The Instigator
Nickc92
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Lower Drinking Age

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 5 votes the winner is...
BangBang-Coconut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,943 times Debate No: 15022
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Nickc92

Pro

The drinking age is 21, by law; meaning that in order for an average person to go buy a drink he/she has to have ID on them confirming that he/she is of legal age. This law is understandably strict, but also somewhat toying with a person's free abilities. If it is unacceptable for anyone under the age of 21 to buy a beer, how can it be acceptable for people as young as 18 to go off to war and possibly be violently killed defending our country? In my experiences debating this, the rebuttal I always seem to come across is; the reason the age is 21 is because most people younger than that are too irresponsible to handle alcohol and will endanger the lives of others and themselves. So, younger people are allowed to endanger themselves by directly putting themselves on the front lines of combat, firing back and forth with automatic, high velocity killing tools and killing machines, but they cannot buy a drink in a bar for fear that they will hurt themselves or others? If that is the case, then why is the legal age to join the military not 21? It is clear common sense that putting any person of any age in a military combat situation is one of the most dangerous places a person can be in. If a person of the age of 18 is considered responsible enough to hold a weapon and fire it at another man or woman in defense for the United States, then why should that person be denied access to alcohol at a bar?
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Okay, now you see; these are the kind of debates I love doing! And I honestly do believe the side of the Con, so I'm also thankful to my opponent for the pro having Initiated such a debate.
So for maximum clarity, I will first present the Con stance and (as I'm assuming we are going to do due to the character limit of 2,000) attack my opponent during my next speech
-------
In any society, whether or not one realizes it, they participate in a system of Give and Take; otherwise know as the Social Contract. Under the assumption that the realm of this debate is within the united states (If I'm wrong please correct me) we can look to age limits one many different things to help come to a sensible conclusion.

At Sixteen, one can legally drive if they pass a test and meet various standards.
At eighteen, one can legally buy and use Tobacco (Interesting that a test isn't required for this)
At twenty-one, one can buy and consume Alcohol (Again, why is there no test for this?)

And all of there are with perfectly acceptable logic behind them, if there where no logic behind these limitations they would not exist, we would allow people to do as they wish and have a good time about it.
so the three reasons I say the drinking age should stay the same are as follows (I can later expand upon them at my opponent' request later)
1. The brain is not fully developed until the ages of between 21 and 25-
Accordingly these young adults won't be able to drink responsibly, their having a buzz will prohibit proper self-control

2. Newly legal adults need time to adapt and adjust to living on their own before being allowed such a vice into their lives-
This is true universally and can be applied to almost any situation, if all power is give to a person at once, they have no reason to practice self-control

3. Alcohol kills brain cells which stunt mental development-
between ages 18-20 and beyond many adults go to college to better themselves, alcohol limits them, and lessens their potential.
Debate Round No. 1
Nickc92

Pro

Yes, the realm of this debate is within the United States.
I would like to start by saying that I do believe that there is obvious logic behind the age limits for different actions that people do on a regular basis. However, i do not see the relevance between the drinking age and the tobacco and driving age. Given the obvious fact that one of the main fears about alcohol is drunk driving, the fact that one can get a license at 16 is not relevant to the argument that the drinking age should be lowered (Reason being; I do not believe that the age should be lowered to less than 18). Nor is the age for use of tobacco.

Now, in your first point you stated that "The brain is not fully developed until the ages of between 21 and 25." Assuming that your fact is indeed accurate, it should be common knowledge that everyone's brain develops at different speeds and if this is true, then why is the legal age not 25, when everyone's brain is fully developed? (According to you)

In your second point you explained how newly legal adults need time to adapt. I do agree with this to some extent. However, bringing me back to my point about the military, why is it that teenagers of 18 can go directly into the army without any adaptation time? By saying what you said in your second bullet, you are actually helping prove my point by pointing out how the government is contradicting itself.

In your third point you stated that "Alcohol kills brain cells and stunts mental development." This has been proven time, and time again, so I will not disagree. At age 18, yes, most go to college, but why is it worse for someone in college to kill brain cells than someone of age 40 in the working world? Depending on the job the 40 year old is doing, it could very well be MORE negative to kill brain cells than the college student.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Thanks Nickc92! Obviously because of the character limits, I will not be able to explain myself as eloquently as I would like, so If I am a bit vague, please let me know in the comments section prior to your final speech, and I will clarify to the best of my ability.

so first, of all, my last speech was strictly to further the establish the stance. I have yet to attack the Pro Case. with this in mind attacking the Pro case will be the primary purpose of the Con in round two, and as time allows I will then defend myself.

