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.
With respect to the question, the biggest problem with underage drinking is not the legality, but alcohol has many more health problems, and abusive practices can hurt others in the form of drinking and driving whereas obesity is a choice of gluttony.
Not quite, while alcohol can lead to people becoming fat asses a lot of the problem is due to bad genetics and lack of exercise.
Being a fat ass can lead to heart problems, diabetes, Osteoarthritis, cancer, breathing problems, etc. While underage drinking can lead to many problems as well it affects a smaller percentage of the population.
Well, the numbers speak for themselves. There are a lot more fat people than I could imagine.
Annual Causes of Death in the United States [1]
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
And this is includes all alcohol use.
However, despite the statistics, poor choice of diet still doesn't constitute government intervention by banning certain food such as pizza or soda whereas underage drinking, the government has authority to intervene in order to solve this problem; thus, obesity is more an individual problem whereas underage drinking is more a societal problem because obesity is still a personal choice whereas underage drinking is still against the law.
Obesity is still a societal problem even if it derives from personal choice. Why can't the government intervene in diet? Recently in New York City all trans fats were banned. Clinton set up the federal ban of selling sugary sodas in school vending machines. The government can stop their mass subsidizing of corn products which should cut back on the use of corn syrup. There is also the concept of the sin tax. Why doesn't poor diet choice call for government intervention when the poor individual choice is causing a societal harm?
Underaged drinking is also a problem of personal choice. Why does the government have the right to intervene in alcohol use yet, it can't intervene when it comes to other components of the individuals diet?
And to top it all off. You're off topic at this point. The topic didn't ask which was a bigger problem that can be solved through government intervention; it just asked what which was the bigger problem.
What should government intervene next after diet? Force people to buy health insurance. Oh wait. they are doing that now.
Before federal ban, nobody forced those kids to purchase sugary sodas at school vending machines. I am quite aware of the sin tax. So, now the government has the power not to purchase sugary sodas. That is control. So, government intervention is much more important than allowing individual choice. Again, I never said that underage drinking is not a personal choice. I am for repealing the 21 year old drinking age.
I am not off topic because government intervention is not need, yet apparently the only way to solve the problem is more government control.
Well... there isn't a reason why the government can't ban certain types of food... the precedent is already there since the government can limit alcohol consumption... if the government can ban things such as lead paint for reasons why can't they ban foods that are unhealthy. I'm not got governments taking over individual choice but, honestly, people shouldn't be allowed to choose things that can harm all of society like what happens when obesity rates go up.
You never say that underaged drinking isn't a personal choice but argue that obesity is worse because it is a personal choice. By stating that argument you are implying that underaged drinking is not a personal choice. It makes no sense to use the personal choice argument for either side of this debate
How can you even compare lead paint to junk food? Are you eating the lead paint. Sure unhealthy but totally different reasons. Not the same reason to ban both.
So, what else can harm society that you want to attack next? Soda and sugary juices.
To clear this up, it is a personal choice but since the government forces the underage drinking, it renders it not a personal choice, yet it is still a choice because there are not cops on every corner enforcing it, and there are loopholes in which an underage can get the beer. So, laws against underage drinking is useless.
Personal choice does make sense because the government has no business making decisions for others even if there are bad decisions and not beneficial to society, so this is why I picked underage drinking because it already restricts choice. I think every 12-20 has every right to drink beer.
Both lead paint and junk food are an inherent harm to society. That is how the two can be compared.
How is underaged drinking forced by the government? The government doesn't make teens drink... and even if alcohol was legal for teenagers it would still have the same negative affects.
Yes the government does the obligation to prevent individuals from screwing over society.. why should one person be able to ruin the lives of a dozen people... sure they have the choice to ruin there own lives but they shouldn't have the choice to ruin the lives of others.
Again, do you eat lead paint. cause apparently it must be good.
Should be ban everything that is harmful to society?
