effective, why won't there laws before the 20th Century?
Well, because it was left to communities, parents and self control.
When you paint the picture of anarchy with children dying in the streets due to alcohol poisoning, it is really inaccurate due to the fact that previous 20th Century, there was no alcohol prohibition laws.
"How about their parents? Parents have more effect on their children than government."
By retaining the alcohol laws, it does not mean that the parents play no part in ensuring that their children drink responsibly. The two are not mutually exclusive in the first place. As the previous poster has pointed out, even with current laws in place, there are still some who disregard the laws and continue with underage drinking anyway. This is where your "communities, parents and self-control" comes into play.
Having laws put in place is a legal manifestation and reinforcement to the message of drinking responsibly that communities and parents should relay to their children in the first place.
"If alcohol laws are so effective, why won't there laws before the 20th Century?"
We are talking about different time periods, different social conditions. Just because there wasn't a need for alcohol laws in the past does not mean that there is no need for alcohol laws in the present.
"When you paint the picture of anarchy with children dying in the streets due to alcohol poisoning..."
The crux of my argument is essentially the fact that by repealing the laws, there is an increased ease at which teens are able to consume alcohol without consequences legally.
The two are not mutually exclusive in the first place.
Government laws and self government are mutually exclusive.
For the most part, the absence of government control isn't consequential with regard to alcohol consumption and underage drinking.
Why?
Under self governance of only parents, communities, churches and self control, consumption alcohol existed, but not exorbitant, yet today, as aforementioned, underage drinking still persists despite ineffective and costly laws, which only shows overtly how ineffective drinking age laws are.
Anyone who wants to consume an alcoholic beverage under the age of 21 will happily break the law. The only difference is people then had the freedom to choose freely without government control and take responsibility of those choices. Government wants to make decisions for people because of their stupidity.
Having laws put in place is a legal manifestation and reinforcement to the message of drinking responsibly that communities and parents should relay to their children in the first place.
No, parents are much more authoritative figure than government laws, why do you think kids break the law whereas if parents were more active and taught responsibility and dangers of consuming alcohol.
We are talking about different time periods, different social conditions.
How is consuming alcohol in the context of social conditions any different?
The crux of my argument is essentially the fact that by repealing the laws, there is an increased ease at which teens are able to consume alcohol without consequences legally.
Actually, that assumption is overly exaggerated.
As aforementioned, under self governance, they was minimal alcohol consumption by minors because minors consume alcohol as a rebellious freedom of breaking the law. If consuming alcohol was legal, it would become boring, and people would have more freedom to choice.
Government laws and self government are mutually exclusive.
No they're not! Jumping from the top of my house is legal, but that doesn't mean that I have to do it. You can obey the laws of the government and live by your own morals and beliefs.
No they're not! Jumping from the top of my house is legal, but that doesn't mean that I have to do it. You can obey the laws of the government and live by your own morals and beliefs.
Yet, it doesn't mean that self government can't be successful.
Self government, through individual and collective acts of voluntary cooperation, therefore, seems to be the only philosophically consistent, defensible form of government available to man. The state, with its various forms of coercion, shrouded in the cloak of good intention and peddled by forecast-mongering central bankers, be damned.
Many men has numerous affairs with other women or men, should there be a law prohibiting this because it happened plenty of times? NO!!!!
Actually, if you're married in North Carolina, there is. It's called the jump-off law. If a person in a relationship has an affair with someone else then the spouse and their lover can be sued. Fantasia is being sued for it now.
Actually, if you're married in North Carolina, there is. It's called the jump-off law. If a person in a relationship has an affair with someone else then the spouse and their lover can be sued. Fantasia is being sued for it now.
Unless there is a link with evidence of such law, marital affairs is still legal.
Furthermore, there needs to be some form of control in the end. We can't entertain the possibility of 15,16 year old teenagers having absolute freedom to consume alcohol.
If we are considered responsible enough to vote, go to war and kill people then I don't understand why we are considered not responsible enough to drink. It does not make sense to me.
you cannot say to someone,ok by the age of 18 you can be killed in the army,you can vote you can play the lottery and you can smoke but you cannot legally have a lousy drink......
Think about it people don't really abide the law to start drinking at that age anyways i think that after 16 weather the person is fully aware of the consequences of drinking then they can start if not then wait till 18 its the legal age to sign up to the army and drive so yes 18 or 19 should be the legal drinking age, if they are not fully aware but aside that i think 16 depending on the body mass and other factors this opens an debate of quantity young adults should drink.
When you are 17, you can join the military with parental consent. So if you can go over seas and die for your country, you should be allowed to go into a bar and have a drink.
stop the nonsense that this is an issue about public safety. it's not. it's about money. specifically highway funding. the reason states caved to the feds.The United States of America is one of only three developed countries in the world who have a nationwide drinking age of over 18, the other two are Iceland (20) and Japan (20).
I think many are forgetting why it is 18 in the first place, like someone else said, its considered adulthood an age where you reach a certain level of maturity when you can "handle" the responsibility and decision to drink. personally i think the drinking age should go up to 21 in all countries considering the maturity level of many these days...
