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

Resolved:That the drinking age should be eliminated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 11/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,054 times Debate No: 40004
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In most countries over the world, the drinking age in public is between the ages of 16 to 18. Drinking in private is considered legal, unless the person is under the age of six. In the United States underage drinking is viewed as taboo, which increases the appeal for underage drinking, The fact that it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 creates a rebellious factor applied to drinking. If the rebellious appeal is reduced then underage drinking and other problems associated with underage drinking(ie. alcoholism, drunk driving and alcohol poisoning) will be reduced considerably.


Our reasoning for regulations such as our drinking age should not be influenced by the choices of other governments. We have restricted such things because they are detrimental to our own country.

I will begin my own argument based on two contentions:

1.) Elimination of the drinking age would be medically irresponsible.

Underage drinking has detrimental effects on both a long-term and short-term basis. On the short-term side of the spectrum, underage drinking can cause the following effects: Decelerated reactions from the cerebral cortex, central nervous system, frontal lobes, hippocampus, an various other parts of the brain. Upon intoxication, these decelerated reactions can induce memory loss, loss of motor skills, and a reduction in the body's senses. When alcohol affects the undeveloped brain of a person under 21, extremely detrimental things can occur. Underage drinking has been related to chronic long-term problems such as depression, violence, and suicide.

2.) An elimination of the drinking age would encourage more detrimental behavior among youth.

A decrease of the drinking age has been related to the use of illicit drugs among young drinkers. A complete elimination of the drinking age would encourage more you to use narcotics, and at a younger age. It would be irresponsible to condone drinking for those younger than 21 due to the correlation between underage drinking and drug use.
Debate Round No. 1


The evidence between underage drinking and underage drug use are irrelevant. People who can't smoke still drink, and there is more of a social stigma attached to smoking then there is attached to drinking, even for people who are over the legal drinking age.
Drinking is not a right for the government to decide. Drinking is a moral issue that should be given to the individual and the parents to decide when exactly is the right time to drink. Drinking is like smoking, many individuals choose not to smoke, and so many individuals choose not to drink. The only ones that chain smokers and excessive drinking hurts the most is the individual.


The argument referencing the drinking age and drug use is completely relevant. Statistically, there is a direct correlation between underage drinking and illicit drug use. This is not limited to simply smoking tobacco. The drugs in question are illegal and include but are not limited to: Marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin. Elimination of the drinking age essentially encourages use of these drugs; some of which are extremely dangerous. If the drinking age were to be eliminated, the amount of youth using illegal drugs would rise. This increase would stimulate the amount of drug offenders being arrested and imprisoned, costing prisons millions of dollars. The elimination of the drinking age is not only unsafe medically, but it is unsafe in the sense that it could possibly increase the national deficit.
Debate Round No. 2


The argument that the drinking age and drug use is very irrelevant. There is no correlation that lowing the drinking age with promote drug use because drug use happens anyway, no matter what age. There is though a correlation that traffic problems and other accidents decrease with the lowering or elimination of the drinking age. Lowering the drinking age could increase revenue in bars and other establishments. Lowering the national deficit.


A peer-reviewed study from the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs by Denise Kandel proves the the younger the age a person begins to drink alcohol, the more likely it is that they will use illegal drugs, making the use of drugs completely relevant to the argument. It is proven that those who drink at lower ages are more likely to use illegal drugs. The safety of U.S. citizens should be prioritized over the popularity of bars. It is also quite likely that the costs of imprisoning more people for illicit drugs crime will by far outweigh the stimulation to our economy the elimination of the drinking age could potentially provide.

In summary:
Elimination of the drinking age is medically unsafe and is proven to increase the use of narcotics among young drinkers.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a tough row to hoe from the get-go, and his case was more in line with one to *lower* the drinking age, rather than *abolishing* it. Con pointed out the medically irresponsible aspects of allowing "any age" to drink, and Pro never really addressed it, choosing to spend the rest of the debate quibbling about illicit drug use. Arguments to Con, as Pro never justified abolishing the drinking age, and I might recommend to Con either limiting it to "reducing" the age, or providing a more coherent case justifying why *any* age (presumably even infants and toddlers) should be allowed to drink. Everything else seemed equal enough not to warrant scoring.