HBwillie Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 This is my 4-7 minute persuasive speech that I will be giving Wednesday. Though I don't agree with the subject matter, I thought it would be interesting to argue for the opposite end of the spectrum. Please read it and make any suggestions make it better. Soldiers who enlist to serve our country after graduating high school can fight and die for our country, but can't have a beer to celebrate or relieve tension? Military soldiers, particularly those stationed in hostile areas, risk their lives everyday so that our freedoms remain intact. The stress level is of a military soldier is just as high, if not higher than any common occupation in the U.S. 18 year old soldiers cannot celebrate completed missions or simply relax while consuming alcohol, or they are breaking the law. This, in my opinion, is very unfair. It isn't just 18 year olds in the military that carry heavy stress, responsibility and risk. As far as these factors are concerned, 18 year olds have it just as bad as anyone else. For example, at age 18, criminal offenders are no longer tried as juveniles. 18 year olds are tried as adults, and for serious offenses, can receive the death penalty or life in prison. If 18 year olds have to accept responsibility for all adult laws, why be partial? While on the subject of legality, crime rates in countries that have lower required drinking ages should be considered. Drinking at age 18 does not directly correlate with a higher rate of crime. Also, lowering the drinking age could be looked at as a possible crime deterrent, as minors may find it less "cool" to drink before it is legal. You can look at this one of two ways. One, 18 year olds have no business drinking because they are too impressionable, inexperienced and immature, or two, responsibility lies with the individual, and how a child is raised determines their level of responsibility. Acohol is a privelege deserved by those who can be responsible and accept responsibility for their actions. I believe that lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 is advantageous for all these reasons. If you still don't agree with me, I hope I've made an impression on you and that you'll simply take my ideas into consideration. Any links to webpages I can cite for specifics would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Talk slowly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 you want to argue that 18 year olds shouldn't drink? I think you're nuts, but here is the only method to argue a point you don't agree with: make the debate that you agree with... write up your counter points and those will become the basis for your presentation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Forsaken Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yes, 18 year olds shouldn't (legally) drink. Why? 18 year old kids, especially males,(in the US) are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrek Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 anyone I can trust to own a gun, operate a car, and vote should be able to drink a beer. If they're too immature for any one of those, they should be blocked from doing all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Forsaken Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 And while they have the right to, I don't trust 18 year olds to do any of those things. Especially own a gun. There is no way I would support someone who has been driving for only two years(maybe even less) to be legally able to drink. As a matter of fact, the majority of the reasons you listed above about trusting 18 year old kids to do, is why they SHOULDN'T be able to drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songofsixpence Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 And see...I'm all for going to an ageless system for drinking. I think that it would cut down the amount of binge drinking if the current barriers weren't there. I know that in other countries that I've been too where there is a lower (or no) drinking age, I've seen much less binge drinking than I do in the U.S. And when it comes to trusting people to vote, own guns, etc? I don't trust most of the people I've known to do any of that. I'm very much for competency tests as proposed in Starship Troopers (not that I think it will ever happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 I feel that drinking should be legal for all ages. A drinking age only hurts the responsible people that would listen to it. People who will drink underage/illegally/binge drink/whatever will do so either way. Make it less fun (not breaking a law, not having to be secret, not being as 'cool) and it will go down. Drinking is its own penalty. HOWEVER, I believe the drinking laws regarding driving (and other things that directly danger other people) should be MUCH, MUCH more severe... Guns are a different deal because they are a lot more directly dangerous to other people. Yet once again, gun laws are restricting people who will obey the law anyways. For guns, I feel that a background check, competency test, and license would be approriate. I have mixed feelings about voting. I do not agree with a meritocracy (vote by the skilled), because that inevitably leads to concentration of wealth and power into some sort of aristrocratic class and back to britain during the industrial revolution and the rise of marxism and all that jazz. It is my opinion that all citizens and registered perm. residents should be able to vote at the state level and below. Citizens for national elections. I do feel that election day should be a work/school holiday. I also feel that voting should give you a small tax break. (HUGE increase of voter awareness/turnout) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
songofsixpence Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 I also feel that voting should give you a small tax break. (HUGE increase of voter awareness/turnout) Huge increase in turnout, I wouldn't say anything about awareness. Many people would probably vote on party lines without bothering to look at at the candidates platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 28, 2006 Report Share Posted November 28, 2006 Huge increase in turnout' date=' I wouldn't say anything about awareness. Many people would probably vote on party lines without bothering to look at at the candidates platform.[/quote'] You mean, like they do now? As for the drinking age and all that... anyone who can be drafted by the government of a country to die in a war not necessarily of their choosing should be allowed to get hammered whenever they want, so long as them doing such does not impinge upon anyone else's rights. Then again, I've long felt this way about most substance laws. Plenty of countries LACK a drinking age whatsoever, and they have better drunk driving rates than we do. Why? Because the kids are brought up USED to alcohol, used to its effects, and know what they can and can't do while drunk. There is a huge "I'm told not to do it so I'm going to do it" mentality with youth, and that gets kids into a lot of trouble. Sex, drugs (alcohol/tobacco included), violence... give the kids a bit of guided learning on it, they'll turn out not screwing themselves up as much with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMac Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I have mixed feelings about voting. I do not agree with a meritocracy (vote by the skilled), because that inevitably leads to concentration of wealth and power into some sort of aristrocratic class and back to britain during the industrial revolution and the rise of marxism and all that jazz. Some watched Engineering an Empire: Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBwillie Posted November 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Revised, with a bit of plagiarism. Soldiers who enlist to serve our country after graduating high school can fight and die for our country, but can't have a beer to celebrate or relieve tension? Military soldiers, particularly those stationed in hostile areas, risk their lives everyday so that our freedoms remain intact. The stress level is of a military soldier is just as high, if not higher than any common occupation in the U.S. 18 year old soldiers cannot celebrate completed missions or simply relax while having a beer, or they are breaking the law. This, in my opinion, is very unfair. It isn't just 18 year olds in the military that carry heavy stress, responsibility and risk. As far as these factors are concerned, 18 year olds have it just as bad as anyone else. For example, at age 18, criminal offenders are no longer tried as juveniles. 