The Instigator
countrylover
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
kvaughan
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Lower The 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,317 times Debate No: 755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

countrylover

Pro

I say lower the drinking age....why not?...society tells peaple that there adults at 18...and at 18 you can pretty much do anything...so why not be able to drink a beer?...Peaple act like it will ruin the kids life if he/she was to be legally ably to frink at 18...I say they cant use that as an exuse cause if a person is going to become an alchoholic they would be one anyway whatever the drinking age is...and plus...I dont see how 2 13 your olds are legally allowed to have sex but 2 18 year olds who drive,out of school,"ARE ADULT" can't open a beer and be able to drink it?...there are WAY to many teen pregnancys to start preaching about 2 "adults" drinking beer..so if teens are allowed to sleep with each other....then adults should be allowed to buy alcholhol
kvaughan

Con

Alcohol's ability to render individuals cognitively incapable poses a unique challenge for lawmakers that make comparisons to other legal statues irrelevant. When a person drinks, they must take precaution about means of transportation home, actions that they want to partake in etc. BEFORE they decide to drink which requires an extreme degree of foresight. Yes, people are adults at 18, but no one acts like an adult while drunk.

Practically, lowering the drinking age would be a horrible decision. Here's some facts

1. State motor vehicle fatality data from the 48 continental states found that lowering the MLPA for beer from 21 to 18 during the 1970s resulted in an 11% increase in fatalities among this age group.
2. An Arizona Department of Public Safety report found that fatal accidents increased over 25% while traffic fatalities increased more than 35% after the state MLPA was lowered from 21 to 19.
3. The younger a person begins using alcohol, the greater the chance of developing alcohol dependence or abuse some time in their life. Of those who begin drinking at age-18, 16.6% subsequently are classified with alcohol dependence and 7.8% with alcohol abuse. If a person waits until age-21 before taking their first drink, these risks decrease by over 60%.
(all found here: http://www.cspinet.org...)

We have tried lowering the drinking age and people die. There's no reason why this time would be any different.
Debate Round No. 1
countrylover

Pro

there are risk in anything we do...18 is either an adult age or it aint...if 18 was to young for a beer...then why dont they just change the adult age to 21?.....they can raise the age to 30 for all I care...but I see no sence in making the drinking age 21 whil teens are allowed to have sex...just in case you did not realize..there is a risk teens take when having sex...if a teen is allowed to have sex then a 18 year old should be able to drink.....you say that statistics show that bad can come out of it?...well if that was the case then there are plenty bads that comes from teen pregnancys....id rather find out my 14 year old son or daughter snuck some beers or got a buzz...then to find out that they was having sex.....sex leads to more trouble then drinking...all that sleeping around does is create unwanted pregnancys...to where peaple end up getting abortions...getting a buzz might make someone have a hangover to where they might not want to drink much again
kvaughan

Con

I see one huge flaw with your argument: you have not actually defended that the drinking age should be lowered, you have only defended that it should be equal to the legal age for other activities (you mention consensual sex for example). It is open to me to argue that everything should be raised to 21 (or 25 since that's when brain development stops). So, at no point have you actually defended your position on the topic, so you lose automatically.

But, chances are you're not going to buy that argument, so I can include some more.

First, your one and only argument is that our drinking age is not consistent with other policies. Yet, you give no reason why consistency is more important than the lives that would be lost if we changed the drinking age. What's so important about consistency?

Second, you're wrong to allege that promiscuous sex is worse than binge drinking. In both cases, nothing bad happens if you do everything right -- in sex, if you use contraception, no one gets pregnant, in drinking, if you don't drive and have someone sober, you won't do anything two stupid. However, drinking has the unique potential impact of causing death or serious injury to someone who did not consent to the activity. If you drink and drive or just become belligerent while drunk you can harm a completely innocent bystander whereas with sex, the immediate action can only harm those who consent to the activity.

Look, you have not refuted my evidence which indicates that PEOPLE WILL DIE if we lower the drinking age. Kids wanting to get buzzed at an earlier age is a truly awful reason to take an action that will kill people.
Debate Round No. 2
countrylover

Pro

countrylover forfeited this round.
kvaughan

Con

It looks like CountryLover has wisely decided to avoid this debate because I think he was losing on it big time. I'll say a few things and then let it speak for itself

1. As a voter, you need to vote on what was said in the debate, not what you think personally. CL agreed implicitly that people would die if we lower the drinking age. Against this argument you have his one and only argument -- the drinking age is not consistent. He just repeats this over and over and fails to even explain why consistency is important.

2.I'm the only one with any data to back me up. All of his arguments are just stuff he made up.

