Social science club debates legal drinking age

The legal drinking age will stay 21, according to the debate hosted by the Social Sciences Club at 4 p.m. Tuesday in the Student Center.
More than once, the moderator, David Nesheim, interim director-assessment of academic affairs, asked, “Did I mention there’s cookies?”
Arguing in support of lowering the drinking age was Aaron Eagle, 22, senior of Chadron; Brittney Palmer, 19, sophomore of LaGrange, Wyoming; and Justin Mohr, 20, sophomore of Kimble. Opposing was Cristian Hulsey, 20, junior of Alliance; Keeya Marquez, 19, junior of Cedgwic, Colorado; and Keziah Johnson, 19, sophomore of Dickinson, North Dakota.
Kurt Kinbacher, associate professor of history; Robert Knight, associate professor of communication and social science and adviser for the Social Science Club; and Christopher McCarthy, assistant professor of business, Chadron Center Director for the Nebraska Center for Economic Education, sponsor of the CSC Pitch Club, co-sponsor of CSC Phi Beta Lambda, were judges.
Eagle delivered the opening statements for the supporting group. First, it was clarified that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 or maybe even 19. Eagle argued that, since young adults drink anyway, it would be better if they drank in controlled environments. Issues with drinking at younger ages can be reduced by lowering the drinking age; it would take away the “forbidden” aspect, Eagle said.
He argued that the current law is unenforceable and past attempts to ban drinking, at any age, have failed. Instead of prohibiting young people from drinking he suggested an increase in the education of young people about drinking and better supervision of their drinking practices.
The cross examination from the opposing side, Marquez, pressed Eagle for more solid sources in their argument, but Eagle was unable to come up with anything peer-reviewed or more credible.
Hulsey delivered the opening statements for the opposition. He focused on the effects the current law has had on underage drinking and driving as well as the trickledown effect, which he explained as, if adolescents of 18 have access to buy and drink alcohol, younger adolescents at ages as low as 13 and 14 are more likely to consume alcohol.
Drinking in public places such as bars does not necessarily mean safety, the majority of drinking related problems (car accidents, assaults, etc.) occur in tandem with public drinking, Hulsey argued.
Hulsey raised the health concerns related to drinking before the brain is fully developed at 25. And in states with no tolerance laws for underage drinking, reports concerning underage drinking are fewer, Hulsey said.
Mohr responded to Hulsey with direct counter arguments before Palmer delivered the rebuttal for the group in support.
She listed more reliable sources for the arguments made by Eagle. She added that most adolescents begin college at 18 and as underage drinkers, they may be less likely to seek help in drinking-related incidents because they fear legal punishment.
Rather than prohibiting young adults from drinking and possibly endangering them more, provide them with something similar to driver’s education to prevent tragedies.
Not all alcohol would have to be legalized for people under 21. Palmer suggested legalizing beer and wine, but maintaining the current legal age for hard liquors.
“It’s not a right to drink,” Johnson began when she delivered the opposition’s rebuttal. Her response focused on more of the fact based evidence they had already put forth.
“Kids deserve our respect in their ability to handle this,” Mohr said at the beginning of the closing remarks for the supporters. He suggested that, if adolescents were allowed to drink earlier, they would learn more about alcohol as they grow so that “the day they’re legal for it, they are ready for it.”
Marquez rehashed the facts in the closing remarks for the opposition.
Both teams did well but the supporters needed to clarify their resources better, according to the judges.
The majority of evidence provided by the opposition were correlations and the supporting group should have focused on that reasoning, the judges said.
The judges determined the opposition the winner. There were roughly 15 attendants.