Should the US lower the drinking age?
Debate Rounds (5)
My first contention that by lowering the drinking age we would actually be increasing the number of underage drinkers. Well lowering the current drinking age is 21 and 18 year olds have a tendency to drink in order to say they are adult enough to drink. However, by lowering the drinking age, we will be basically saying that they have won the fight and that we give up. Then 17 and 16 year olds will begin to do the same thing and eventually end up getting the drinking age lowered.
In regards to his argument lowering the drinking age to 18 would not matter. But the drinking age would not continually getting lower unless of course the age to enlist was lowered, the age to vote was lowered, and the age to be considered an adult.
To refute my opponents, point that if their old enough to vote and enlist they can drink. I must disagree. Voting, enlisting are actually citizens duties and not privileges such as drinking, while smoking is also a privilege at 18, the US Government is also thinking about highering the age.
Lowering the drinking age back to 18 is that it is human nature to want what one cannot have. The fact that most college-age youth cannot legally drink alcohol makes many of them want to drink...and drink in large quantities...more than they would if it were legal. In the 1920s, the Prohibition laws banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States. This law failed miserably as alcohol consumption became rampant behind closed doors. By 1933, the law was overturned. Some researchers argue that raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 is, as Smith says, "America's second experiment with Prohibition" which is "no more effective than the first one.
In the 3rd round, we have seen some very informal and my opponent's arguement seems unbreakable. However, I have found a flaw. Within the context of his argument he states that "because 18 year olds aren't allowed to have alcohol, of course they're going to drink it because it is not allowed." He has practically just mooted the PRO argument. My first point was that it would encourage even MORE underage drinking. If we lower the drinking age to 18, 16 and 17 year olds will do the same exact thing.
I urge a CON ballot because the PRO's argument has just been debunked and does not hold water.
Justinisthecrazy forfeited this round.
I do commend my opponent for making every effort in arguing, however, the clear winner in today's debate is the CON.
I thank you all for viewing.
But to attack his 3rd point. All he talks about is what will happen if we were to lower than the younger kids would start drinking. I strongly disagree for the reasons I already listed above.
I also would like to bring up that lowering the drinking age to 18 or lower like it already is in several countries is not a bad thing because it teaches tolerance and moderation. Moderation is a must and that is what it promotes look at the European model.
I apologize again for not being on to refute that arguement sooner.
I urge a an affirmative ballot, for being able to be drafted, vote, and serve on the jury but not be considered an adult for 3 years is somewhat contradictory, I also use the fact that it will teach moderation as it does in other countries, I also use the fact that if it is illegal for college people to drink it makes them crave it more, 2nd time prohibition isn't working.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.