So yeah, vote for me. While the topic is complicated the debate is an easy decision.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by countrylover 6 years ago
countrylover
i did not "choose" to quit the debate...i just aint been on here..lol....but i said what i wanted to say...i dont wanna hear about a 18 year old not bieng able to drink but allowed to do pretty much anything else...a drink is a drink...ANYTHING can be harmfull if you abuse it....they want society to believe that peaple think of them as adults at 18..that they can make there own choice and stuff..but yet they treat them like a little kid when it comes to drinking...if society dont think a 18 year old is smart enough to drink then they dont need to lead them on by telling them there adults...it sounds to me like there playing mind games....if you want to take the drinking privilage away cause of a person drinking too much then they should do it to anyone at anyage...cause the law says were all in the same boat rather 20,30,40,60,ect...cause were ALL labled as ADULTS.
Posted by jackleripper 6 years ago
jackleripper
thx kvaughan for keeping logic into this debate. just a comment to megan. i agree wholeheartedly on the question, why is everything else 18 and drinking 21? however, while it's forbiddence does lead to some binge drinking, and while americans have more alcholics than other countries, how does that explain smokers or especially obesity? Furthermore lowering the drinking age wouldn't keep the beverage forbidden to all of the 14-17 year olds who drink, thus making for a problem with the "foribidden fruit" card.
Posted by ruth421963 6 years ago
ruth421963
Bring down the drinking age back to 18,AGAIN.
It WILL NOT raise the death rate.
Peace,
Ruth
Posted by ruth421963 6 years ago
ruth421963
AMEN!
That is so true!
Ruth
Posted by megan91509 6 years ago
megan91509
Why is it kids can go to war a 18 and buy cancer causing cigarettes, but can't walk into a bar and have a beer. That is severly twisted. I think people against lowering the drinking age should consider all the countries with low drinking ages, such as Italy. I guarantee you that the rate of alcoholics is higher in the U.S. than that of Italy. The children in Italy grow up drinking alcohol, yet the U.S. is having a bigger problem with it. It is because teens binge drink, to rebel. They can't control the world around them so they want to control their world. Teens drink to be cool, and it would not be as "cool" if it wasn't forbidden.
Posted by countrylover 6 years ago
countrylover
however bad it may be to lowering the drinking age...you still cant complain too much about that when the law says it is legel for a teen to have sex....you say...What does one issue have to do with the other?....it has alot... society has no right complaining about drinking when they allow and defend teen sex...but if they can overlook teen sex then they can overlook an 18 year old drinking now cant they?
Posted by jackleripper 6 years ago
jackleripper
How can you possibly agree to lowering the drinking age to 18 whenever it is pyschologically proven that people's brains are still maturing at the time. Furthermore, to bring up 2 13 year olds having sex in error because 13 year olds can't. that'd fall under statutory rape charge. Your entire case goes into an off-subject case that isn't linked in the least. You'd be more logical in arguing that if we can smoke we should be able to drink. If you want to argue teen abstinence should be prioritized over lowering the drinking age, then that would maybe give ur arguments some power but currently I see no evidence supporting CL's claims,and no refutations of Kev's statistics.
Posted by ruth421963 6 years ago
ruth421963
Oh it should be lowered. I had to chase thee age
of 21 each year in the late 1970's because I was
turning 18 and they would up thee age least three
times. Yes I have alcholics in the family. I have
never been one, just a rebel.
Your taught to fire a gun{if your lucky
in boot camp}...I was a teen getting whatever I wanted.
We could utilize this debate by an adult is 18,
everything goes. We need to lower it and trust me when I say
because they lowered it in the "70's more died..not possible,
there are just too many diff studies to follow.
Adult=18 yrs..open field.
Peace and may we get on with far more pressing issues,
have you heard that all the late night guys are back the 2nd of Jan? Yessss!
Peace,
Ruth
Posted by adamh 6 years ago
adamh
Look, I disagree. Why does it matter if you must be 21 to drink? If you're 18 and you can't wait another three lousy years to have a drink, that may be a sign you should prepare yourself and locate where the local AA meetings are ahead of time.

I'm 20, I've never had an alcoholic beverage and I'm certainly not chomping at the bit to get one. Sure, once I'm 21 I probably will have a drink here or there, but really it's not a big issue and it shouldn't be one for anyone else. If it is then you really need to consider if you have the personality of a person who should be drinking alcohol, because chances are you're on the road to problems.

If the legal age was 18, than I would advocate not changing it to 21. I just don't think it's something that needs to be messed with one way or another.
Posted by ruth421963 6 years ago
ruth421963
I'm with you here CL, always have been,
otherwise I'd have loved to debate you.
Peace,
Ruth
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by longjonsilver 6 years ago
longjonsilver
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by jackleripper 6 years ago
jackleripper
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by nutter 6 years ago
nutter
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by AdamCW12 6 years ago
AdamCW12
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by cls2008 6 years ago
cls2008
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by DocORock 6 years ago
DocORock
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by AMBagoli 6 years ago
AMBagoli
countryloverkvaughanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kvaughan 6 years ago
kvaughan
countryloverkvaughanTied
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