Rebuttal Rewrite

It is wrongly argued that new 21-year old’s’ are not a major cause of drunk driving fatalities. This argument has been proven wrong time and time again with each news article that surfaces about another teenager killed by a drunk driver, or killed themselves driving drunk.  In some cases, some might argue that at the age of 21 young adults have the common sense to control their drinking and opt for a ride from someone else (not under the influence) in an instance in which they had too much to drink. While this argument might be valid in select circumstances, it’s very apparent that a good majority of young adults do not share the same intelligence. 

Statistics show that drunk driving fatalities in many cases are directly caused by young adults near the age of 21. This is linked to the fact that these adults do not have the experience and intelligence with alcohol that many other older adults do in fact have. Most adults over this age have experience and know how their bodies react with alcohol. In cases where people actually adhere to the rule of no alcohol before the age of 21, they don’t know how to handle themselves with it or how much is too much for them personally. This leads to them believing they are sober enough to get behind a wheel and drive themselves and their friends back home at the end of the night. This is what causes so many people annually to be killed or cause someone else to be killed in motor vehicle accidents. With this in mind, it is very easy to see that the drinking age that so many people support truly does nothing but delay the motor vehicle accidents that are bound to happen due to irresponsible drivers let out into the world for the first time with a bottle of scotch in their hand. We can ask ourselves how we avoid this, but the truth is many believe that we already have found the answer. The answer they have provided, ironically, is the root cause of this. When we look at the facts and understand that the main point portrayed to society about the minimum drinking age is that we don’t want to damage our country’s children’s young, developing brains, we forget about the fact that we are letting freshly developed brains go out and have free reign over alcohol. This does nothing to achieve the main goal that can be easily distinguished when we look beyond what is told to us. How can we possibly believe that allowing these young adults whose brains are thought to just now have a fully developed brain with absolutely no flaws in their logic whatsoever of course, are able to make their own responsible decisions that’s consequences have the ability to end their own lives or the lives of unsuspecting others. 

After we learn the facts and true numbers about drunk driving fatalities it’s downright irresponsible to say that nothing more needs to be done to ensure that we aren’t having irresponsible adolescents a free ride to their own funeral. A minimum age to purchase alcohol isn’t the same thing as a minimum age to drink alcohol. The minimum drinking age simply means teenagers cannot legally purchase alcohol, they will still find a way to consume it if that’s what they desire which is a clear message that more needs to be done to prohibit drinking and driving. If more of the facts were exposed to the public and they were aware of how unsuccessful this law is at keeping people safe and cutting down on the number of drunk drivers let loose on the road there would without a doubt be more of a push to do more to educate the public or perhaps even raise the drinking age. Would raising the drinking age do anything to our benefit though? People have been arguing for decades that the drinking age should be raised, no matter what it is at the time, but what good can it do? If we are constantly raising the age, we are decreasing the amount of experience people have and simply prolonging the inevitable. If this age is constantly being pushed back all it does is push back the time in which they are more likely to find themselves in the situation the restriction is meant to avoid. What isn’t seen, unfortunately, is that education on this subject and different restrictions and laws being put into place would do more to benefit the country and its citizens wellbeing than what is in place. 

There aren’t many things we can do about this sad truth. Every decision made in today’s social climate is politically charged, monetarily motivated, or backed by greed. Unless there was going to be an outcome to those high up in the government that would financially benefit them, raise their status, or get them an extra vote, it will not be done which is a sad but true fact. The laws and restrictions that are currently put into place are done so with a specific motive and benefit the ones that made it directly. This is made even more clear when we truly think about the situation and realize that so much more can be done about this, but it will come at a cost. What is put in place now has no negative monetary consequence which makes it easy and convenient. The CDC states that “There is also evidence that the age 21 MLDA protects drinkers from alcohol and other drug dependence, adverse birth outcomes, and suicide and homicide.” This statement is almost insulting to anyone whose life has been negatively impacted by a drunk driving accident and anyone who has done their research knows how incorrect this is.

In conclusion, the system is completely demolished. We don’t have a handle on anything when it comes to drunk driving restrictions no matter what anyone argues. Saying that when we let these young adults out onto the road at the age of 21 it’s good for them and they will definitely stay safe is a slap in the face to anyone with a working brain. When we really think about what we’re doing we see just how stupid it is. More needs to be done to protect American people from ruining their lives because more hasn’t been done to educate them about how they need to handle themselves on the road when they’re able.

This entry was posted in Rebuttal Rewrite. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Rebuttal Rewrite

  1. davidbdale says:

    The difference between your Rebuttal argument and your Rebuttal Rewrite appears to be this addition to one paragraph:

    The CDC states that “There is also evidence that the age 21 MLDA protects drinkers from alcohol and other drug dependence, adverse birth outcomes, and suicide and homicide.” This statement is almost insulting to anyone whose life has been negatively impacted by a drunk driving accident and anyone who has done their research knows how incorrect this is.

    It helps, and I like your passionate reaction. But you need some facts of your own (an essay full of facts of your own) to substantially refute it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s