The Instigator
sara_ann_dee
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
lol101
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18 years old?

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...
sara_ann_dee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 408 times Debate No: 78220
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

sara_ann_dee

Pro

Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of decreasing the drinking age requirement.

This is how the debate will be layed out:

1st round: Acceptence only (anything more will be an automatic forfeit)!
2nd round: Opening argument / statement
3rd round: first round of counterarguments
4th round: Final counterarguments and closeing statement

Any violation to the setup will result in an automatic forfeit.
lol101

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
sara_ann_dee

Pro

People as young as 18 are sent into the mitiltary to fight for our country. Some of them lose their lives because of something out of their control. People are premitted to drive as young as 16 - and if they are reckless on the road then then can take OTHERS lives. The legal smoking age in most states is already 18 - another controversial right for the younger generation. Here is the point I am trying to make out of all this - if people are sent to fight for our country and possibly DIE at the age of 18, if people by the age of 18 are already driving and endangering theirn lives and OTHERS, and if smoking is already permitted for ages 18 and up - then my question to you is: why can't people have a drink? If our government thinks 18 year olds are responsible enough to handle people's lifes, then how can they not be responsible with a alcoholic drink? We expect too much from our younger crowd - and if we keep pushing them to put their lives in danger, then we might as well grant them permission to use a substance that is dangerous ONLY FOR THEM if they choose to consume it - no innocent bystanders (like on the road).
lol101

Con

lol101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
sara_ann_dee

Pro

Forfeit, I thought you wanted to debate this?
lol101

Con

lol101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
sara_ann_dee

Pro

Forfeit - vote for me
lol101

Con

lol101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
sara_ann_deelol101Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Teaparty1 1 year ago
Teaparty1
sara_ann_deelol101Tied
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: Conduct- Con forfeited. S&G- Pro had a minor spelling error, but that is not enough to the lose the point considering Con didn't even post. Arguments- Pro had good arguments that were not responded to regarding the significant responsibilities 18 y/os already have.