The Instigator
DonterikaBrown
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kingofzdom
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Lowering MLDA to 18

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 37350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

DonterikaBrown

Pro

I agree the legal drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18. People are constantly saying that an 18 year old are more immature, and too irresponsible to handle drinking, but the fact of the matter is that it all comes down to your tolerance level, morals, and values that you grew up with. No matter what age you start drinking at, your tolerance level is going to be the same because you just started and if you've taught yourself discipline throughout your years growing up then you should have enough discipline to moderate your alcohol intake.
kingofzdom

Con

Drinking is illogical. The people of America know this. The U.S. government attempted to ban drinking in the past. The only reason that it is not still illegal to drink is that Mafias and other criminals started moving drinks like meth. America was in an state of panic. The only reason is that it is not 18 is that the government wants to flat-out ban it and the reason it isn't banned as that the American people would revolt.
Debate Round No. 1
DonterikaBrown

Pro

Drinking is not illogical. What's illogical is how irrational people's thinking can be. One man said that he felt only veterans and 18 year olds currently serving in the military should be able to drink. Veterans are already passed the age of 18 and only allowing those serving in the army is like saying they are better individuals when that is not the case whatsoever.
kingofzdom

Con

That doesn't change the fact that people get drunk and drive off cliffs and the younger you are the less responsible than older people. It doesn't matter what is already being done. The future is what matters and in my opinion, a clear-headed sober one is a good future.
Debate Round No. 2
DonterikaBrown

Pro

The brain isn't fully developed until the age of 27 so by your reasoning no one should be allowed to drink until that age. There will be vehicular accidents everywhere you go someway somehow, not all of them are because of some 18 year old that couldn't hold their liquor. Statistics actually show that more 21 year olds who drink and drive cause more accidents than the 18 year olds that do it, and in foreign countries 18 year olds are allowed to drink and they handle it exceptionally well. We have bigger problems going on in the world and that's even shown by the police as they recognize underage drinking to be a low priority for them. If it's already a low priority why keep it illegal? It's simply causing more problems than necessary. There's no knowledge of what the future holds for anyone. Yes, there are measures that we can take to try and ensure that it's a safe one but there are no guarantees. This is life and life is rough. If we provide previsionary places for the 18 and yes even the 21 year old to drink we can minimize their intake. It's called 'moderation' and everyone should practice it. Allowing the 18 year old to drink would also lower death by binge drinking percentage. They binge because they don't know where and when their next drink is coming. I standby my decision that the MLDA should be lowered to 18, with all the liberties they have now, it only makes sense for them to get this one.
kingofzdom

Con

kingofzdom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MGmirkin 3 years ago
MGmirkin
"For example, one should not be drunk when deciding to get married, enter a binding legal contract, or enlist in the military."

To clarify my prior statement: the above makes no sense as an argument against lowering the drinking age to the otherwise generally accepted age of "adulthood" (18). This "logic" or the lack thereof says nothing that applies specifically/solely to those between the ages of 18-21. Anyone over 18, be they 18, 50 or 115, can technically get married, enter a binding legal contract or enlist in the military (though the older you get the harder the latter option might be).

Clearly one should not be drunk when doing these things. But what has that to do with the argument about lowering the drinking age? 'Nothing,' I submit...

If one followed the logic of Critical_Knowledge, it would erroneously imply that nobody over the age of 18 (including those of 50 or 115) should be allowed to drink, as clearly all are "legally" able to do those things that "should not be done while drunk." But, the argument is NOT that the drinking age should be RAISED to infinity in order to avoid possibly doing stupid things while drunk. The argument is about whether the drinking age should be REDUCED to a common standard "age of adulthood" whereat ALL rights and responsibilities of "adulthood" apply (including buying / utilizing cigarettes and/or alcohol).
Posted by MGmirkin 3 years ago
MGmirkin
@Critical Knowledge:

"The reason alcohol is different is because it is a drug that affects the very judgement that he says society claims 18 yr olds have. For example, one should not be drunk when deciding to get married."

Your argument is invalid. By that logic nobody of any age should drink anything alcoholic, ever.

