Game of Words: View vs. Counter View 2.36

SHOULD THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE (MLDA) BE LOWERED FROM 21 TO A YOUNGER AGE?

VIEW:

Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible.  Alcohol consumption can halt the development of the young adult brain's frontal lobes, essential for functions such as emotional regulation, planning, and organization. When alcohol consumption interferes with this early adult brain development, the potential for chronic problems such as greater vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking behaviour, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide is greater.
  Lowering will allow a greater segment of the young population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments. Neighbourhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more frequent assaults and other violent crimes.
MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities. 100 of the 102 analyses in a meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. Lowering MLDA 21 would give high and middle schoolers easier access to alcohol. Newly-legal drinkers often purchase alcohol for children below the age of 21, creating a "trickle-down" effect.
MLDA 21 helps prevent underage binge drinking.  MLDA 21 exerts social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them.  Youth may discern whether to drink or not, or to drink less often, because of decreased social acceptability or increased risks from parental or legal authorities. Older youth and adults may furnish alcohol to minors less frequently, and licensed alcohol outlets may sell to minors less frequently, because of their perceptions that it is illegal, morally wrong, and other consequences they might face.
I strongly believe that MLDA should stay at 21 because people tend to be more mature and responsible at 21 than 18.  18-year-olds are typically vulnerable and are entering a new phase of independence from their parents through college or the workforce, and are more susceptible to binge drinking, risky sexual activity, and other irresponsible behaviour due to lack of maturity.
Jason David

COUNTERVIEW:

Pros of reducing the MLDA from 21 to 18.  Underage drinking the most common  law broken in every country. 18 is the age of adulthood in the India  and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption.  Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes , serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, get a driving license  and join the military - which includes risking one's life.
Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environment under supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity.  Prohibiting this age group results in various other outcomes like drinking in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behaviour such as drugs etc.
There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and deaths in many countries with MLDA of 18.  In the United States, 31% of road traffic accidents and death involve alcohol. The percentage  is higher than many countries with a drinking age lower than 21 such as France (29%), Great Britain (16%), Germany (9%), China (4%), and Israel (3%). Although the US  increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and deaths in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21.
Lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 would eliminate the thrill of breaking the law to get a drink.  Normalizing alcohol consumption in moderation will make drinking alcohol less of a taboo for young adults entering college and the workforce.
MLDA 21 is ineffective because teens consume regardless.  According to the National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of consumer spending for alcohol in the United States.  The 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health report states that 24.8% of youth aged 14 or 15, 46.7% aged 16 or 17, and 68.3% aged 18 to 20, drink alcohol.
MLDA 21 encourages young adults to acquire and use false identification documents to acquire alcohol. National security is of great concern, including terrorism, illegal immigration, and other threats, it would be better to have fewer fake IDs in circulation and more respect for the law.
MLDA 21 is not associated with lower rates of suicide, homicide, or vandalism.  In the year 2002 a meta-study of the legal drinking age and health and social problems shows that 72% found no statistically significant relationship despite claims that lowering MLDA 18 would increase suicide rate and criminal activities by adolescents.
Drinking alcohol is an enjoyable activity.  18- to 20-year-old young adults should not be denied the enjoyment when other pleasurable activities are legal at age 18.
Lowering MLDA 21 would reduce the number young people who are hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention.
State governments should take right measurement to establish a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history.
Lowering MLDA 21 would benefit the economy.  More people would enjoy the  legal benefit to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed establishments. Revenue would increase for sole proprietors, and greater amounts of tax revenue would be collected by the government.
Philip MC

Game of Words: View vs. Counter View 2.35

Parent must control their child's life even after 18 years of age.

View

In recent times, the discussion has been in the air, that when a boy of a girl turns eighteen years of age, does it go him/her the freedom and authority to make decisions themselves, without any guidance or control from their parents? Personally, although there has to be a turning point in your life wheee you take responsibility for your actions and take life into your own hands, I feel, that at the age eighteen, having the support of a parent is essential as it is a very critical and important point in your life, where you have to make important life decisions. I feel, there are several reasons as to why and eighteen year old needs to guidance of a parent. One of them being finance. it is a very rare phenomenon to see an eighteen year old being self sufficient. Parents give us the financial support that we need to peruse our ambition. Another reason would be that in most cases eighteen year olds lack a sense of direction as to what they want to do with their lives. They are confused and need the advise and experience that parents offer to help them along their way. It is a very common thing to see an eighteen year old going down the wrong path and getting into the wrong company and doing the wrong things due to a lack in family upbringing and values. Living a good and strong family life gives an individual morals that carry him a long way. To conclude, personally I feel that it is how parents choose to bring up their children. I feel that there needs to be a balance, so that their children aren’t solely dependant on them. But at the same time have the responsibility to make certain decisions on their own when put in a situation.

