The Instigator
KeithKroeger91
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points

The drinking age lowered

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 9 votes the winner is...
KeithKroeger91
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,779 times Debate No: 6196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (9)

 

KeithKroeger91

Con

Con
Drinking during the adolescent years is very harmful to the brain. Studies have proved that a young person's brain does not stop developing until their early 20s, and sometimes until their mid 20s. Adding alcohol to the mix can be very harmful because adolescents are more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol than older adults. Alcohol affects all parts of the brain including coordination, emotional control reasoning and many other things. Alcohol also interrupts hormones needed by minors for growth and maturity. Adolescent drinkers also do worse in school and are of higher chance to get behind.

Also....... During the Vietnam War states all around the nation began to lower the drinking age to 18 since many people started to complain saying how it was unfair because 18 year olds were allowed to enlist and die for their country but they couldn't drink alcohol. However, the result was an increase in Alcohol related car accidents and an increased burden on police. Things got so bad that most of the states that made it legal to drink at 18 set it back to 21. As soon as this was done, a significant decrease in Alcohol related car accidents was seen and the burden of police was lightened.

In 1984 Ronald Reagan made the national drinking age 21 on the means that it would save the lives of many people; and he was right The National Highway Administration said that since it became a law some 17,000 lives have been saved as a result of it, that's 900 lives per year. People in the nation should have the right of knowing that driving on the road is going to be safe because a series of studies have shown that people who drive at younger ages have a higher chance of getting into car accidents and killing innocent bystanders on these grounds I have no choice but to accept the idea that the drinking age has only been beneficial to our society.
JBlake

Pro

I would like to thank Keith Kroeger Ninety-one for issuing this challenge. I wish him good luck, but not enough luck to offer a better argument than mine.

I will begin by summing up my Con's argument.
Because:
Drinking during adolescence is is harmful for the development of the brain;
A populace drinking at a younger age results in more alcohol-related car accidents; and
the raise in the drinking age during the Reagan years resulted in fewer alcohol-related vehicular fatalities
The drinking age should not be lowered from 21.

I will begin my own argument by asking my opponent to provide reliable sources for the statistics he had cited.

Con claims that drinking during adolescence is harmful for the development of the brain. There are a few problems with this analysis, which I will enumerate below:

Drinking age is not an issue that needs to be legislated. Ideally, each individual would weigh the positive and negative consequences and make an informed decision no matter what their age. Con's issue with younger drinkers is that it is harmful to their development. Well, not exercising the proper amount each week is harmful to development as well. I doubt Con would advocate allowing the government to regulate exercise, or create an age limit for video gaming. Similarly, television has been shown to harm brain development in toddlers. A study suggests 1 1/2 hours of television per day for toddlers is "harmful in terms of children's attentional abilities later in life, harmful in terms of their cognitive development." [1] I doubt that Con would advocate allowing the government to regulate television viewing.

Additionally, the drinking age has proven to be ineffective. Studies of the era before and after age-specific prohibition reveal "little impact upon behavior."[2] For instance, a study conducted examining the before and after affects on 18 and 19 year old college students in New York showed that prohibition made had no effect on students' consumption rates or their view on alcohol. [3] From these studies, it is clear that the prohibition has little to no affect on consumption practices.

Government regulation aside, removing a drinking age altogether teaches children to respect alcohol. Teens in nations with lower or no drinking age are less apt to binge drinking than their American counterparts. American teens are taught at a young age that Alcohol consumption is a taboo subject. Educators and families tell the youth that alcohol is bad, but fail to teach them about responsible drinking. Once teens realize that alcohol is not as harmful as they were originally told, they dive into drinking head first. Since educators refuse to talk about responsible drinking, teens and young adults have a noticeable lack of information in this regard. As with nearly everything in this world, alcohol is not bad when taken in moderation. Without learning these skills early on, American teens and young adults are more apt to heavy binge drinking than their counterparts in nations with lower or no drinking age.

