The Instigator
mikay
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Curci
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should the Legal Drinking Age Be Lowered 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 4 votes the winner is...
Curci
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 53147
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

mikay

Pro

After tuning 18, it is legal for a person to get married, get divorced, adopt a child, enlist in the military, and buy tobacco. At this stage in life, the average 18 year old is not mature or economically stable to do these things. The consumption of alcohol is a huge responsibility and it should be taken seriously. The legal drinking age should not be lowered to 18 because it can cause harm to a developing brain and body, it would put adolescents in unsafe environments, and more people would have the access to alcohol.
Curci

Con

There is a huge element of personal freedom you are missing. By the time you are 18, you have the capacity and the legal right as an adult to make your own choices. Drinking should be no exception. Why should we try and regulate people's choices because we don't like them? Making a "bad" choice should not be declared illegal. With the drinking age at 21, thousands of people below that age are getting arrested, ruining their chance of getting into college and ruining their life. How can you support an invasive system like that, which makes you pay the ultimate price for a fault so minor? A phrase I like to use often is "My body, my choice." That ideology perfectly applies here. Once you are legally an adult, you should be able to make your own decisions.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I agree with the previous voter, however within the context of soldiers; not to say everyone else.
Posted by lefillegal1 2 years ago
lefillegal1
If you die for this country you should at least, be allowed to drink in this country.
Posted by Curci 2 years ago
Curci
I think the confusion was that mikay was arguing against the age being changed, while I was arguing for it to stay at 21. That was the confusion. Please adjust accordingly.
Posted by Curci 2 years ago
Curci
Please elaborate.
Posted by OliveJuice 2 years ago
OliveJuice
Vote: Confusing*
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
mikayCurciTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con since Pro took the wrong stance on this, he should have been con and vice versa. I felt that mikay made a stronger argument making a point about 18 year olds not being mature and developed enough to start 'legally' drinking. while Curci simply made a point saying that the law should be disregarded and changed because so many 18 year olds are breaking it. insisting that they should have the right to chose. I felt that this was a weak argument as opposed to Mikays who made a valid point.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
mikayCurciTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took the wrong stance. If he is against the legal drinking age being lowered to 18, then he would be Con and not Pro. Because of this mistake, he loses points in conduct. Pro commits a fallacy when he said that the drinking age should not be lowered to 18 because it can cause harm. This is a irrelevant because alcohol harms everyone, regardless of age. Con provided a sound argument when he claimed that thousands of adults below the age of 21 are getting arrested for drinking. Arguments go to Con.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
mikayCurciTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the last voter on conduct, spelling/grammar, and sources. I disagree on the arguments. The Con did make a side very visible. While he did this, there were parts of his arguments that could have very well been used against him such as "Making a "bad" choice should not be declared illegal." This is the very reason we make things illegal. I can see where confusion may have come from there but otherwise con made a good argument, even though I may disagree.
Vote Placed by OliveJuice 2 years ago
OliveJuice
mikayCurciTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Conduct: Both were professional in their approaches. Spelling & Grammar: Decent on both sides. Arguments: Con essentially backed up Pro's argument and brought forth an extremely confusion claim of their own. To top it off, Pro had strong reasoning to begin with. Sources: Neither had sources. I definitely would have liked to see a longer debate and reliable sources.