The Instigator
brad1999
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
sparklejumpropequeen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should the 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 2 votes the winner is...
brad1999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 74648
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

brad1999

Pro

At the age of 18, you gain all the rights and responsibilities of an adult. However, you are not able to take a sip of alcohol. At 18 you are a full-fledged member of society, and should be entitled to all the privileges of an American citizen, including the purchase and consumption of alcohol.

A survey by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that in 2003, 71.8 percent of 18- to 20-year-olds consumed alcohol in the past year. Students in this age range are away from the protection of their parents for the first time, and the temptation to drink is overwhelming for many. Lowering the drinking age to 18 increases the ability of parents to monitor new drinkers. Parents hold more leverage with their children at the age of 18, and may be able to influence their child"s drinking habits. At the age of 21, new drinkers are more likely to be either in college or living on their own, where parents have less authority.
Lowering the drinking age also opens up opportunities for high schools to receive government funding towards educating their students on alcohol and its effects. Funding towards alcohol and drug awareness programs often goes to colleges, where underage drinking already runs rampant. Also, most of these otiose programs are reactive instead of proactive, and preach abstinence instead of limitations.
I look forward to having a fun debate
Debate Round No. 1
brad1999

Pro

In 2010, the University of Arizona started a program teaching their students personal limits and safe practices . After the program’s installment in the spring semester of 2010, the number of students at the University of Arizona who use a designated driver when drinking was 82.6%, compared to 67.8% in 2007. If these programs are implemented during high school, when students are more impressionable, the level of underage binge drinking would decrease.
Others may argue that lowering the legal drinking age would lead to health problems in young teens, such as liver failure. It is only binge drinking that causes these health problems, not casual consumption. Students tend to binge drink because they don’t know when they will get the chance to drink again. Countries such as Germany, whose legal drinking age is 16, report far less alcohol-related deaths and health problems than the United States. European countries’ relaxed attitude and active education on alcohol’s effects has resulted in a decreased number of alcohol-related injuries.
sparklejumpropequeen

Con

sparklejumpropequeen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
brad1999

Pro

My opponet has not debated on this topic he just said 'lol no' on round 1 and forfeited round 2

so moving on

At eighteen, you can vote, fight in wars, and get married. But you cannot drink champagne at campaign parties, crack open a beer after a long day of fighting or drink a toast at your own wedding. The legal drinking age should be lowered to eighteen so that young Americans can be better monitored as they taste freedom as young adults. This is why we should lower the drinking age to 18 thank you.

sparklejumpropequeen

Con

sparklejumpropequeen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
brad1999sparklejumpropequeenTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has only said "lol no," and has forfeited. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
brad1999sparklejumpropequeenTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't make an argument and he forfeits.