Con also cites alcohol-related deaths as a reason for leaving the age limit alone. However, this is not a valid reason, either. Non-alcohol car accidents are higher among younger drivers, this should be no surprise. In an effort to save more lives, does my opponent care to remain consistent and advocate raising the driving age as well? Undoubtedly, many lives would be saved in the process. There are many other things that cause death that similarly do not warrant government intervention. Among them are car accidents, cigarette smoking, eating unhealthy foods, air travel, and a great many others. We would not like the government to involve itself in these, or other aspects of our lives, so why do we put up with it with the age restriction on alcohol?

Con concludes his argument by citing (without sources) that alcohol-related vehicular fatalities have reduced since the Reagan era because of age resrictions on alcohol. The evidence on this issue is inconclusive. The fewer number of deaths could be attributed to other things. Since the Reagan era, for instance, police forces have significantly cracked down on drunken driving in general. This seems to be a more compelling explanation for a decrease in alcohol-related vehicular fatalities than a high drinking age.

CONCLUSION
My opponent claims that protecting brain development is enough to warrant an age limit. I have shown that there are a number of other things that affect brain development that do not warrant an age restriction. This negates his first point.
He claims that protecting the populace from drunken teenage drivers warrants an age limit. I have shown that there are a number of other things that cause death that do not warrant an age restriction. This negates his second point.
He claims there is a correlation between alcohol-related vehicular fatality rates and a high age limit. I have offered an alternate explanation for a decreased death rates. This negates his final point.

Ultimately, it comes down to parents teaching responsible drinking to their children. It is not the government's responsibility to legislate. Their involvement is actually harmful, as young adults obtain alcohol regardless of law. Teaching responsible drinking at a young age is a more effective means of protecting children from the harmful affects of binge drinking; and of protecting society from drunk drivers.

1. http://www.commercialexploitation.org... par. 6
2. Hanson, David J. http://www2.potsdam.edu... par. 3)
3. Davis, James E. Alcohol use among college students: Responses to raising the purchase age. Journal of American College Health, 1990, 38, 263-269.
Debate Round No. 1
KeithKroeger91

Con

My opponent starts off with:
"I will begin my own argument by asking my opponent to provide reliable sources for the statistics he had cited."

Well, here they are http://family.samhsa.gov...
http://www.renewamerica.us...
http://why21.org...

These are just some of many sources I have used to come up with my statistics.

He states:
"Well, not exercising the proper amount each week is harmful to development as well. I doubt Con would advocate allowing the government to regulate exercise, or create an age limit for video gaming. Similarly, television has been shown to harm brain development in toddlers. A study suggests 1 1/2 hours of television per day for toddlers is "harmful in terms of children's attentional abilities later in life, harmful in terms of their cognitive development."

Well, firstly there is a significant difference between not exercising enough and watching TV or playing video games. Not exercising enough and watching TV or playing video games does NOT harm other people in your surroundings; alcohol does. Many stats have shown that 55% of family violence occur in homes of alcoholics, incest is more likely to occur in homes with alcoholics then in homes with no alcoholics, children of Alcoholics are 3 times more likely to become alcoholics themselves. http://www.doitnow.org... There is the source since I know my opponent will ask. This all relates with the debate because kids who drink underage are more likely to become alcoholics in the future, then people who are 21 or over.

He stated:
"Additionally, the drinking age has proven to be ineffective. Studies of the era before and after age-specific prohibition reveal "little impact upon behavior."[2] For instance, a study conducted examining the before and after affects on 18 and 19 year old college students in New York showed that prohibition made had no effect on students' consumption rates or their view on alcohol. [3] From these studies, it is clear that the prohibition has little to no affect on consumption practices."

Now, I do not know how they handled this study since you nor I was there but reading from what you wrote this does not sound like a well done study. They probably took kids who have already been drinking prior they did the study and of course had no effect because the kids were already conditioned to drink. Also in this study of yours did the students have consequences for drinking alcohol? My guess is probably not since it was a "study".

My opponent claims:

"Government regulation aside, removing a drinking age altogether teaches children to respect alcohol. Teens in nations with lower or no drinking age are less apt to binge drinking than their American counterparts. American teens are taught at a young age that Alcohol consumption is a taboo subject. Educators and families tell the youth that alcohol is bad, but fail to teach them about responsible drinking. Once teens realize that alcohol is not as harmful as they were originally told, they dive into drinking head first. Since educators refuse to talk about responsible drinking, teens and young adults have a noticeable lack of information in this regard. As with nearly everything in this world, alcohol is not bad when taken in moderation. Without learning these skills early on, American teens and young adults are more apt to heavy binge drinking than their counterparts in nations with lower or no drinking age."

