BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should the drinking age be lowered

First of all Negatives don't write in the yes box and same goes vise versa, positive's. Second don't write a comment when you are Oh So obviously drunk. And last but not least the drinking age should be lowered to 18 if not even lower because you can posses and shoot a lethal weapon at the age of 12 to go hunting. Also you need to view it from a different perspective, I am going to assume that most of the people writing the negatives are fully grown and have kids, I can understand your worries for the safety for your family and friends but if you look at it from the young adults point of view. They are going to war to fight for us so we don't have to fight for our selves and don't you think they would want to die the next day having had fun the day before drinking and partying it up with friends the day before. You know unless you decide to go to war and fight side by side with your son or daughter. And if you are a smart a** i am sure you wouldn't, once they reach 18 they can do any thing they want except drink, they are not the little kids you once knew. They are adults who are old enough to adopt a child, go to war, vote, and even sign a binding contract knowing the consequences and benefits and also knowing that their mommy and daddy aren't there to solve the problem. My solution I think is obvious, lower the drinking age but raise the age you need to be to drive, just like the Europeans. In fact when you think that your kid is stupid because of the alcohol just keep in mind that they are not, they are stupid because of how you raise them to view homework and school and how the school runs. When I was growing up my parents gave me priorities and they were School and homework first, chores, and then play. Next there is the school i have seen teachers barely pass their students just because they don't want them in their class again next year and also because of sports. seniors rule the school and know how the system works so they can slide on by getting the bare minimum, but if you went to Europe or China or even Mexico the schools are tougher because the standards are higher.
Young adults in college won't get in trouble with the law

If teenagers were allowed to drink at the age of 18 far less people would be getting in trouble with the law. Since 18 is the age many enter into college, it will be about the time that many take their first sip of alcohol as well. Though there is a fair share drinking in high school, the consumption of alcohol increases greatly once in college. Being a college student myself, I know that a very large percentage of the campus population engages in illegal consumption on a weekly basis. At the same time, these young adults are getting in trouble with the law by receiving Minor in Posessions or having their fake ID confiscated. By lowering the legal drinking age to 18, most college students would be allowed to drink without the worries of getting caught. If they are old enough to live on their own and take responsibility for their school career, they should be responsible enough to drink
Young adults drinking could cause more problems in the future

The current drinking age is 21, but aren't there still 25 year olds drinking and going to the bars? So if the age becomes 18, there will still be plenty of 21 year olds drinking. Lowering the age would only allow people to start their habit at an even younger age. This could lead to more and more adults suffering from alcoholism. By starting at 18, kids will be able to build a tolerance to alcohol and by the time they get to college they will be experienced drinkers. Instead of saving their fun for the weekend like most college students, they will feel the need to drink through out their school week, therefore falling behind on their studies and even potentially losing their social life and friends. This ultimately would lead to failing out of school, not being able to hold a steady job, and not being able to get the job that a college education could have gotten them.
should the drinking age be lowered

i think the drinking age shoi=uld be lowered to 15 because they are already doing it anyway so why should they stand around for time when the could just walk right in i tink the drinkingmage shouldent be lowered because is the law i hate it when the law changes stuoid things but not the secrousily ones like fighting an drugs and why people shouold go to jail even if they havent done anything wrong
Lowering the age will cut down on young adults drinking

Though many do dare to drink while under-aged, there are some that are waiting to become legal to drink and buy it for others. Lowering the legal drinking age would only allow them to buy alcohol for even more minors to drink, which will most likely still be illegal to do. All a party would need is a few people legally able to drink to talk to the police and make it look like everyone is legally able to drink at the party. It isn't so much the thrill of knowing there are consequences if caught drinking illegally, but really just the feeling of being intoxicated appeal to them.
no

It is true that the human brain doesn't stop developing until 25. The drinking age is 21 to protect the brain but the law doesn't do any good if the majority of young adults don't follow it. The United States spends far too much money fighting a useless battle. If a young person wants to drink then they will. It would be cheaper and much more beneficial if the government stopped trying to criminally charge underage drinkers and educate them about the dangers of over consumption instead. This would lower binge drinking and drunk driving accidents. I also believe that if you're old enough to get blown up by an IED in Iraq or anywhere else, then you're old enough to have a beer in your own country. If it weren't for soldiers, no one would be in America drinking alcohol. If nothing else, let those that serve in the military drink. They deserve to be able to do what they chose.
Lowering the age will cut down on young adults drinking

