- Published: September 11, 2022
- Updated: September 11, 2022
- University / College: University of Toronto
- Language: English
- Downloads: 33
Coms 2 Negative Outline Proposition: The State of California should lower the minimum legal drinking age to 18. Introduction Thesis: Though I agree that every 18-20 year old should be allowed to take on the challenges of being an adult such as: voting, going to war and signing legal documents, I do not agree that 18 -20 year olds have knowledge and strength to consume alcohol in a responsible manner. Therefor I believe that we should stick with the status quo and keep the MLDA as is. Preview: I will begin this debate by refuting any ills that the affirmative brings to the table. Then I will present you with an outline as to why the affirmative’s plan of action is flawed because we in fact need to keep the MLDA at 21. Finally, I will introduce and explain to you why keeping the status quo is more beneficiary than any ill or cost that can be presented to you Body Ill and significance refutation i. The affirmative claims that underage drinking needs to be controlled and taught with responsibility. nnnn This ill that the affirmative is presenting is one in which I am not certain of. To me this is saying, “ well if we teach them to drink when they’re young then they’ll be able to do so in moderation as they grow” and this is simply silly. We aren’t teaching kids to ride a bike, we are essentially exposing them to harmful substances in hopes that they will “ drink responsibly. ” All this will do is corrupt the growing youngadults and adolecsants; according to the NIAAA (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism) and doctor Susanne Hiller-Sturmhöfel the brain in this stage of life is still in the developmental process and consuming alcohol in small or large amounts can have serious effects on the long-term life of a person. Alcohol effects the brains ability to form memories which on college campus’ is a reoccurance with binge drinking, 44% of college students to be exact. According to an article by Alex M. Johnson on MSNBC, binge drinking is “ considered a rite of passage by many college kids” and this behavior costs the health care system due to black-out related emergency room visits. In large colleges it is about a half a million dollars a year because of underage binge drinkers. A blackout is the inability to recall events without a full loss of consciousness which means the sufferers can walk, talk, drive or have sex but they can’t remember any of it – creating a greater risk for car crashes, other accidents, unwanted pregnancies and STDs. This is a huge problem because as you can see this doesn’t only effect the person directly but it can also effect those around them. So as we can see even though the status quo is 21, for some reason or another underage people are getting and consuming alcohol and they are not doing it responsibly whatsoever. ii. The affirmative will argue that the status quo is not helping the issue of underage drinking and that it is more or less ineffective. This is untrue. “ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that through 2002, the increase in the minimum legal drinking age has saved 21, 887 lives in the 50 states. NHTSA estimates that the current MLDA will continue to save 1, 000 lives each year. While alcohol was involved in 60 percent of U. S. vehicular fatalities in 1982, the rate in 2005 stood at 39 percent. ” (http://www. chooseresponsibility. org/debating_the_issues/) The MLDA has not only saved lives when it comes to traffic and car safety but it has also saved lives in other ways 23, 733 lives to be exact. If the MLDA is saving lives every year then why do we need to change it in order for underage people to be “ more responsible”? iii. The affirmative will bring up the issue of 18 being the legal age in which one is an adult so they should be able to make their own decisions on alcohol. “ Many rights have different ages of initiation. A person can obtain a hunting license at age 12, driver’s license at age 16, vote and serve in the military at 18, serve in the U. S. House of Representatives at age 25 and in the U. S. Senate at age 30 and run for President at age 35. Other rights we regulate include the sale and use of tobacco and legal consent for sexual intercourse and marriage. The minimum age of initiation is based on the specific behavior involved and must take into account the dangers and benefits of that behavior at a given age. ” Cure Refutation The affirmative’s plan is not workable for several reasons. My opponent is simply stating that there is underage drinking occurring now and will continue to occur despite the law and to me this is an invalid argument. Because if this is true then lowering the drinking age is simply going to start a chain reaction in which younger and younger kids are drinking. So this “ cure” is not one in which we can approach because if it’s going to happen regardless then there’s nothing we can do. However, we will continue to see drop rates in the number of college and high school drinkers. if we keep the MLDA at 21 we will continue to save lives through traffic safety. And that to me saving lives is a good thing. Cost-Benefits There are two disadvantages to keeping the MLDA as is: 1. College students are going to continue to find the alcohol to the best of their ability and unfortunately there isn’t enough authority to monitor each and every person. So, underage drinking will still occur. 1. There will still be alcohol-related deaths and accidents despite the age of the person consuming. Conclusion We need to keep the status quo because the effects of the MLDA, since implemented in the 1980’s, have only been beneficial to the people consuming as well as society. Remember that we are not only trying to keep the law just but we are also saving lives by keeping the status quo. Work Cited Hiller, Susanne. ” NIAAA Publications.” NIAAA Publications. N. p., n. d. Web. 07 Nov. 2012.