Many people who support lowering the drinking age almost always uses this as a argument. But, the fact is that in European nations (where the minimum drinking age is lower) alcohol related issues such as binge drinking rates are worse in almost every one of these nations especially in nations such as the U.K., Ireland, and Denmark where there alcohol related problems are almost twice as much the U.S. level. http://www.csmonitor.com...

He says: "In an effort to save more lives, does my opponent care to remain consistent and advocate raising the driving age as well? Undoubtedly, many lives would be saved in the process."

No, lives would NOT be saved by increasing the driving age. First of in our society you cannot do things without a car its almost a necessity especially in places with no public transportation. Is alcohol a necessity? The answer is no. It doesn't matter how old you are when you start driving you will still be a new driver whether you start driving at 15 or at 40 you still need to require the skills of a trained driver. Just because you happen to be older doesn't mean you magically become a great driver. All I was stating in my argument above is that there is lives saved due to the drinking age. Does this make sense to you?

He continues:

"There are many other things that cause death that similarly do not warrant government intervention. Among them are car accidents, cigarette smoking, eating unhealthy foods, air travel, and a great many others"

Well, I already explained car accidents above, and yes the Government DOES have great restrictions on cigarettes even more so then alcohol such as the smoking age is 18 and you can't smoke on a airplane or any public areas. Even in some states they restrict smoking to only inside your house. Eating unhealthy foods? Again eating unhealthy foods does not harm OTHER people only YOURSELF. I am not sure how air travel relates to the issue I would like to ask my opponent what he means in his argument.

He says :

"Con concludes his argument by citing (without sources) that alcohol-related vehicular fatalities have reduced since the Reagan era because of age restrictions on alcohol. The evidence on this issue is inconclusive. The fewer number of deaths could be attributed to other things. Since the Reagan era, for instance, police forces have significantly cracked down on drunken driving in general. This seems to be a more compelling explanation for a decrease in alcohol-related vehicular fatalities than a high drinking age."

Well, to answer this Youth drinking rates have DECREASED shown by the 2006 monitoring the future study has shown since the law has taken into effect 8th grade drinkers have decreased 38% 10th grade drinkers decreased 23% and 12th graders decreased 14% and continues to decline. My opponent stated that drunk driving related deaths went down due to the police cracking down on drunken driving. Well, lives were saved nonetheless am I right? http://why21.org...

Thanks for debating me.
JBlake

Pro

I would like to congratulate my opponent on a well thought-out response. It gives me no joy (that is a bold-faced lie) to have to tear it down piece by piece.

Con does not address my argument on government regulation, instead focusing on issues not related to the topic. Therefore I have to guess at what his counter argument is based on his language. Please, correct me if I am wrong. It seems as though he has dropped his argument that there needs to be regulation to protect the individual's development, since he does not address it even inadvertantly. Instead, his issue with the drinking age is that it can harm other people in a drinker's surroundings. Since he seems to have dropped the first half of his argument (development of the brain), I will proceed by addressing only his second point.

--------------------

Con offers a number of statistics with questionable sources. The source he has cited offers no citation for these statistics. However, I will still address them each:
- ""55% of family violence occur in homes of alcoholics"
>>This is hardly a compelling statistic. If you look at it from the opposite side, this means that 45% of family violence comes from homes that cannot offer Alcohol as an excuse for their behavior. Hardly a convincing reason for its prohibition.
- "Incest is more likely to occur in homes with alcoholics then in homes with no alcoholics."
>>If this incest is among consenting adults, I don't see the problem. Neither my opponent nor his source cite whether it is among consenting adults or if it is mostly cases of molestation. This seems to be a deliberate blurring of facts to make it seem more appauling.
- "Children of Alcoholics are 3 times more likely to become alcoholics themselves.
>>Once children become adults, it is their decision on whether or not they become alcoholics. This is another area where government regulation is unwarranted. The inclusion of this statistic implies that something should be done to fix it. Unfortunately, to fix this one would require the government to overstep its boundaries. Further regulation would be required, perhaps even including a full prohibition. We all know where alcohol prohibition leads to...