Sorry, I meant to type was government forces underage drinking laws to prevent drinking to curb consumption, thus it hinders personal choice, yet it is still a choice because there are not cops on every corner enforcing it, and there are loopholes in which an underage can get the beer. So, laws against underage drinking is useless.
For those who are costing the system apparently screwing over society, then let them rot. How do drug users ruin the lives of others? please enlighten. it should be taxpayers who have to pay. tell them to dig out their own cash for their own doing.
No... I am not saying you eat lead paint... I am making the comparison because both lead paint and junk food harm society.
Perhaps not outright banned but at least regulated.
The laws have very good use because it deters people... sure there aren't cops on every corner yet it still stops a lot of underaged drinking...
Well... when people use the ER because they have severe health problems --and ER rooms can't deny service to anybody...because everybody has the right to life.
Drug use leads to increased crime --such as robbery and murder along with gang violence... plus a lot of the drugs lead to severe health problems.
I think you're making a lot of your arguments on the presumption that everybody lives in a isolated bubble but, you've got to realize that are choices that an individual can make that can cause severe harm to others thus allowing that individual to infringe on the rights of others
The underage drinking laws may deter some students but it is still wrong.
Regardless, the insured still end up with the bill before or after this new health insurance bill.
Drug use only leads to increased crime because the government criminalizes users. If it was legal, there would be no need for the black market. Illegal drugs is not only a economic issue, but a moral issue. The government and cartels kill more people in a year cracking down on drug user than those who actually die from drug use.
Well, every argument that you have made is about how it harms society. In socialist societies, sure it is for the benefit of society, but in a capitalist society, it is for the benefit of the individual.
Now after this health insurance law the bill for the insured will be less and more evenly spread out because everyone is insured.
Well... look at this. If drugs were legalized more people would use them. Well, nobody wants to hire a crackhead because of the side effects of crack so it becomes harder for that person to buy crack... well he needs his crack so what else is he going to do... perhaps steal a few things and commit some petty crimes... but then it all gets worse.
Plus hard drugs are not good for society. We'd be better off without them and a government ban is working towards that goal. Gangs are not going to go away because you legalize drugs either.
Look... the government's isn't to pamper the individual... it's too help out society. This goes under the Social Contract. You, the individual, give up a portion of your rights to a governmental organization and that organization will use all of that newly gained power to protect that rights of everyone; including you.
I don't dispute that more people will use more drugs, however, there is a twist. Sure, nobody wants to hire a crackhead, so any responsible adult will be in their best interests not to smoke crack so that s/he will keep their job or find a new one instead of relying on the system. I think the pretty crimes for some drug addict finding a fix is much less than cartels and governments killing 7,000 or more lives a year. [1]
You may be misinterpreting my intentions because I am not suggesting a free for all in legalization. What I'm talking about is applying standards — quality control, just like alcohol and cigarettes. We should have learned our lesson during alcohol prohibitions.
What I'm talking about is applying standards — quality control, just like alcohol. We should have learned our lesson during alcohol prohibitions.
You claim that standards could be applied to drugs like those we have on alcohol yet you're advocating we get rid of the age restriction on alcohol... so if all of your standards were applied we would have unrestricted drug use
Yet, those who are obese can hurt others as well... not directly, but by increasing the cost of healthcare for others driving people into a condition where they cannot afford healthcare, which is not good for society as a whole. Obesity has a lot more health problems than underage drinking, and it affects a larger portion of the population.
Sure, obesity sends up the cost of health care because of their poor choice of diet, but what do you want? Ban all junk food. Hey, I love my Diet Mountain Dew. You can't tell me you live off of salad and water. That would be impossible. Millions of jobs would be lost. Obesity in relation with health care is a societal problem because it affects others, but otherwise by itself, obesity is still a personal choice.
More taxes and control. So eliminate jobs for what? More taxes =less consumption, which means less business, which means slash jobs.
Just what you socialists would want. I never said that underage drinking is not a personal choice. It is more government control. In matter fact, I am for repealing the 21 year old drinking law.
sin taxes make me pay back into society what they take out of it... the government makes more money to put into healthcare which ultimately goes back into paying for the healthcare of those who are obese.