The simple fact of the matter is that the commonly accepted age of "adulthood" for everything (with the dubious exception of alcoholic beverages) is 18. At that point adults are capable of exercising their full rights and responsibilities, and are required to use their best judgment. Again, at that point, they are deemed "responsible" for their own actions. Be it getting married, buying/viewing pornography, driving a car, buying and smoking cigarettes, murder, manslaughter, etc.

I still maintain there should be a SINGLE standard for the age of "adulthood" and not the double standard as it currently exists. "You're adult, but not ADULT ENOUGH?" C'mon...

"Another thing about being under 18 is that the children are still the legal responsibilities of their parents, this further complicates the issue."

How so, at issue is not anyone of any age below 18. This is nothing more than a "red herring." Under 18 is roundly agreed to be considered the age of "juveniles" or "children." And yes, they are clearly under the legal protection of their parents. Until they turn 18, at which point they are adults. Period. At 18, they are no longer juveniles. Though currently they are (contradictorily) still "minors" until 21. Again, this is a rather absurd situation where they're both "adult" and "not adult" at the same time. Again, a double standard.

As others have noted, other countries have drinking ages of 18 without seriously adverse effects.

As an aside, if someone under 21 REALLY WANTS to drink, they will find a way, regardless of the law (stealing parents' liquor, getting friends to buy it, attending keggers, etc.).

Still need "standard"
Posted by Critical_Knowledge 3 years ago
Critical_Knowledge
I agree with Stonewall; this is an ugly debate. That said, I'm surprised that Pro hasn't mentioned that we did have a legal drinking age of 18 in the US at on point. I do not see a reason to lower the drinking age back to 18 though. From reading MGmirkin's comment I thought that all of these ages are really arbitrary and I think have more to do with the education system than with a particular stage of psychological development. The reason alcohol is different is because it is a drug that affects the very judgement that he says society claims 18 yr olds have. For example, one should not be drunk when deciding to get married, enter a binding legal contract, or enlist in the military. Everyone knows that there are teens and younger kids that drink alcohol. I do believe that before the age of 21 people are more likely to be in the later part of puberty and psychological and hormonal changes can make someone's behavior erratic and therefore all mind altering substances should be avoided, including alcohol. If it was proved to me that the drinking age being lowered would NOT increase drinking among ages 18-21, I may support, however I fear that is impossible. Another thing about being under 18 is that the children are still the legal responsibilities of their parents, this further complicates the issue.
Posted by MGmirkin 3 years ago
MGmirkin
There should be a single standard "age of majority" not a "double standard."

Currently, in the US, the age of "adulthood" is 18. You can buy cigarettes, buy porn, get married, enter into legally binding contracts, be tried as an adult, be drafted, etc. Everything, it would seem, except for "drinking." For that, you must instead wait until you are 21.

This leads to a seemingly contradictory predicament. When is someone legally allowed to make their own decisions, as an adult? Why is an 18 year old considered adult enough to do everything EXCEPT for drinking?

Moreover, what about weddings? Clearly an individual is old enough to GET MARRIED, to HAVE SEX... However, it is traditional at weddings to imbibe champagne and/or other wines. But between the ages of 18 and 20.99, it is not legal to imbibe said substances despite being legally old enough to participate in all other aspects of the wedding ceremony, reception and wedding night.

This appears to be a completely contradictory situation. Why is alcohol an exception to the rule that adulthood and all legal "adult activity" participation begins at age 18? No other "drugs" appear to have this same level of scrutiny or restriction. Tobacco doesn't, various prescriptions and non-prescription drugs don't have any such age restrictions. Why alcohol?
Posted by Stonewall 3 years ago
Stonewall
This is one of the worst debates I've ever seen- on this site or otherwise. Both arguments are using absolutely horrendous logic.
Posted by DonterikaBrown 3 years ago
DonterikaBrown
To the Con, the U.S government itself is hypocritical, you can't say they don't ban alcohol completely because a revolt could happen. There are other reasons as to why tey don't ban it completely, such as, they themselves enjoy drinking.

The main concern of this argument is how all of these excuses on why drinking shouldn't be allowed until age 21 are vague, unreasonable, and by far worn out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.