Con goes on to question the validity of my cited study. Unfortunately, it seems he does not understand the nature of observational research. Not all studies are in a controlled environment. For this study, they look at trends among college students from both before and after the age prohibition. As I stated in the first round, they found little to no difference in New York State. Subsequent studies at other institutions reported the same results. It is interesting that my opponent questions my sources, where a multitude of reliable studies are cited within, when nearly all of his sources are void of this reliability. His sources are clearly biased toward his viewpoint, and nearly all of them do not cite the sources where they got their information.
-----" in this study of yours did the students have consequences for drinking alcohol?"
>>No, this study does not look at the consequences for drinking alcohol, nor was such reporting necessary. This is a study on the (lack of) affect that the age prohibition has on college students. This question is irrelevent to this debate as well, since you have conceded that it is up to the individual to decide his own actions - including whether or not he drinks alcohol.

My opponent continues his assualt on my position by claiming it false. He claims that people in nations with lower age restrictions drink more, at younger ages, and have higher levels of alcoholism. To prove his point, he offers a biased article with no citations of its own. I challenge Con to produce a reliable source backing up this claim. Ideally, this source would have verifiable statistics on the issues that he claims.

He continues his argument by stating that raising the driving age would not save lives because no matter what age a person begins driving, he/she will be inexperienced. I ask the reader to apply this very same logic to alcohol consumption. Why would this be true for driving and not to alcohol consumption?

-------"Well, to answer this Youth drinking rates have DECREASED shown by the 2006 monitoring the future study has shown since the law has taken into effect 8th grade drinkers have decreased 38% 10th grade drinkers decreased 23% and 12th graders decreased 14% and continues to decline. "
>>Con has failed to show how these statistics are relevent to his case. As I have shown, with reliable sources, binge drinking remains unchanged on college campuses. He states that rates have decreased in those aged 14-17. Once again, correlation does not equal causation. During the same era, schools instituted a more aggressive alcohol and drug education policy. It seems much more plausible that education has had more affect on this decline than age restrictions.
However, these statistics are irrelevent to my opponent's case that the age restriction should remain as a means of protecting society from drunkards and drunk driving.

-------"My opponent stated that drunk driving related deaths went down due to the police cracking down on drunken driving. Well, lives were saved nonetheless am I right?"
>>Here my opponent concedes that it is more likely that police crackdown was the cause of a decline of alcohol-related vehicular fatalities, and that it was not the age restriction on alcohol. This is particularly damning for his case. Yes, lives were saved, but not because of age restrictions on alcohol.

CONCLUSION
My opponent did not address brain development in round 2. Indeed, he seems to admit that alcohol consumption should be left up to the individual.
Instead, he bases his case on protecting society. However, he has offered no evidence that the age prohibition has protected society in any significant way.
Con has one final round to state his case, which he has heretofore failed to do. I challenge him to offer relevent support to his claims, and to use reliable sources.
Debate Round No. 2
KeithKroeger91

Con

He starts off with:

"Con does not address my argument on government regulation, instead focusing on issues not related to the topic."

Forgive me if you didn't understand my argument on government regulation but I felt like I addressed it just fine when I stated that the Government only regulates things that could be harmful to OTHER people, but I guess my opponent doesn't seem to understand what I mean by this argument. Guns is a perfect example of Government regulation, why? because guns could harm OTHER people. Why are cigarettes regulated? Because cigarettes cause harm to OTHER people. Just about everything that could cause a lot of harm to other people in someway IS regulated.

My opponent stated:
"Since he seems to have dropped the first half of his argument (development of the brain), I will proceed by addressing only his second point."

In my argument I was simply giving FACTS on Alcohol, and reasons why alcohol is very bad for your brain and why it should not be consumed by anybody 20 years of age or younger that was not my MAIN argument it wasn't even half of my argument like my opponent suggests it was, that is a slight exaggeration. But, appears my opponent wants to argue me on this point so be it.

My opponent says:
"Well, not exercising the proper amount each week is harmful to development as well. I doubt Con would advocate allowing the government to regulate exercise, or create an age limit for video gaming. Similarly, television has been shown to harm brain development in toddlers."