Control over what is sold has been done for centuries in this nation and it is ultimately beneficial to the economy. Sure... less things can be sold but by banning or regulating these products you open up a market for other things as well.
A completely Free-market society can only lead to an oligarchy of sorts which should be prevented.
Why do you keep talking about sin taxes? I know what they are. So, now healthy people have to pay for ourselves and the fat sobs. I guess there is more benefits to being a fat slob. Now I see the benefits.
So you prefer control over more jobs. So, I am interested to see a example of by banning junk food, what open up the market for other things. To only be regulated later by the government. Oh, wait, control is ultimately more beneficial to the economy.
There has never been a completely free market society. So how can you suggest an oligarchy would exist. GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF a COMPLETELY FREE MARKET SOCIETY. I would love to see that.
No... they're aren't benefits to being a fat slob because you're unhealthy and to buy the food that makes you unhealthy you have to pay more. That's the idea behind it... if you're healthy you probably buy less junk food and thus aren't subjected to the tax.
well if junk food is banned... people have to eat something so opens the market to healthier options.
Well in the late 1800s in the US an almost completely free market was around and the very few rich completely abused the working class and essentially controlled the government. There is no example of a pure free market society because they ultimately get taken down because they ,in the long run, go against the common good.
The only reason why fat slobs have to pay more money because of government taxes. So, now being Healthy is a not choice. So the government should now tell whether people can be health or not by imposing taxes. Where does it end?
Ban skiing or football because it is dangerous?
Well the late 1800's is not completely free market was it. No. In today's market is different. The only reason the rich abuse the working class because of corporate communism where the government supports the wealth and wealthy whereas if the government stay out of the market, government aids big corporations whereas if perfect competition was allowed, but it never will happen because of government interference and government support of corporations.
Well... fat people have a choice to be fat... they just know that it will cost more. The choice is still there.
Skiing and football only harm those who decide to ski or play football while obesity provides a threat to general society.
Without governmental protection of the working class they would be walked on by big corporations because big corporations will do anything for cash. Corporations are powerful enough to get all their wealth without government support. In a completely free market competition will eventually die down as one large company rises to the top --which can't be taken down by standard competition because it can undercut any price. The late 1800s was pretty damn close to a completely free market so it can appropriately show what would happen under a free system.
Keep in mind in the 1800s hardly any corporations were supported by the government yet companies like Standard Oil and United Steel rose as huge monopolies.... a completely free market will inherently be abusive to the working class.
Government gives billions in tax breaks and subsidies.
Well the government did not give tax breaks and subsidies to corporations in the late 1800s which shows that companies can work just fine without the governments help
Obesity is harming a very large percentage of our population and, it's symptoms are very drastic: diabetes, cancer, heart disease, liver disease and, etc. Underaged drinking sucks... but it's nearly on the scale that obesity is.
In fact obesity is a worse problem for us than starvation is for a lot of African nations.... and that's pretty bad
Underage drinking wouldn't be as big of a problem if our society taught children to drink responsibly. In European countries, like Italy, many families have wine for dinner and teach their children how to responsibly drink. In America, alcohol is treated as a forbidden fruit that you can't even think about until your 21st birthday. Therefore, when kids (I mean high school) get a hold of beer or liquor, they binge drink. I have gone past my limit before, but I also understand to drink responsibly.
As for obesity, I believe 1/3 of Americans are obese! And 2/3 of Americans are at least overweight! That is a serious problem.
The numbers pretty much speak for themselves. Obesity costs the country more in money and in life so it is the bigger problem.
Underage drinking is a problem also. Sure it leads to a greater chance of dependency as an adult, and teenagers are terrible enough drivers without adding alcohol in the equation,
mainly though it makes kids permanently stupider because the brain is not done developing until the early 20's. link
Who says that I should be responsible for those dumb kids choices? Apparently, you are willing to pay. Why? Because those dumb kids vote in the socialists.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul always supported by Paul.
