BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning 18-year-olds from drinking is age discrimination

National Youth Rights Association. FAQ - "Alcohol can be a very dangerous substance that causes problems for all people. This is as true for a 17 year old as it is for a 39 year old. The danger of alcohol is real and doesn't go away when someone turns 21. If an organization wished to ban alcohol for the entire population equally, then NYRA would have no reason to stand in their way. NYRA is definitely not "pro-alcohol", rather NYRA is "pro-youth" and we find it hypocritical that adults point their finger at youth while holding a beer in the other hand. It is time we recognize, and discuss the truth about alcohol rather than creating a young scapegoat for society to blame their alcohol troubles on. Through education, gradual entry, and a relaxing of strict no-use policy towards youth will make drinking safer for people of all ages."
18-year drinking age makes college regulation easier

"Lower the U.S. Legal Drinking Age to 18". Online Petition - "There have been many Colleges and Universities that disagree with the legal drinking age. These schools believe that by outlawing alcohol consumption from those students under 21 is only making the problem worse. If the drinking age were changed to 18, Colleges would be able to regulate alcohol use, so students would not become overly intoxicated. This would probably cut down on the number of College campus alcohol-related deaths, since Campus officials would be able to better monitor alcohol use."
Alcohol consumption not comparable to military service

Robert Voas. "There's no benefit to lowering the drinking age". Christian Science Monitor. January 12, 2006 - "First, I'm not sure what going to war and being allowed to drink have in common. The military takes in youngsters particularly because they are not yet fully developed and can be molded into soldiers. The 21 law is predicated on the fact that drinking is more dangerous for youth because they're still developing mentally and physically, and they lack experience and are more likely to take risks. Ask platoon leaders and unit commanders, and they'll tell you that the last thing they want is young soldiers drinking."
18 drinking age would help fight fake IDs and terrorism

Cynthia Martens. "Lower drinking age could aid terror war". The Badger Herald, The University of Wisconsin-Madison. 29 Mar. 2005 - "The most practical way to help officials crack down on terrorists trying to board planes with fake IDs is to eliminate student demand. Any other approach, like it or not, pits government officials against very strong market forces. If students could drink and go to bars at 18, you’d better believe the fake ID business would take a dive...If it will screw the fake ID industry and help fight terrorism, why not make drinking legal at 18?"
21 drinking-age may not be responsible for lower driving deaths

Multiple factors between 1982 and present can account for the fall in drunk-driving deaths, other than the increase of the drinking age to 21 that year. The dramatic increase in seat-belt use probably accounts for most of the improvement. Greater public awareness efforts and strict zero-tolerance laws were also a major factor. The increase of the driving age may have been a very small factor, compared to these and other variables.
Hang-overs teach responsibile drinking; laws unecessary

"Where responsibility begins". The Lantern, Ohio State University. 16 Feb. 2007 - "But when we were sent to college, in a world where alcohol is easily accessible regardless of the law, some of us took advantage of it and some of us made mistakes. Many college students come down from a few years of drunkenness after the unpleasant hangovers provide an experience too uncomfortable to make ridiculousness worth it. Experience helps provide this."
An unpopular idea is not necessarily a bad idea

John J. Miller. "The Case Against 21. Lower the drinking age." National Review Online. 19 Apr. 2007 - "An unpopular idea is not necessarily a bad idea, however. McCardell’s research makes a strong case against the federally mandated drinking age. Choose Responsibility, which receives no financial support from the beer, wine, or liquor companies, is committed to making sure that we hear it."
The possibility of harming a students record because he engaged in underage drinking will be significantly decreased

As most college freshman will have already turned 18 by the end of their first year in college the possibility of them being accused of engaging in illegal drinking and being reported or even expelled form their college is going to be significantly lower one the legal drinking age shall be 18. This enables students to perform academically and in the workforce without worrying about any possibility of having their record ruined by one foolish night of underage drinking"
21 drinking-age just transfers deaths to 21-24 age group

National Youth Rights Association. FAQ - "as researchers Peter Asch and David Levy put it, the "minimum legal drinking age is not a significant-or even a perceptible-factor in the fatality experience of all drivers or of young drivers." In an in-depth and unrefuted study Asch and Levy prove that raising the drinking age merely transferred lost lives from the 18-20 bracket to the 21-24 age group."
European youth are not more responsible drinkers

Robert Voas. "There's no benefit to lowering the drinking age". Christian Science Monitor. January 12, 2006 - Do European countries really have fewer youth drinking problems? No, that's a myth. Compared to American youth, binge drinking rates among young people are higher in every European country except Turkey. Intoxication rates are higher in most countries; in the Britain, Denmark, and Ireland they're more than twice the US level. Intoxication and binge drinking are directly linked to higher levels of alcohol-related problems, such as drinking and driving.
A large majority of Americans oppose lowering drinking age