Well, I am going to inform my opponent of something right now the government DOES regulate exercise its called P.E.. But as for regulating television I seriously doubt that people watching TV as toddlers is really going to effect their brains like the way alcohol does. If my opponent wants to win on this argument he is going to have to prove that Tv somehow messes up children's coordination emotional control and reasoning and that TV interrupts hormones needed for kids to grow up and mature (the same goes with video gaming). So, unless he is able to prove all of this his arguments are discredited. If he questions my source on this argument then he is a fool because these facts come straight from the health book.

My opponent-

>>This is hardly a compelling statistic. If you look at it from the opposite side, this means that 45% of family violence comes from homes that cannot offer Alcohol as an excuse for their behavior. Hardly a convincing reason for its prohibition.
>>If this incest is among consenting adults, I don't see the problem. Neither my opponent nor his source cite whether it is among consenting adults or if it is mostly cases of molestation. This seems to be a deliberate blurring of facts to make it seem more appauling."

The fact is that there is MORE homes with violence related to alcoholics then there is with homes with no alcoholics. That was indeed the point of the statistic. His incest argument is a very silly argument here is the definition of incest.
Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry ; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship.. http://www.merriam-webster.com... There's the source since I know the audience will want it. In my opponents argument it sounds like he does not know what the word means.

He says:

">>Once children become adults, it is their decision on whether or not they become alcoholics. This is another area where government regulation is unwarranted. The inclusion of this statistic implies that something should be done to fix it. Unfortunately, to fix this one would require the government to overstep its boundaries. Further regulation would be required, perhaps even including a full prohibition."

Once childrens brain stops developing that is when they have the choice to excessively drink or not. Do you honestly think people who's brains are not fully developed and matured are going to make the rational choice to drink responsibly? The fact is that most underage drinkers do not drink responsibly and education isn't going to change a thing about that. Let me ask both you and the readers a question. When kids get drunk the first time and liked the feeling they got out of it do you think they are going to listen to those teachers rambling on about the dangers of excessive drinking? or will they continue to drink excessively to get that loose feeling? I want everybody to sincerely answer this question to themselves.

My opponent-

" Not all studies are in a controlled environment. For this study, they look at trends among college students from both before and after the age prohibition. As I stated in the first round, they found little to no difference in New York State."

All I really wanted to know is how did they do this study and how many people exactly did they use and which type of people did they use for the study? These are all valid questions that I would like to hear a direct answer from because there has been many flawed studies in the past.

My opponent-

" He continues his argument by stating that raising the driving age would not save lives because no matter what age a person begins driving, he/she will be inexperienced. I ask the reader to apply this very same logic to alcohol consumption. Why would this be true for driving and not to alcohol consumption?"

There is a huge difference between drinking alcohol and driving I hope the voters understand this. Driving is a SKILL drinking alcohol is a HABIT.

My opponent-

"However, these statistics are irrelevent to my opponent's case that the age restriction should remain as a means of protecting society from drunkards and drunk driving."

Those stats are not irrelevant, the point I made was that ever since it became law underage drinking has steadily declined.

My opponent-

"Here my opponent concedes that it is more likely that police crackdown was the cause of a decline of alcohol-related vehicular fatalities, and that it was not the age restriction on alcohol. This is particularly damning for his case. Yes, lives were saved, but not because of age restrictions on alcohol."

I did not concede to the point I never admitted that the reason there was less deaths was due to policemen cracking down there is thousands and thousands of drunk drivers that go unnoticed by policemen, because policemen are LIMITED. The point I was trying to make but I didn't make myself clear on it was that there are less drunkards on the road because of the law.

Throughout his round 2 it seems to me that he seems to be attacking me more on my sources and not enough on my arguments. He accuses me of getting flawed sources, well he can believe it all he wants but they are facts and I am going to ask the voters to do a little research for themselves to find out the the truth for themselves.

By the way Jake just for your information I am not upset I know at times I may sound upset but I am not. Sorry if it came across that way at any time. :p
JBlake

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for clearing up his stance on the topic. I will briefly outline his argument below:

Because:
Alcohol consumption can be harmful to others;
Domestic violence and incest are more likely to occur in homes with alcoholics; and
People under the age of 20 cannot make rational, responsible life choices
The age restriction on alcohol should remain at 21.