First, My opponent's only claims that is that people should not be allowed to join the military at eighteen if they are not allowed to drink until the age of twenty-one; however this is a fallacious statement. first, this has nothing to do with an objection to the legal drinking age, but is more an attack on the armed forces. Second, Joining the military is something one does on a moral basis (Which I might add joining the military is completely in the U.S.) they believe that by joining the military, they are helping their country and defending their way of life. this is a stark difference to drinking alcohol, which one does for personal enjoyment and recreation. when we realize this we have no reason to vote Pro,

moving one.
My opponent's only attacks on my point one where that we should raise the legal drinking age if the brain is not yet fully developed until 25, I agree with him, this is in support to the Con. also, I will provide evidence in the comments.

on my point 2,
My opponents agrees with my on adaptation so there is no clash here. as for the military extend my prior arguments.

And on point 3,
I would like to cross-apply my point two here, a bit which I will further explain in round 3, also, my opponent is right. Alcohol kills the brain cells of all people, so we should indeed raise the legal drinking age to be more than 21! I thank my opponent for helping me prove the point that if anything we should not lower the legal drinking age.
Debate Round No. 2
Nickc92

Pro

Yes, the character limit is not allowing for much room here, my apologies.

One point that you touched upon was that joining the military is a moral choice. This is something that I of course agree with, joining the military is a moral choice, presumably, unless there is a draft (in which case, it is commonly known that it is mandatory that one fights in the war). However, this is not such a stark difference to the consumption of alcohol. Drinking is not a "moral" choice, but it is a choice.

In point one, I was not saying that it should be changed to 25, i was questioning why it wasn't. According to you, one of the reasons the law is the way it is, is because the brain needs to fully develop. I do not believe it should be increased, my main point of the argument is, and shall remain that the age should be lowered.

What you're saying is that it is okay to go straight into the military without any adaptation time because it is a moral choice. That still does not change the fact that a young person of 18 is putting their life at GREAT risk. How can the government be so accepting of this? If adaptation time was truly needed then a person should not be able to go straight into the army.

The reason I agree with the fact the alcohol kills brain cells is because it is scientifically proven. If is a fact. If I were to disagree with that fact, I would be completely discrediting myself form even having a valid opinion in this argument. My point, which was obviously over-looked, is that alcohol kills brain cells no matter what the age of the person. It is a simple side-effect of its consumption. I at no time, said the drinking age should be more than 21.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for their responses
--
for maximum clarity, I will review this debate. and show why I've won.

First lets look to the military point, my opponent claims that there is no difference between this and the choice to drink; but look and you'll see that he agrees that this is a moral choice, and not one of pleasure as would be he choice to drink. with-out a military the United States could not survive, we would be invaded and taken over, this justifies a persons desire to join the military whereas it does not justify drinking.

Second my opponent claims they're where actually trying to advocate that the legal drinking age should be lowered not heightened (as I would assume they where) But the attack they made toward me in this regard is not synonymous with this desire; they've made a grave mistake which will cost them the round.

Third, most people have their entire lives to be primed to join the military. at young ages feelings of patriotism are instilled within them. by the age of eight most people have fully developed their moral standing (which granted can change over time) whereas drinking is not primarily an issue of morality, but of pleasure.

fourth, my opponent only proves that alcohol kills brain cells, he does not prove the drinking age should be lowered; but instead this logic points that we ought to abolish drinking all together. and if you know your history, that would lead to mass crime.

so in closing, I urge to vote for the Con, as my opponent utterly fails to prove their point that we should lower the drinking age, but instead spent their time between bashing the military men and women who give up their lives for the protection of the american people, and advocating the ill-effects of drinking. through no logic my opponent has presented should the drinking age be lowered, but instead their logic gives the idea that the drinking age should be heightened, and that we should abolish the military. But instead leave the drinking age alone.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Aaron_1998 2 months ago
Aaron_1998
@BangBang-Cocunut alcohol does not kill brain cells
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@CiRrK You know :D good philosophy never gets old!

also for the benefit of the debate, here is evidence on brain development.
http://www.examiner.com...
and,
http://main.zerotothree.org...
Posted by CiRrK 3 years ago
CiRrK
ah Social Contract Theory : ) Old school right there
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Darn that 2000 character limit will be the death of me.
there was so much more I wanted to say XD.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Nickc92BangBang-CoconutTied
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: Con did not well defend the military argument.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Nickc92BangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both provided good arguments. Noticed no S/G errors. Or sources. Good debate.
Vote Placed by Haasenfeffor 3 years ago
Haasenfeffor
Nickc92BangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: win
Vote Placed by CiRrK 3 years ago
CiRrK
Nickc92BangBang-CoconutTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The decision calculus is two-fold: First, the argument the Pro advocates isnt really an offensive argument. Just because the government sets two different ages doesnt necessitate the mandate that the drinking age HAS to be lowered, why not increase the age for conscription? Also, its not clear to me why one is analogous to the other. Second, the argument about developing brains is key because lowering the drinking age brings us out of that 21 - 25 gap. 21 is a better bet.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
Nickc92BangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: better arguments. Thats it.