Should the drinking age be lower to 18
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18 (even though I thought it already was). I look forward to your points.
Minli forfeited this round.
I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I have two main points for this basis:
They are old enough for the responsibility
At 16 (or 17 f you are in the USA), we allow all citizens to vote for the governing body of the state, something that takes a huge amount of responsibility. If they are old enough for such privileges, then surely they are old enough at 18, 2 years later, to drink alcohol. I do agree with the fact that a lot of adults this age go out to get drunk, which could cause fights and "traffic", but I will answer this particular argument in my next point. Furthermore, one can go out to war at 18 and fight for one's country, so why not allow them to have a beer?
It would cause more problems in the future to keep it at 21
One of the main reasons why so many people actually go out to get drunk is because alcohol is a "cool" thing to them. They see everyone else older than them drinking alcohol, and because it is such an alien thing to them when they reach 18, they go out and get drunk. We only have to look at the case of Italy to affirm this. They have alcohol from a young age, so when they reach 18 it is a normal thing for them. By increasing this gap to the age of 21, we would just be promoting the idea that someone should go out to get "splattered".
My opponent seems to have left, so VOTE PRO
2. In most states, people can't buy guns or adopt children until they are 21 and so on. They are very serious things. They require more responsibility. Therefore, we should treat the drinking age in similar way.
Alcohol can effect young people growth. For example, it will harass emotional regulation which may cause young people become too dependent on alcohol.
Alcohol can do this to anyone up to the age of 25. At the age of 21 the frontal lobe (concerned with simple logic and reasoning) is not fully developed, but at 21 these people are considered old enough to handle alcohol. Also, we can't stop 18 year olds from drinking alcohol just because they may become dependent on it. If that were the case we would have to put the same restrictions on adults. You haven't named your sources here, so I am assuming that you pulled this fact out of no where.
In most states, people can't buy guns or adopt children until they are 21 and so on. They are very serious things. They require more responsibility. Therefore, we should treat the drinking age in similar way.
I totally agree that these things require more responsibility, but they can not be compared with alcohol at all. A child requires financial support, which someone still in university could not do sufficiently, and a gun is used to hurt and maim. At 18 the adult is allowed to drive a car, something which also takes a huge amount of responsibility, and yet we do not trust them enough to regulate their own alcohol levels. Again, you have given us no evidence to support the last statement "Therefore, we should treat the drinking age in similar way", so I assume that it is your own personal opinion.
To summarise my side of the debate:
1) At 18 these adults are considered emotionally old enough to do other things which require a high amount of maturity, so to deny them alcohol because some may go overboard would be ridiculous.
2) Keeping it at 21 would cause more problems
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 2 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments and they were explained in more detail. Conduct was neutral, but Con used "effect", when he should have used "affect". Sources would have been nice to see and would have strengthened Pro's argument.
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.