Though many do wait to take their first sip of alcohol until college, there are still the rebels sneaking drinks into the high school football games. They know the risk of getting caught, they know what their consequences will be, so why do it? It's fun, it's exciting! It's the rush of doing something they are not supposed to be doing and sneaking around. If it was made legal, there wouldn't be quite as much excitement and thrill. Also by the time they finish college, these young adults would not feel the need to do it as much since they will have been drinking for quite a few years, therefore, allowing them to focus more on their school work and not become consumed by the alcohol.
The min drinking age in Canada is generally 19 and 18 in Quebec

So American students drive across the border to Canada, drink and then drive back. The point behind drinking laws is make sure students aged between 18 and 21 do not drink and endanger themselves or others; however this has proved practically counterproductive as driving drunk from Canada back to the U.S cannot be good for anyone. [http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Drinking%20Age%20Limits.pdf]]
Being able to drink won't keep them out of all trouble

Just because 18 year olds are allowed to drink, doesn't mean they won't do stupid things after being inhibited by alcohol. Many college aged students don't see the risk of drinking and driving, they look at it as, "Will I get pulled over?" So by allowing them to drink legally, that's only clearing one hurdle for them, they will then assume that with only one obstacle left they're in the clear. That's obviously not the case. They could get behind that wheel and kill not only themselves, but other passengers, and even worse, other innocent drivers. It's no secret that alcohol impairs judgement, and an 18 year old's judgment is not always the wisest to begin with. After a few drinks, wanting to liter, vandalize, and be disruptive or destructive can often times seem like a good idea. Doing any of the above could potentially cause the law to become involved and other charges could be pressed, thus it doesn't really matter if someone is legal to drink or not.
The law is the law

Since 1984 the law has been 21 years old to consume alcohol. The age to fight? Think back to World Wars and battles before, we had boys, and when I say boys I mean children as young as six or seven on the battlefield. Our country is one of tradition and not much for change. The drinking age was set 24 years ago and has not been touched since, we accept that for what it is, and it is mainly young adults and teens in high school who argue with it. The age now to fight for our country is 18, only three years younger than the drinking age. It's not that long to wait in reality. And most people are generally proud to go fight for their country, if they sign up it is because it's something they want to do. Though drafts have been instated before, it has been several years, so those willing to sign up for the military know what they are getting themselves into.
Young adults in college won't get in trouble with the law

Lowering the legal drinking age would only result in more fake IDs being made for underaged people looking to buy alcohol. Since many teenagers can look quite a few years older than they actually are, it would not be hard for some to pass as eighteen. I have seen many underaged people drinking who have never proven that they were responsible enough to even be left home alone. Lowering the age would not suppress minors' urge to drink, but rather increase their ability to obtain alcohol illegally since fewer people would be in need of someone old enough to buy the alcohol for them. Just because a young person is considered old enough to be living on their own, does not mean that they are capable of doing so responsibly.
no

Studies have proven that alcohol impairs mental development. Young people, who continue development into their late twenties, would be seriously hurt by the passage of such a law. many people drink alcohol before the reach the age of 21. however a large portion do it only a small period of time before they hit 21. why? because they think that as they approach the age of 21 it's ok for them to drink. Ex. some of my friends. the law keeps some people(such as myself) from drinking until 21. if the law were to change so that consuming alcohol would be legal at the age of 18, many people would try it even earlier. their brain would be damaged even more than 21. America is already in a bad state. We dont need more people wasting their brains on early alcohol.
4. A PM can take the country to war, seek inspiration from a non-existent God for decisions, & ignore wise, highly informed, advice.

