The Instigator
Victoria85176
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should the drinking age be lowered?

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...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 59737
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Victoria85176

Con

Round one- Acceptance
Round two- Opening arguments/ rebuttals
Round three & four- Arguments/ rebuttals
Round five- Closing arguments
Please don't bring up any new ideas come the last round and no trolling (its really annoying). Thanks for abiding by my rules, I'm looking forward to a interesting debate! Good luck Pro! :)
phantom

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Victoria85176

Con

I would like to begin by simpley stating a few statistics:
1. Every day in America, another 28 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes {1}
2. Drunk driving costs the United States $199 billion a year (Ouch). {1}
3. Every two minutes, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash. {1}
4. On average, two in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime. {1}
5. Drunk driving costs each adult in the United States almost $800 per year. {1}
6. Adults drank too much and drove about 112 million times per year - almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving a day. {1}
Personaly, I find these haertbreaking. These will only go up if we decrease the legle age to drink.
--
Omnipoint 1:
If we lower the drinking age to 18, this will allow a greater proportion of teeens in nightclubs and bars, this is not a safe inviorment for children. Assult or other violent crimes could easly occur to drunk teenagers; this also oopens up the possiblity for drunk driving. {2}
Omnipoint 2:
To let teenagers consume alchohal is medicaly irresponsible. Teenagers brains are still developing, the consuption of alchhal can interfere with the growth of the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are responsible for planning, emotional regulation, and orginization. Ergo, they have a increased potential of getting chronic problem such as, addiction, risk-taking, memory loss, violence, depression, and worst of all suicide. {2}
Omnipoint 3:
Drinking is a big responsibility, and requires a age restriction of AT LEAST 21. Most things in the United States you cant do until your 21 or older such as adopting a child, buy a handgun, gamble in a casino (in most states), rent a car (from most companyes) or run for president. Why should drinking be any lower, when its just as big a resposiblitly as most things shown above (No not president lol). {2}
Omnipoint 4:
When you hit the age 18 your just reaching into your independance, but at 21 your more mature. 18 year olds already have to worrie about college, independance from their parents ect. So there going through a lot, this increasing the chances of binge drinking. {2}
Omnipoint 5:
If we allow 18 year olds to drink legally, 17 and 16 year old might start drinking to. Esspesially if the 18 year old brings the alcolhal to school. {3}
{1} http://www.madd.org...
{2} http://drinkingage.procon.org...
{3} http://www.buzzle.com...
phantom

Pro

Pro's case

C.1 Dangerous environment

I contest Pro's claim that 18 year olds are children. 18-20 year olds are not children. It's the age at which you can join the military, be tried as an adult, marry, amongst other things. Most highschoolers graduate at 18. 18 is in fact the age we can most clearly call someone an adult.

I'll address Pro's claim that nightclubs and bars are not safe environments anyway. 1) Self-autonomy: It is a fundamental right for adults to expose themselves to harmful environments. We allow 18 year olds to join the military after all. It's absurd to say bars and nightclubs are too dangerous for 18-20 year olds while also saying military combat is not. 2) Pro doesn't argue how these are dangerous environments. Alchohol can lead to fighting but bars and nightclubs are controlled supervised areas. Can Pro at least provide some statistics? 3) The U.S. is not a nanny state--or shouldn't be. There are plenty of harmful situations the government lets people get into simply because the state has no right to restrict a persons own autonomy unless necessary.

C.2 Medically irresponsible

As stated, the U.S. is not a nanny state so the simple fact of something being unhealthy is in no way an argument against banning its use for individuals.

Pro's own sources states that it was found in a meta-study with the drinking age and its association to health and social problems that "72% of the studies found no statistically significant relationship".

It's considered unethical to supply alchohal to those under the drinking age so experimental trials have to be conducted with animals. This means the research is speculative as to the applications to humans. The research also found (with animals) that "the adolescent brain is less impaired in motor skill control than the adult brain. That is, the adolescent brain maintains a higher level of balance, reaction time, and hand eye coordination while under the same level of impairment as an adult brain." This means that adolescents actually might function better while drunk. http://www.chooseresponsibility.org...

The adolecent brain extends till the age of 25. If we follow Pro's argument we should be raising the drinking age to that age. http://www.chooseresponsibility.org...

We should be advising responsibility, not trying to ban all use of alchohal under 21 because that makes it worse in a few ways. Binge drinking is unhealthy and a major cause of addiction and makeing alchohal illegal is a major cause of binge drinking since teens want to make the most of the times when they get alchohal. Raising the drinking age has actually caused more abusive drinking amongst those under age. http://www2.potsdam.edu...


C.3 Responsibility

Pro's flat out wrong that 21 is the age where people gain most responsibility in the U.S. At 18 the government deems us old enough to:

Join the military without parental consent http://www.military.com...
Recieve the death penalty http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Vote http://democracyday.com...
Marry without parental/guardian consent http://marriage.about.com...
Serve as a juror http://www.uscourts.gov...
Gain legal indepdence from parents
Make a contract
Rent an apratment
Buy a car http://education.occourts.org...; http://drinkingage.procon.org...;
Age you can buy fire arms in many states http://smartgunlaws.org...

It's also the age people tend to make transition from high school to college.

At 21 according to Pro:

Adopt a child
Buy a hand gun
Gamble in most states
Rent a care for most companies (you can buy cars at 18)
Run for president (uh, no. You have to be 35) http://usgovinfo.about.com...

So Pro asks, "Why should drinking be any lower, when its just as big a resposiblitly as most things shown above?" If the drinking age is determined according to the responsibilites given to us by age, then we uniquivocally must change it to 18, not 21.


C.4 Maturity

18 is the age we push an enormous amount of responsibility on people. It doesn't make any sense that this means we shouldn't let them have a drink as well. 18 is the age we become legally independent. The age of majority should be the age at which persons can have a drink.

C.5 16/17 year olds

16 and 17 year olds already drink and there's no stopping that. Moreover, if we follow this logic, we could say the drinking age should be 23 so 18-20 year olds won't drink. If 18 is the age of adulthood, it's irrelevant what younger teens will do. Binge drinking is caused by alchohal being illegal since those who can't get it all the time tend not to drink in moderation when they do have it. The drinking age fails to stop underage drinking and just pushes it into uncontrolled and dangerous environments.


I forgot I was going somewhere tonight so I'll add more next round.

Debate Round No. 2
Victoria85176

Con

Victoria85176 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Victoria85176

Con

Victoria85176 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Victoria85176

Con

Victoria85176 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
In the overview I posted, where it says round five and I said closing arguments, I forgot to say rebuttals! Sorry guys, it slipped my mind!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Victoria85176phantomTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
Victoria85176phantomTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.