Rebekah Alexander

Counter View

 I stand against this topic for several reasons. I believe that growth comes with maturity and a parent is accountable for their child's actions only up to a certain age. Turning eighteen years old also means that you have entered into your adult years. At this point, parents have already instilled in their children,the values and life lessons that they're supposed to know. They have reprimanded their children and have taken actions for all their behavioral choices up to this point and now they should be allowed to make their own choices and live in a way that compliments the values that they have learnt. Parents aren't gonna live forever and if they're going to keep controlling their child's life then they're going to always be dependent on them. In the early ages of a child, it is necessary for a parent to give little freedom and take control of the child's life to a certain extent because the knowledge of the child is limited and parents have more life experience but as the child grows, parents must learn to make their child more independent and let them make certain choices slowly.

One might argue saying that being eighteen does not make u mature enough to make the right choices. I disagree because if the child is brought up in the right way with the right values then their roots will be very strong. It all goes down to the style of parenting.Mistakes are bound to happen and every individual only learns through these mistakes. If parents restrict them, then that will only make them more rebellious and they will end up doing the opposite of what their parents tell them to do.In conclusion, I think until the age of 18, parents must be right the amount of strict with their children and after 18 years of age, they should be give all the freedom to make their choices as that is the start of their adult life and this is how they will learn to be independent.

Kevin Fernandes

Game of Words: View vs. Counter View 2.34

Loan waiver for farmers – Boon or Bane?

 View
There has been widespread debate on the news, after the election of the new chief minister of Karnataka on waiving off farmers’ loans. These debates were sparked after the newly elected chief minister Kumaraswamy promised in his campaign that he would waive off farmers’ loans.
 In my opinion, that loans should be waived off as farming requires heavy investment and it may not be affordable for many farmers to buy equipment, seeds and other requirements.Also there has been many suicides of farmers because they're not able to pay off their loans. Farmers in India depend on the monsoon rains to grow their crops, due to untimely rainfall and irrigation the yield is less which leaves very little money with the farmers to pay off their debts.Also not many banks are we to provide loans to farmers as it is of high risk and the paying capacity of the farmers are less. Due to lack of finances they go to unofficial moneylenders who charge exorbitant rates of interest and take their lands as collateral. Waiving off loans will lead farmers to the banks rather than such moneylenders. Also due to lack of incentives to take up farming, many farmers are leaving farming, which would eventually lead to food scarcity in India. Waiving off such loans will enable many more farmers to take up farming. It is also beneficial for political parties as they can gain electoral favours in India as a high percentage of the population depend on farming. Waiving off loans reduces the short term liabilities of the farmers.
By
Joshua D'costa

Counter View
Loan waivers have become the centre of debate in policy making circles. A number of states in India have waived off farmer's loans and this has indeed unburdened the farmers but has become a burden to the banks, government and the economy as a whole. I believe that these loan waiver schemes disrupt credit discipline. The farmers become defaulters and this disrupts financial activity and affects the economy.This scheme indirectly punishes loan repayers. Those who repaid loan before the announcement of the scheme are at loss.Waiver of any principal is damaging for the banks, Government and the depositors in banks. Farmers may get some temporary relief. But some farmers become habitual defaulters. They take loans in the name of farming activities. They divert the loan amount for other purposes. Then default on payment of loan and interests.Many state Governments promise relief on payment of land revenue. Some promise on waiver of interests and ultimately all go for waiver of loans. Such kind of free relief may damage the cooperative banks and rural banks on financial term. Most of the state Governments are bankrupt due to schemes on subsidies and financial reliefs.
Rich farmers too may take loans even if there is no need, in the hope of the next loan waiver scheme. This will impact the farmers who are genuinely in need of loans.Those who didn’t repay loans, even if they afford to are at benefit. But here, taxpayers are at loss, because loans will be waived with taxpayers’ money.
Instead of loan waiver scheme, it will much better if government improves the crop insurance scheme, educates farmers about the market which will increase their knowledge.