Sean Flynn. "Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?". Parade.com. 12 Aug. 2007 - A 2005 ABC News poll, taken on the 21st anniversary of the 1984 federal law that forced states to raise their drinking ages, found that 78% of the public opposed a lower age. A 2007 Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans oppose lowering the drinking age to 18.[6]
Safer roads with 21 drinking laws outweighs all trade-offs

Buddy T. "The Lower Drinking Age Debate". About.com. November 23, 2003 - The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that raising the drink age to 21 has reduced traffic fatalities involving 18- to 20-year-old drivers by 13 percent and has saved an estimated 19,121 lives since 1975. Twenty of twenty-nine studies conducted between 1981 and 1992 reported significant decreases in traffic crashes and crash fatalities following an increase in drinking age.
Mandatory military service popular where it exists.

Sweden's mandatory military service, which was phased out in 2009, received significant support among young men, 74 percent of whom wanted to maintain it. The corresponding figure for the entire population was 63 percent, according to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.[18] This is but one example of the popularity of mandatory military service where it exists. The French, for example, have been shown to regret having ended mandatory military service in the 1990s.[19]
Military service secures all rights and privileges.

Ari Bussel. "Mandatory military service works in Israel." News Blaze. November 26, 2009: "f) The IDF is Israel's future, for it enables Israel to focus on innovation and creativity, to flourish and thrive, to grow and succeed in the harshest of environments (climate, lack of resources, human enemies, etc.). By providing the deterrence and safety net, the IDF allows citizens not in active service to live their daily lives in the most unlikely and currently unfriendly of places their eternal homeland. The IDF is the cement, the building blocks, the embodiment of past, present and future of Israel."
Mandatory service supported due to belief in alternative

Bruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "The study shows strong support among youth for universal service. But these advocates usually neglect to mention that this support is based on a stated assumption in the survey question that such service would be 'an alternative to (compulsory) military service should one be instituted.' A truer reflection of youthful opinion is found in the survey's largely unreported question on community service as a requirement for high school graduation. That program is overwhelmingly opposed—by a 35 percent margin among current high school students. Interestingly, the same survey shows that 'instituting civics and government course requirements in schools is favored by a 15-point margin by current high school students.'"
National service can involve non-combat roles.

"The Case for a National Service Draft." Right Democrat. November 25th, 2010: "The civilian service option.Don't want to go military? Not a problem. We have lots of other jobs at hand. You do two years of them -- be a teacher's aide at a troubled inner-city school, clean up the cities, bring meals to elderly shut-ins. We might even think about how this force could help rebuild the American infrastructure, crumbling after 30 years of neglect. These national service people would receive post-service benefits essentially similar to what military types get now, with tuition aid."
Impossible to mandate morality of state

Bruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "Outside of mass mobilization for war—or in the special case of Israel, a small nation effectively on constant alert—the only modern nations that have conscripted labor to meet assorted, centrally decreed social purposes have been totalitarian regimes. In those lands, the object, as much as anything, has been to indoctrinate youth in the morality of the state. Litan may not have such goals in mind, but many universal service advocates want to use conscription to straighten out the next generation—to their approved standards. No doubt many-most?-think they can inculcate a sense of voluntary service through compulsory service."
Taxes are not enough; national service is a good idea.

Richard Stengel. "A time to serve." Time. August 30th, 2007: "Today the two central acts of democratic citizenship are voting and paying taxes. That's basically it. The last time we demanded anything else from people was when the draft ended in 1973. And yes, there are libertarians who believe that government asks too much of us — and that the principal right in a democracy is the right to be left alone — but most everyone else bemoans the fact that only about half of us vote and don't do much more than send in our returns on April 15. The truth is, even the archetype of the model citizen is mostly a myth. Except for times of war and the colonial days, we haven't been all that energetic about keeping the Republic."
Mandatory military service will cure many of society's ills

Armstrong Williams. "Mandatory Military Service Would Benefit the U.S." News Max. June 19th, 2006: "Would you like to see your son, daughter, niece, nephew or teenage neighbor become hard-working, respectful, disciplined, honorable and prepared for life? Would you like to see crime, teenage pregnancy and substance abuse rates decline? No, this is not an advertisement for a magic pill; this is an argument for mandatory military service."
Youth always find way to avoid mandatory service.

Bruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "Youth, ever ingenious, found ways to get deferments, decamp to Canada, make themselves a nuisance to everyone in authority-and make those who did serve feel like chumps. Many of the young people who objected to military service availed themselves of alternative service, but no one seriously believed that most "conscientious objectors" were "shouldering the burden of war" in a way comparable to those fighting in the field."
Conscripts never as good as professional soldiers

Conscripts will not last as long nor be as combat reliable in the battlefield as compared to a real soldier who is trained to do both. These 'conscripts' (candidates) are only given the basic training of how to wield a gun and aim, but that short-lived training will never prepare them to readily pull the trigger to end someone's life, therefore lowering their combat-efficiency because of the uncertainties they pose as soldiers. Furthermore, soldiers undergo years of vigorous physical exercise to constantly improve their physical shape for the merciless battlefield. The candidates however only have but a few months of such training at a lower magnitude, and this cannot be sufficient in preparing them for battle.
Mandatory service creates diverse, unified melting pot

Ari Bussel. "Mandatory military service works in Israel." News Blaze. November 26, 2009: "The IDF is a melting pot it is an army of all the people, those from rich and poor homes, religious and secular backgrounds, different shades of skin color, smart and slow, disabled and healthy, courageous and hesitant. Service pushes all through a mixer, treating them equally, placing the same demands and entrusting the same great responsibilities regardless of creed, ethnicity, or other labels or affiliations."
Mandating service inconsistent with liberal rights

Bruce Chapman. "A bad idea whose time is past: the case against universal service." Brookings Institute. 2002: "Universal service advocates such as Litan are on especially shaky ground when charging that citizens should be 'required to give something to their country in exchange for the full range of rights to which citizenship entitles them.' This cuts against the grain of U.S. history and traditions. Citizens here are expected to be law-abiding, and they are called to jury duty—and to the military if absolutely necessary. They are encouraged (not forced) to vote and to render voluntary service—which Americans famously do. But to require such service before the rights of citizenship are extended is simply contrary to the purposes for which the country was founded and has endured."
Military placement exams would encourage school-work.

P Hedt. "Mandatory Military service and the effects it would have on society." Nolan Chart. December 15, 2008: "The men and women that leave high school will have to get an assessment test on their knowledge and intelligence levels. Naturally, they studied hard in school so that they could place high and choose what job they would have; so they could choose where they would be on the battlefield. Of Course, they (and their parents) would take school more seriously they do now, their futures would depend on it. These days a high school diploma is just a pretty decoration you get after twelve years of being babysat. People would become more serious about how their children were taught. How much money and supplies would schools receive in order to teach their children? A lot more then they do now. How much respect would teachers finally receive? A lot more then they do now. Hoe many children would get lost in the shuffle educationally? A lot less then they do now."
Mandatory service fosters militarism

Oral Calislar. "Mandatory military service essence of militarism." Daily News. September 1, 2010: "'Mandatory military service' is one of the best methods of forcing militarism on society. The heart of the message sent to the entire society and all men are this: 'No matter how educated you are, or what status you have in society, the military is above you; even the lowest military rank is your superior.' Since the aim is to make people believe in how untouchable the military is, mandatory military service is a privilege that militarism will not let go easily. This is the reason behind reactions against military service by payment. [...] 'If you a lawyer or an engineer or an architect, an artist or academics; if you speak five different languages, the lowest ranking military official is still your superior.'"
Mandatory service unjustified to increase political engagement.

Ilya Somin. "Why Mandatory 'National Service' Proposals Target the Young." Volokh Conspiracy. September 24th, 2007: "At this point, I know some moralists will claim that the young "deserve" any political setbacks they suffer because they don't participate in politics enough. Such arguments overlook the obvious fact that many of the political disadvantages of the poor (e.g. - lack of money, lack of access to political office, lack of experience) are ones that they can't easily offset. And whatever the validity of the general view that the young should spend more time on political activity, I hope we can agree that forced labor is not a proper punishment for spending too little time on politics."
Mandatory service makes leaders less trigger-happy

"Mandatory Military service and the effects it would have on society." Nolan Chart. December 15th, 2008: "The presidents children are in the military; congresses children are in the military. How fast would they be to go to war with the knowledge that their children would be deployed? Not as fast as they were willing to in the past. The government would defiantly become more willing to look at other options before leaping headfirst into a major conflict. There would be more protests from congress if the president went crazy and decided to charge into a foreign country."
Wrong to pay soldiers to die for their country