Churchill's History of the English Speaking People confronts us with the fact that, for many centuries, foolish wars have repeatedly been sought to settle conflicts and make national decisions, very often very lame decisions after huge sacrifice. Governments have turned to one religion over another, or to the legitimacy of monarchial blood lines in order to validate decisions. Old habits die with difficulty. The present monarch is not allowed to speak or have political views. What makes one form of religion better when there may be no deity? What makes a first borne a more legitimate leader? The decision to go into Iraq against majority opinion and against the wisest of advice, shows that the UK government has not overcome past habits. Important decisions which affect the whole populace require the most informed and able sources, sometimes science, sometimes an affected minority, sometimes the costs of consequences. Not on the basis of party ideology, pressure from a foreign power, the influence of the media, financial interests that fund the media during elections, minority party standings, money from powers that can profiteer (arms, contracts) as a result. Large sections of the population are ignore-ant of complex issues, so are MPs who follow ideology or party whipping at voting time. There needs to be a kind of balance that prevents profound wisdom from being ignored and overcome by narrow interests. Suffrage and representation does not mean that democracy has been fulfilled, it is corruptible, it can fail to seek evidence, critical planning, and wisdom, it can even promote beliefs in falsehood. The two party system over simplifies, in the same way that matters were once decided by foolhardy wars, by teams in sport finding a winner (even by a narrow margin of milliseconds!); the naivete of up/down, left/right, win/lose thinking; life and optimal community decision making are more complicated and complicated than that! Let's struggle, and get past democratic condescension!
Dominant forms of representation do not work for the small parties

Since the First January 2009 The UK joined the European Union it has been signed over to the control of the Unelected Dictatorship known as the European Union. No Citizen of Britain was asked if they wanted to join the European Union and there was definitely no referendum. There will never be a free referendum despite what Politicians promise. The European Union has been destabilizing and infiltrating this country for at least 36 years ever since the Spy and Traitor Ted Heath got us into the common Market.Harold MacMillan was also a spy and a Traitor as was Geoffrey Rippon and Roy Jenkins. Type 'Micheal Shrimpton' into Google and watch the videos. The Government do not answer to the People but rather the opposite ignore them and treat them with contempt. Every Government since Ted Heath has been a Traitor to The UK and every Major Political Party is both a puppet and a pawn of the European Union. The European Union is Not Democratic despite the Sham of Elected MEPs. who have a box in front of them to vote on Issues which simply says 'Yes' or 'No' and THEY ARE TOLD WHICH BUTTON TO PRESS ! There are Parliaments for Scotland Ireland and Wales and even one for the Muslims but NO Parlimanet for the English which according to the Government and the EU DOES NOT EXIST ! There is no true democracy when you can invite foreigners into the Country and give them the Vote just to boost your own party's vote number as New Labour have done. Why do you think that Tony Blair watered down the Treason Act? Because he knew that he was a Traitor as are many many others. If you don't believe me go to http://www.eutruth.org.uk
Dominant forms of representation do not work for the small parties

Current electoral systems are mainly designed to provide a strong government without necessarily respecting the will of the people. This is particularly true in the UK and in many other European countries as well where the two main parties dominate the political scene. One the other hand, the expetrience of countries such as Italy, where more chances are offered to small parties to participate in government, are not altogether encouraging. There is a danger of instability and also of various morally and politically problematic compromises between heterogeneous political parties. However, a way should be found for political parties such as the Greens and the Lib Dems to participate more active in government.
True democracy cannot exist in an individualistic culture

Individualistic cultures have major problems because they breed division amongst the people. Everyone becomes their own island and this hinders quality of life for a lot of people. We as individuals are only part of the equation. We need support of others and therefore must live in a collective culture to feel whole. I am convinced that most Americans and Brits don't know what it feels like to feel happy in its truest sense. They are too busy griping at neightbors for mowing on their side of the property line. Sad sad culture.
If Britain is a democracy it is an undemocratic one

While we do get to excersise the will of the people it is not very common. We get to vote once every five years and that is between several very similar manifestos that parties do not even stick to once they get into government. The governing party then has a 5 year dictatorship. So far in our system with hung parliaments unusual and the governing party often getting massive majorities they can ignore all other opinion except the cabinet's. The government regularly survives back bench rebellions as well. This means they are not accountable to the people. The PM is only accountable to a small number of MPs who are strongly whipped to make sure they vote in the right way. In practice this means that the executive (PM + Cabinet) has as much power as many dictatorships, the 'absolute' monarchs of the past would love to have had parliaments that provide as little resistance as the Westminister Parliament does!
As an ideal it depends on all being equally well informed, thoughtful and rational. Unattainable.