1. This would encourage kids to come to school drunk, does that sound right? Many kids are starving for one beer already, imagine how many would cross that line and drink?
2. 18 is considered adulthood, where people make their own decisions, and pay the price for them. Therefore it is right for that age to be in place, they are out of regular school, and most are out of their parents house.
Before the 20th Century, essentially, the world was free of drinking laws, particularly the United States. The regulation of consuming alcohol beverages should be self governed. This self governing should be left to families, churches, communities and even self control; however, there were teenagers who engaged in alcohol consumption, yet that is no different than today even with government laws.
The only difference is the cost in enforcing it.
Many learned to drink responsibly from an early age.
Adults are allowed to drink, but that doesn't allow them to turn up to work drunk.
Many kids are starving for one beer already
Which is why we drink regardless.
magine how many would cross that line and drink?
You'll find that only a hopeless minority of people don't cross this "line".
18 is considered adulthood, where people make their own decisions,
That is an arbitrary definition of adulthood. It effectively states that the day between the last day of being 17 and your 18th birthday sees a rapid transformation from an immature savage with no inhibitions into a functional, productive member of society.
they are out of regular school
And into work or college, which are far more important.
and most are out of their parents house.
And therefore more susceptible to whatever financial or educational problems you deem to be intrinsic to the consumption of alcohol.
How can you prove that the teenagers will go to school drunk? Most adults don't go to work drunk.
out of their parents house.
Wouldn't it be better for children to drink at home where their parents can teach them how to drink responsibly? Now, most kids go off to college never taught how to drink so they just chug anything they can get their hands on.
"How can you prove that the teenagers will go to school drunk? Most adults don't go to work drunk."
Most would agree that maturity grows with age and experience. It is not totally illogical to suggest that teenagers may not make decisions that are as good as adults.
"Wouldn't it be better for children to drink at home where their parents can teach them how to drink responsibly?"
Assumptions on two counts. Firstly, that teenagers will drink at home. I would think that most teens would rather be drinking with their friends rather than under the scrutiny of their parents.
Secondly, would parents be bothered or capable enough to ensure that their children are sufficiently informed about drinking responsibly? For families where both parents work, they are potentially leaving their children alone for significant pockets of time when parents cannot check on their children.
I can prove it because I have seen it. Some of the people I have talked to have admitted to coming to school drunk. Kids are taught how to drink, yet when they our over the age of drinking and out of the house they go crazy about it. Many parnets have taught their kids about drinking, yet that never means they are going to follow it.
erm im 15 and if the legal age was lowered i really dont think that i would go into school drunk as thats just irresponsible and just gives the government reasons to raise the age again so maybe you want to actually talk to some young teenagers before being so sterotypical :O
The reason why drinking is wrote of to be so bad is because people make it a forbidden fruit i go to school with a German exchange student and he was drinking since he was 16 with his family. He does not drink to get drunk but drinks for the drink itself. when you tell someone especially a teenager they can not do something they do it just in spite. At first there would be a big jump in teenage drinking but it would get old fast and people would stop doing it or at least as much.
I think many are forgetting why it is 18 in the first place, like someone else said, its considered adulthood an age where you reach a certain level of maturity when you can "handle" the responsibility and decision to drink. personally i think the drinking age should go up to 21 in all countries considering the maturity level of many these days...
What? Alcohol can not be blamed for all of those things. It's not my fault if someone drinks and doesn't live their life like me. I really don't care about their relationships.
Dude! Are you drunk? Please use spell check next time.
wen did i say its ur fault
When you decided that it was okay to blame everyone for a few people's bad decisions.
neither me bt i guess they shud
Let me get this straight. Because they should care about their relationships, everyone should have to wait until they turn 21 in order to drink. If they mess up their relationship, then that's their fault.
When you decided that it was okay to blame everyone for a few people's bad decisions
idont remember i decided any thing like dat
Let me get this straight. Because they should care about their relationships, everyone should have to wait until they turn 21 in order to drink. If they mess up their relationship, then that's their fault.
of course they shud
bt is it necessary 2 drink
for ur kind information let me tell u dat der r people who dont drink nd yet live a better life nd im 1 of them
& if they mess up their relationship its only coz dey r drunk so its not fully their fault
see actually i'm totally against drinking nd i vud ne'er support it
When a person takes a drink of alcohol, ethanol (the chemical name for drinkable alcohol) irritates the stomach lining, releasing acids. A small amount is broken down chemically, but most of the alcohol heads toward the small intestine through an opening called the pyloric valve. Drinking too much alcohol too quickly can cause the valve to swell and close, causing vomiting
see actually i'm totally against drinking nd i vud ne'er support it
You may not support it, but that doesn't stop everyone else. Everything we do is dangerous in some way. We just have to learn how to regulate ourselves on some things. If you know that you have a tendency to get mad or sad or whatever when drinking, and you don't like how you feel, then it's time for you to step up and take responsibility.