Cody Lyon. "The Uncomfortable Truth of a Mandatory Draft." The Agonist. November 22nd, 2006: "With uncertain talk of troop increases in Iraq, military recruiters, under great pressure from higher ups, go out, look for and find young people to fill ranks in the nation’s armed forces. They offer college tuition, increased sign up bonuses and a salary along with the chance to defend one’s country. Some critics of the all-volunteer force say, in harsh terms, the reality is that we are willing to pay people to die for us during war-time."
Compulsory service engenders appreciation for freedoms

"Mandatory Military service and the effects it would have on society." Nolan Chart. December 15th, 2008: "Upon leaving high school men and women are required, by law, to join the military for at least two years. There is no choice in the matter; if they don't go they get the same rights as a felon. Yes, when a person goes into the military they lose certain rights for a little while, but is that necessarily bad? No. If they have never had their basic rights taken from them they will never place as high a value on those rights, or on the sacrifice their ancestors made to give them those rights. It is a growing problem in America for people to take their rights for granted. Take peoples rights away temporarily and people start to value what they have more; and they start to value their country more. Patriotism will be on the rise."
Corn ethanol is an immediate alternative fuel solution.

This is one of the main arguments the US president Bush put forward in his advocacy of corn ethanol, saying in 2006, "Ethanol has the largest potential for immediate growth...Without much cost, your automobile can be converted to use 85 percent ethanol," Other alternative energy sources, including alternative ethanol types, do not typically have this quality. Corn ethanol energy has been in the works for decades in some places, and automobile engines have already been made compatible with it.
Corn ethanol contributes to soil erosion and runoff

To produce corn ethanol, corn must be grown. If it is to be produced in mass, more land must be cleared to make room. Soil erosion is the natural result of clearing land for crop production. This has many environmentally negative impacts. Typically, it strips an ecosystem of its minerals, and the runoff that occurs sends silt as well as fertilizers and chemicals "down stream", sometimes into local water supplies.
Corn ethanol energy produces a net energy gain

Corn ethanol provides more energy for consumption than it takes to make the ethanol itself. This is important because if it takes more energy to actually make a fuel than energy is received out from that fuel, then what is the point of making the fuel in the first place? Numerous studies and camps support this claim that ethanol energy is a net energy gain. It would appear that more studies support this side of the argument, than the counter claim that ethanol is a net energy loss. See the list of supporting studies and claims in the argument page.
Making ethanol from corn does not deprive the needy of food

The primary issue with world famine is the difficulty of transporting existing food resources to the poor and needy. There is plenty of food in the world. Growing corn for ethanol does not deprive food supplies from the needy. In addition, the idea is to grow new corn crops to supply corn ethanol, rather than divert existing corn food crops to the production of corn ethanol. Indeed, as The Economist reckons, it is possible to make ethanol from cellulose, the abundant, inedible portion of most crops. "Using inedible inputs avoids fights about diverting food crops for fuel..." [The Economist, "Coming up empty", March 27th 2010]
Sugar ethanol yields more energy and power than corn ethanol

A study, published in the July 2005 issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)assessed assessed the energy required to produce the crops and to manufacture and distribute the resulting fuels. In the United States, ethanol yielded only about 10 percent more energy than was required to produce it; in Brazil, where a different process is used, ethanol yielded 3.7 times more energy than was used to produce it.[7]
Relative to gasoline, corn ethanol has a good net energy gain

. The net energy balance of gas is 0.76, according to the National Defense Resource Council.[2] This means the amount of energy in gasoline is %20 less than the energy put in to extract the resource. With corn ethanol, estimates range from it being a net energy gain of around 1.4 to a net energy loss of around .8. This means that, in general, it produces an even higher net energy gain than gasoline. On relative terms, corn ethanol stacks up well to its main competitor; gasoline.
Corn grown for ethanol acts first as a carbon sink

Any plant, when grown, draws carbon dioxide from the air in the process of photosynthesis. Corn grown for ethanol is just the same. When it is burned, and emits carbon dioxide into the air, it is actually only emitting the carbon dioxide that it had previously drawn out of the atmosphere. In this sense, corn ethanol is largely neutral in its carbon dioxide emissions; it gives and takes equally. Gasoline and natural gas, on the other hand, are releasing new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The overall result is that corn ethanol production and use is far better for the environment and global warming.
Corn ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline

Ethanol, Fueling America's Future - "Ethanol is a clean-burning, renewable fuel...E85 is the cleanest burning fuel available on the market today...10% ethanol-enriched fuel reduces carbon monoxide better than any other gasoline — by as much as 30%...The use of 10% ethanol-enriched fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12 – 19% compared with conventional gasoline, according to Argonne National Laboratory...Ethanol reduces tailpipe fine particulate matter emissions by 50%. These emissions pose a threat to those with respiratory ailments."