True democracy should not just be about reflecting the prejudices, biases, ignorance and educational deficits that characterise the population. It would rely on people all being equally capable of rational thought and analysis and knowledgeable on all issues. Clearly that is unattainable. Any form of government is predicated on a delegation of decision making and it is inevitable that those to whom we delegate will aggregate together in groups where there will be compromise in order to achieve outcomes that can be implemented. It also allows for those with more knowledge to make unpopular decisions that might not have majority support. One has to agree with Churchill that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried. As such, the UK has one of the best implementations of democracy; which is not to say that it could not be further improved.
No free press means no democratic society.

The argument (I hesitate to use the plural because there is only one, if we do not count the poster's deviation into a fairly banal and simplistic explanation of communism and capitalism) presented opposite does not appear to support circumscribing the freedom of the press; it is merely lamenting the idea that truly 'free press' is a near impossibility. Does it necessarily follow that any degree of press freedom, no matter how great, is worthless because of inevitable bias? Looking at the national daily papers of today we can see a fairly broad political spectrum represented and this offsets bias by allowing readers to choose a paper which espouses similar values to their own. The powerful control which authoritarian regimes assume, to the detriment of the lives of their citizens, by limiting press freedom has any number of precedents including both latter and, to a somewhat lesser extent, modern-day Russia, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain etc. Even today the lack of press freedom in Italy, where the prime minister, Berlusconi, wields huge media control is troubling in terms of suppression of information and manipulation of a populace. By manipulating the information your citizens have access to, other, more severe forms of control can be fostered. While a free press can prevent many of these problems, a restricted one cannot. Democracies in Pakistan have failed repetitively precisely because there was NO free press. Only a media group that kicked the losers of elections when they were down,
Value freedom can never be achieved-Max Weber

It is clear from the American system of the press, and indeed from the British print media that a liberal system of press management can lead to unprecedented bias. Examples of this are everywhere, from FOX news in America, to the meetings between Tony Blair and Rupert Murdoch being a pivotal point in the 1997 general election. It is because of this that a 'liberal' free system is far from perfect. The liberal press model rose out of the need for revenue when the print press was in its beginnings, ensuring necessary funds were raised in order to have freedom from the government, yet now the newspapers are owned by cooperation that themselves have a political agenda, thus loosening the very concept of fourth estate that the liberal press theory was trying to create. Under social responsibility models, which includes instances such as the BBC attempt to ensure that a wide spread of information is presented in order to inform the viewer as to a wider background on her issues at hand. Of course, then there is the issue that they themselves have close links to the government as well. Perhaps the most democratic way of getting news is through the internet, where forums such as this one allow for newsworthy topics to be discussed and debated, and, whilst everyone has there own opinion, at least through debate and discussion a semblance of 'perfect information' can be achieved. 'Perfect' information could mean anything. It depends very much on what you believe the press is there to do. Zalenger believed that the press was there to perform a 'burglar alarm model' alerting the public as to when the government stepped out of line, whereas others see the press as a having a deliberative democratic value, designed to encourage discussion. either way, without the underlying notion that the press is indeed 'free' then it cannot fully achieve any of the goals it was set up to create.
Value freedom can never be achieved-Max Weber

The press however free, will never be liberated/emancipated from bias. That bias can come from financiers/sponsors who hold stakes/stock in news media organisations, or from journalists with political leanings, or from the oppostion party or the ruling political party. Perfect information is an undeliverable ideal, and limited information is summarised/summarized, read skewed to one point of view, after being cut and pasted into small segments/factions in the news. In a communist world,the government controls every thing. In a capitalist word, money/the-bourgeoisie/corporate-giants do. A free press gives the illusion of 'power to the people'[[John Lennon song inspired by an interview with Tariq Ali (first Non-white/not-British president of the Oxford union)]], not the actual thing.