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...