The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 in US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 54885
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




If as an adult at 18 I can now own property, have most rights, pay all taxes, and give my life away for my country why should I not be allowed to intoxicate myself as a responsible adult?


First, I thank my opponent for posting such an interesting topic for debate.

While I would love to live a free country where any adults are allowed to consume alcohol (or any drugs, as a matter of fact) at will, I argue against the proposition as I don't believe that the United States of America is ready for a policy yet because:

1. Lack of education - the outcome of US education system is consistently below the rest of the developed nations; while we would all like to think that our "adults" are informed and responsible, the fact is that our K-12 is not preparing our young adults properly in critical thinking and taking responsibilities.

2. Lack of public transportation - this is the main argument for our current drinking age. Young adults between the age of 18 and 21 are much more likely to be involved in car accidents. And given the fact that DUI is the leading cause of car accident deaths, in addition to the necessity of driving within much of the country, it is thus reasonable to impose such restriction on young drivers... After all, they won't just be harming themselves, but they can kill a responsible driver like you and me!

3. Lack of proper driving training - in places such as Germany and Hong Kong, drivers are subjected to extensive training that require much longer length and proven ability. Young drivers do not need another legal way to drive worse in this country until they have at least a few years of driving experience.

Thank you again and I'm looking forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 1


Your point of lack of education has some merit to it but if we did not spend millions of dollars telling kids don't do drugs and spent that money on educating them on how to be better people in making decisions we wouldn't have as many problems with drunk driving. If they have more education on making responsible decisions maybe they wouldn't drive drunk, but there is always someone to be stupid. If we didn't put such a stigma on drinking as a country as we do and more of a negative stigma on drunk driving maybe we could correct this problem. In foreign countries that you noted like Germany the drinking age is lower then the legal driving age. Those countries also have a lot of public transit. Back to the lower legal drinking age in those countries those kids are brought up drinking so those countries have less teens binge drinking. Binge drinking is the biggest issue here if people are taught how to drink responsibly then they won't drink and drive and there may also be less deaths by alcohol poisoning because less people would drink to get drunk and more to enjoy the drink.


I'm not quite sure how much we spend on drug education for kids but I'm certain that is not a major factor of our education system; but just because we lower drinking age doesn't means we will stop having drug education for kids.

You are right, there will always be someone stupid... Which is an argument for maintaining our drinking age.

As for negative stigma, I can argue that more people will drink more if we view it positively.

Germany has lower drinking age but Hong Kong has a higher driving age... It doesn't matter since they have a fully functional public transit; we don't so too bad for us...

Haha, I guess binge drinking might be a way to promote more responsible drinkers, but unless we do that first I don't think it is a good idea to lower drinking age.

Thank you for you response and great points!
Debate Round No. 2


Well those people being stupid isn't going to change they will always be stupid so why punish the majority for the stupidity of the few?
The age should basically be lowered on the simple fact of if I am an adult when I turn 18 I should have the choice to destroy my body with whatever I want to.
Also most people have had alcohol before they turn twenty one anyway so why not lower the drinking age to cut down on legal cost of charging people between 18 and 20 with minor consumption charges?


Sure, the stupid people will still be uneducated but at least they will have some driving experience by then.

Problem is you are not only destroying your body, you can crash and kill me, too.

Of course there will always be people who break the law and the legal implementation will incur unwanted consequences for some; but so does the law against murder, does it mean we should legalized murder as well?

Thank you for the debate, vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tttcomrader 2 years ago
Congratulates to my opponent! Honesty I don't feel strongly about this motion either way, just trying to make up my 3 debates minimum requirement before I can vote!
Posted by tttcomrader 2 years ago
How come everyone who voted for me are deleted?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had some formatting/S&G issues. But it was equal enough. As was conduct. Nobody really sourced. As to arguments, Pro brought up the point that there was no reason to have the limit, which seems to prima facie fulfill his BoP. Con's only reason seemed to be that three more years leads to more driving experience--none of his other arguments supported a drinking age limit, there was nothing age-specific about them. And that one was uncompelling. As such, arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.