No, the nations capitol should not be considered a state as that could pose unfairness to all other states. There is no reason to even put that thought into consideration.

What if they die before aging 21 and then never get to drink? Then you deny them the right by not supporting what they want.

Actually what you have said does not pertain to the debate. You say that excluding them has not hurt the present moral of the army, when in fact they have not been excluded because alcohol is not allowed in the armed forces. Also you say that treatment should be taken into consideration when in reality you will only be treated after you become addicted and because nobody is becoming addicted through the armed forces there is no point is arguing over treatment. Finally you challenge the accuracy of the statement I made by saying that alcohol will not be abused in the military and in doing so you have doubted the innovation of the American citizens. There could easily be a system that would be created which would prevent the abuse of alcohol. It does not have to be given everyday and it may only be served to troops based on there size. It is not that challenging. Besides you are saying that you are fine with denying and 18 year-old the right to drink alcohol for the rest of there life. Based on the side you have taken am I correct by saying you are fine with that?

Alcohol can lead to addiction but only when abused. If the military were to have control over the amount given to each person (not an impossible task) then they would be able to effectively prevent alcoholism. So any point you made on treatment is not valid because nobody will be "infected". Also the point I made about the younger soldiers is that to exclude them from the norm would hurt the moral of the whole army. It would create seperation oumung the troops. That is a terrible thing for an army to experience.

You bring up a very interesting point....PTSD. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is according to your source a common disorder among returning military combatants. I will agree with that. But what you also state is that by putting alcohol in the armed forces it would encourage addiction among the soldiers. This however is untrue. Because in excess, alcohol makes one drunk, and when drunk one is unable to carry out the basic necessities of war, the military would regulate the amount given to each individual soldier. By doing this nobody would even have the opportunity to become drunk.

(https://health.google.com/health/ref/Alcoholism) I advise you to scroll down to the bottom and read the section on prevention. There you will notice that there are limits to drinking alcohol which would prevent such addictions from occurring.

Therefore allowing alcohol into the military would lead to no addiction and provide no opportunity for problem assuming quantities are regulated. So I will conclude by saying if the soldiers want it they should be able to get it, no matter their age by excluding soldiers of ages younger then 21 the moral of the army will just be damaged.

Your best friends depression cannot be used to reflect all the people in Iraq. The majority are excited to serve for our country and to protect our people (as told to me by my older brothers friend who is currently serving.) Therefore alcohol will not make matters worse rather improve the situation for the majority. Not only that but I said that alcohol should be a privilege among those who may never have a chance to drink it (referencing the military as the optimal example). So are you proposing that we take this privilege away from them? And is that our place to be the ones to steal a luxury from them?

Correct, and in support I would also like to clarify, any violent protests made in order to refuse to obey the demands made by a government is not CD. Instead it becomes a violent protest as seen at the G20 summit. So therefore your argument (Auntie Christ (381)) is invalidated by the standards that it is unrelated to the debate because it is not an example of CD.

The United States of America has approximately 4 million 18 year-olds who must enlist in the draft. Among these honorable men and women none are legally allowed to drink. All, though, are given the responsibility of defending our nation. How can we allow any 18 year-old the burden and responsibility of defending our nation, yet we do not give them the right to consume alcohol? Insane. Also, if they go off to war and give there lives in order to protect the union, we should at least be able to give them the right to drink an alcoholic beverage.

Civil Disobedience is justified assuming it is to be non-violent. Civil Disobedience is a more successful and useful way of protest. According to the first amendment of the United States Constitution all people have the right to peaceful assembly, and protest. By using peaceful protests nobody gets hurt but change happens. Sometimes you cannot rely upon your representatives because so much is at stake. This is why America is partially democratic and not completely a Republic. The fact that people have the right to make change allows them to use civil disobedience to their advantage. Civil disobedience is not an attempt to challenge the very existence of government, it is not a pro-anarchist movement; rather it is an attempt to challenge a particular law or action by the government. By using violence, however, protesters attack the government’s very existence.

The civil rights leader Gandhi freed thousands of Indian people from oppressive British rule during the second half of the 20th century. This event is considered to be a turning point of society and Gandhi’s success is taught to children all over the world. Gandhi once said “I am endeavoring to show my countrymen that violent; cooperation only multiplies evil and that as evil can be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete absentation of violence.” These words from a wise man help teach us that civil disobedience is not evil, which most tend to think of it as, but instead it is important. Without it many Indians may still lack the rights they deserve due to the British government. They are not the only people who would though the Black Americans would also lack there unalienable rights. A man named Martin Luther King Jr. conquered the United States without condemning a single person to death. Instead he marched and using the civil disobedience philosophy freed a whole population of people. If civil disobedience were to have been outlawed then the Black American friends you and I have today, or the people in the government, or running a store may still be in the slums unable to get a formal education, unable to read, write, and count. They would all be stuck in a whole society dug for them. But instead Martin Luther King Jr. prevented that with civil disobedience.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote an important document known as the Declaration Of Independence. In this document he said that there were three Unalienable Rights of the citizens of America these, he said were; life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. People all have the right to live freely and equally within a democratic society and at times some people are unable to do this. If we don't protect the human rights that we have, everyone won't be equal. Here is where the "moral" part ties itself into this subject. It is moral for everyone no matter what age, race, gender, or anything that can be a reason to dismiss someone from something, to have a say. Human rights are codified in the laws of a society. Further those same laws represent the morals of the society since the majority of a society will want its beliefs to be expressed in the laws. Therefore, by protecting human rights we uphold the ideals of a democratic society. Let me add on that without human rights, people are open to oppression from others. If a democracy allows for people to be oppressed then the whole reason for creating a government would be pointless. Civil disobedience shows that we are a democracy because the people have the ability to protest the government. The people wouldn't be in control because they wouldn't be allowed to protest the government that is made for, from, and by them. The government will have more control without civil disobedience, therefore making the government not as democratic, and then it would be harder to have more human rights with more control since the people would be prone to oppression from the government.

The UK should not switch out of the EU as it is a leader of European countries. It is indisputable that with a strong economy and leadership other countries look up to us. The UK is ranked as the 5th most powerful nation in the world and has a very strong economy. The EU was created to integrate European countries into the new world. It was created to bring together the continent of Europe. Not split it up. It was not to make individual countries more powerful so that eventually they would become completely independent of the EU. Therefore, in order to follow out the original ambitions of the EU and to give it the highest opportunity of success the UK should stay in.