By
Celine Maria L

Game of Words: View vs. Counter View 2.33

Animal Testing

View
I firmly stand for the topic, animal testing is something that's all the rise, as people around us have now taken up the trend of veganism. Veganism that mainly is abstaining from anything that is obtained from animals, particularly in diet. A follower of such a practice is known as a vegan. These people to has resorted to other options that favour this practice as they are against animal cruelty. Due to this emerging trend, many people have taken up organic farming as a result which is something that is on the rise. Now in a country like India, many people have favoured this trend as now they have also banned beef in some parts of the country, that was just adding fuel to the fire.
This culture is beginning to find its way on how animals are treated in testing. As most our medicines and cosmetic products are being tested on animals first .Now because of the rise veganism people are beginning to take a stand against testing. Personally I feel, that this is necessary because if a product comes into the market without being tested, there is a bigger risk as it might cost a person his/ her life if the product is not tested. Animals are the substitute by which these products are tested upon, as it's cost effective and also easily available. Another argument that comes up is, human testing why this isn't viable that is because a human still has a life, with which he/ she can achieve or reach a certain level of satisfaction, but taking away that right isn't in our hands. Some say it can be tested on prisoners but at the same time, it's life. The prisoner maybe at some point has the benefit of facing parole and through that find freedom, by testing or a prisoner or any person for that matter and that is cruelty.
Animals that undergo such testing, the test is over watched by an authority or supervision to ensure that the animal wasn't harmed during the test, animals are treated as humanely as possible because of the sake of the animals and the reliability for the test. The animals are given anaesthesia and only then the test is carried out. Animals are used because of its close similarities to human beings in so many ways (chimpanzees) sometimes the animals also benefit from such injections example: the cure of rabies for the dog. So there are so many good causes for the animal as they are taking care of animals and also produces the perfect result. Most of the products that we enjoy today are always tested sometimes on animals. It is essential, it is necessary.

Varun Samuel 

Counter View 

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel, but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Parkinson’s disease. We humans are also part of the animal kingdom, and to suggest that there is a great gulf between us would be nonsense. Of course, we are more cultured, civilized and have a greater intellectual capacity, but the essence is that we're all part of the animal kingdom. Like us, animals to have sentiments, they too can feel pain and suffering. They are aware of their surroundings, and just because they are able to express only their basic emotions, does not give us the right to treat them as objects. It is morally wrong.

The argument of the opposition would be that Animal Testing is justified for the greater good of mankind and that protective measures are used, such as 'Anastasia’. Imagine this, if I gave you anaesthetics and I started to gouge your eyes out, cut open your skull, electrocute you to see how your body would react or if it would react differently. Would that make it right, just because you were under Anastasia?

There are many alternatives. Around 95% of animal testing fails and it doesn't get past the next stage. In conclusion I think that we need to be a voice for the voiceless, because we cannot keep testing on animals. We need to find and pick out a successful alternative that will help us in the future.

Dylan Dmonte

Game of Words: View vs. Counter View 2.32

Are beauty pageants a way to objectify women

View

Beauty, basically defines a person’s appearance. Most people think that women define beauty and beauty defines them. They organise beauty pageants to try and showcase the physical attributes of women. They do include displays of intelligence, talents, personality but the prime idea of the contest is to pick the prettiest one out of the lot. Beauty pageants objectify women. They use physical appearance and the way a woman carries herself as a means of judgement, glorifying the idea that women can be objectified. Looking at something, or rather someone, and deciding whether they’re the best out of the lot is wrong. Majority of beauty pageants have a biased idea and approach towards the contestants. During the screening and selection process, a large number of women are rejected on basis of appearance. This gives out the idea that it is okay to reject people on the basis of appearance, again, objectifying the subjects. Beauty pageants also sexualise women by having an exclusive bathing suit round under which women are judged on the basis of their bodies. This gives younger women and girls the toxic idea that beauty on the exterior is the only thing that matters. The idea of a beauty pageant is to pick out a confident woman that can represent her community, country and people. People are not represented by the external appearance of one person, but also her substance, intellect, ideas, creativity, values, beliefs and attitudes. Beauty pageants should be converted into pageants that include all the aspects of a woman or rather any person to be chosen. Every single human being is born with a unique aspect that’s beautiful and it’s not necessary that the aspect has to be physical appearance. The right idea would be to develop a well made competition that checks the all round abilities of the person.

Dhiti Gurnani

Counterview

Beauty pageants are gaining popularity all the world nowadays. They are a way in which people are judged on the basis on physical appearance and personality too. They are no merely a test of outward appearance but do test other skills like communication, confidence and presentation.

This is a live practical way for women to go out there and contest and be judged on the above aspects. Women entering beauty pageants must go through several rounds beforehand and satisfy various criterias such as educational qualification, ability to adapt to change, must be able to mingle with different age groups .etc. Women who participate in these pageants are great achievers and get recognised at various places. This way women get to reach a large number of audience and glorify their beauty.  Beauty pageants are also like any other examination but just based on different criteria so this is not objectifying women because it women are applauded for their confidence to come on to the stage and face the real crowd. Winning a beauty pageant brings as much as pride and appreciation to a country as winning at a sporting or an intellectual event.

Sometimes beauty pageants gives stars a platform to gain knowledge and experience.

Last but not the least beauty pageants does give scholarships and other monetary benefits.

Lavanya C