18 year olds are tried as adults, and for serious offenses, can receive the death penalty or life in prison. If the government has decided that 18 year olds can be sentenced to death, life sentences, and they are no longer juveniles in that sense, then it has no right to restrict them from drinking alcohol. Anyone I can trust to own a gun, operate a car, vote, sign contracts and get married, should be able to drink a beer. If they are too immature for any one of those, they should be blocked from doing all of them. The United States has the highest drinking age in the world. While on the subject of legality, crime rates in countries that have lower required drinking ages should be considered. Drinking at age 18 does not directly correlate with a higher rate of crime. Plenty of countries lack a required age whatsoever, and they have better drunk driving rates than we do. Why? Because the kids are brought up familiar with alcohol, they are used to its effects, and they know what they can and can't do while drunk. Also, lowering the drinking age could be looked at as a possible crime deterrent, as minors may find it less "cool" to drink before it is legal. Juvenile courts are jammed with "minor in possession" cases. If they weren't, they might have more time and funds to deal with the kids with more serious issues. When was the last time you heard a minor respond, "I'd better not. I'm not 21 yet.", when turning down a drink? It doesn't happen. Kids will drink whether it is legal or not. It's not a secret. Making it legal makes it less fun. You can look at this one of two ways. One, 18 year olds have no business drinking because they are too impressionable, inexperienced and immature, or two, responsibility lies with the individual, and how a child is raised determines their level of responsibility. Acohol is a privelege deserved by those who can be responsible and accept responsibility for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I was drinking by age 15, its retarded that I can't drink at 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatic Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I'm going to have to say I think that the drinking age should be lowered. As a soldier and a person under 21, I have to say nearly all the military agrees with you. If it wasn't for all the military moms we would still be able to buy alcohol on base at 21 and not get in trouble unless we left the base. To be truly honest, everyone in my unit will allow me to use their IDs to get into bars and such as that's where all our little get-together for a going to Iraq gatherings happen. I agree with Celerity on the increasing the penalty for all the alcohol related driving infractions. But why not let us have a beer legally? I'm leaving to train for Iraq next month, I'm sure as hell gonna kick back and have a little fun before I go. and P.S, I don't care if my grammar sucks for all of you that like to sidetrack topics with pointing out grammar mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zrothum Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Some watched Engineering an Empire: Britain No ****, I was thinking the same thing. How lame. TV doesn't make you smart, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb5679 Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Unfortunately since I can't see the full case study, I can't really give full details, but there was a study done (though I didn't find any others yet supporting / refuting it) regarding the earlier onset of drinking below 20 has been known to increase the chance of alcoholism http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9494942&query_hl=42&itool=pubmed_docsum Though, I didn't peruse it too much, I was assuming this was conducted in the US, and I am fairly certain other countries haven't had many problems with their drinking limits. But, also, the abstract never mentions 18 specifically, merely 14 and 16, which those 2 ages aren't your ages anyways. Anyways, just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 No ****' date=' I was thinking the same thing. How lame. TV doesn't make you smart, people. [/quote'] Not everything on TV is complete bull, either. You can learn a lot from the right programs... History/Discovery channel are fairly good sources of information. Not perfect by any means, but no worse than reading academic journals or articles for such. Most important thing for verifying any information is the sources used by the journal/article/program you're using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBwillie Posted November 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I wasn't confident about my speech today, so I skipped the class. I sent my teacher an email this morning saying that I had to pick my little brother up from school and wouldn't be able to make the class. Come to find out, she told my girlfriend that I needed to check my email and that I wasn't going to pass her class, because she doesn't allow people to make up speeches. This is total b.s., as I have one of the highest grades in the class. Sure, she's the teacher and what she says goes, but if she sticks to her guns, there's gonna be a problem. See, it's illegal to divulge that I would fail the class to anyone but me. If she does intend to flunk me, I'm gonna raise hell, because not only does it screw up my gpa, it makes me inelligible for future federal grants and I can't afford to pay out of pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtsoShex Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 I wasn't confident about my speech today' date=' so I skipped the class. I sent my teacher an email this morning saying that I had to pick my little brother up from school and wouldn't be able to make the class. Come to find out, she told my girlfriend that I needed to check my email and that I wasn't going to pass her class, because she doesn't allow people to make up speeches. This is total b.s., as I have one of the highest grades in the class. Sure, she's the teacher and what she says goes, but if she sticks to her guns, there's gonna be a problem. See, it's illegal to divulge that I would fail the class to anyone but me. If she does intend to flunk me, I'm gonna raise hell, because not only does it screw up my gpa, it makes me inelligible for future federal grants and I can't afford to pay out of pocket.[/quote']I've got the key to all your problems. (1) A bag of poo is on a doormat here. (1) A flaming match is on the ground here. >get match You get A flaming match. >get poo You get A bag of poo. >hold poo You hold a bag of poo in your hand. >put match poo You put A flaming match in A bag of poo. >drop poo You drop A bag of poo >smirk You smirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 history channel is good at saying nothing for a long, long time. :S I've never seen that movie about britain..so I don't really get what is being said there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 And so another good channel gone to waste... and on a side note your inbox is full cel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.