The Instigator
olney_debater_hb
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InfiniteBears
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

The USA government should lower the drinking age to 16

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
InfiniteBears
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 43060
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

olney_debater_hb

Con

The USA government should not lower the drinking age to 16.
16 year old teens are too immature to handle drinking appropriately and responsibly
The Institute of Alcohol Studies did a survey and it shows that 43% of the people who got caught drunk by the authorities (police) in the USA in the year 2012 are from ages 15-16 that almost half the people who are drunk.
If we let 16 year old teens drink they are going to abuse the privilege and get drunk and make bad decisions such as drinking and driving.
InfiniteBears

Pro

1 Driving Under the influence is illegal anyways.
2 Most of your arguments are opinions.
3 Adults abuse the privilege all the time as well.
4 Obviously the kids shouldn't be drunk when at school or driving, but that goes with adults too.

-Look at Europe for instance. Their limit is 16 and driving limit is 18. Maybe we should change that around?
-At the age of 18 you can join the military and blow peoples brains out. You can smoke cigarettes (which kill) as well.
-USA is a free country. The people in it should be free to do what ever that doesn't involve victims. Making the assumption that 16 years will abuse the alcohol to the point that they will cause harm to others is just an assumption not a fact.

My assumption:
Maybe if the minors were given the privilege of drinking then maybe they would respect the alcohol instead of abusing it.

My conclusion:
This was a hard debacle to debate about, I hope you voters will consider that I am on the minority and have an open mind when reading my arguments. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by olney_debater_hb 3 years ago
olney_debater_hb
argue!!!4
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
Anonymous
olney_debater_hbInfiniteBearsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's 1-4 basically sums it up.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
olney_debater_hbInfiniteBearsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither set of arguments were very convincing, but with only one argument per side, I can at least partially see why that's the case. Con hedged his bets on one argument, that drinking and driving happens more often among 15-16 year olds. This was a strange argument to say the least, since that's a problem in the status quo, which means in the presence of a ban on their drinking. He doesn't express in any way how legalizing drinking will make this worse, and Pro's responses about other ways to handle this are valid. I don't see any real reason on his part to support 16-year-olds drinking, but since Con started this debate, the onus is on him to prove that lowering the drinking age is uniquely harmful. He didn't do so, debate goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by tomschase 3 years ago
tomschase
olney_debater_hbInfiniteBearsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither argument was really convincing, but I had to go with Pro because it was more organized and made some good points. I still agree with Con because I think that lowering the drinking to 16 would result in more accidents.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
olney_debater_hbInfiniteBearsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate did not have any meaning whatsoever, as neither side could effectively argue nor refute in just one round. Conduct to pro for not creating this debate.
Vote Placed by bored 3 years ago
bored
olney_debater_hbInfiniteBearsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Not terribly innovative responses from either side, but this has been debated ad nauseum anyway. Pro did a better job of arguing but I'm afraid I'm still not convinced.