Before going into my own arguement I will respond to some of my opponent's personal accusations.
1. Yes, I understand that incest is a sexual relationship with members of the same family. No, I do not think there is a problem with such a relationship so long as members of the relationship are consenting adults. My point on incest is that your source uses it as a boogeyman. They list off a few consequences of alcohol in an attempt to make it seem scarier than it is in reality. You must also remember, correlation does not equal causation. Your source attempts to insinuate that it is alcohol that causes incestual relationships. It claims that incest is more likely in alcoholic homes, when it seems much more likely that the reverse is true - that alcohol is more likely to be found in homes with incestual relationships.
2. The New York study on college drinking was a University wide study. That means they followed the drinking habits of the entire university and found that drinking habits had changed very little, if at all. After this study, other universities conducted similar university-wide studies and turned up similar results. It would be a waste of time and prove absolutely nothing to research the enrollment numbers of New York State University for the years in question so I will not. If Con or the reader wishes to verify my sources, be my guest. I would gladly pit my sources against the ones he has listed. Mine cited their sources and base their claims on objective studies. His do not cite where they obtained their information, so we are left to guess their validity.
3. Drinking is also a skill of sorts. Allow me to direct all question on this point to Brian Eggleston of Debate.org. The fact of the matter is that experience in either drinking or driving will make someone better at it. With driving, a person will become more safe with age. With drinking, a person can become more responsible, especially if they are taught how to be responsible at a younger age.

-----------------

I will now make my closing arguments in favor of lowering or removing the drinking age.

Con believes the drinking age should remain the highest in the world because it can be harmful to others. However, a large number of things that can be harmful to others are not similarly regulated. For instance, cars give off carbon emissions but there is no restriction on how long a person can drive. Driving at all can cause fatal accidents, yet we still allow people to drive. Fast food restaurants serve fattening, unhealthy foods that harm its customers, yet we allow them to stay open. These, and a large number of other harmful aspects of society do no warrant government regulation and my opponent has not offered a compelling reason why a drinking age does.

Con finds a useful scapegoat in alcohol when looking at issues such as incest and domestic violence. I have already addressed incest above when it is between consenting adults. His source does not address what proportion of these relationships are consented to. Certainly alcohol can play a role in some cases of non-consentual incest. However, it is likely that psychological problems play a much larger role and may even be the reason that alcohol is involved as well.
Con also believes alcohol to be the major factor in domestic violence. However, he does not mention the fact that in 45% of domestic violence cases there is no alcohol involved. Additionally, this is not related to drinking age restriction. Con concedes that once a person is above the age of 21 (the age when he believes a person can be reponsible for his own actions) they can drink as they please. Therefore, the drinking age is not linked to domestic violence issues and this whole point is irrelevent.

Con claims that people under the age of 20 cannot make informed, rational, responsible choices. Nothing can be farther from the truth. It would seem that my opponent, aged 17, holds himself and his cohorts to very low standards. As he would have you believe, those poor teenagers are helpless when pitted against the evils of alcohol. They cannot help themselves once they have had a single drink and become irresponsible dangers to society. Clearly this is not the case in reality. Kids can make rational, responsible choices on issues such as their future, why can they not do the same with alcohol? Early education on alcohol and responsible drinking would significantly reduce the number of later alcohol-related problems.

Finally, Con claims that "there are less drunkards on the road because of the law." The law he is referring to is the age restriction. However, he earlier conceded that it was likely police crackdown on drunk driving that is responsible for the decrease in alcohol related fatalities. This seems to be a more plausible explanation. Unfortunately for Con, he did not include any evidence to support his claim.

------------------------

CONCLUSION

My opponent has failed to link drinking age restrictions to any of his larger points. He has not shown how it has helped decrease domestic violence or incest. He has not shown how it has decreased drunken driving accidents.
More importantly, he has failed to offer any compelling reason why the government should become involved in its citizens' drinking habits. His quickly dropped his first argument for this (harm to self). I have shown his second argument (harm to others) to be irrelevent to age restriction.
For these reasons you should vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by country77 7 years ago
country77
Im going PRO on this one......society tells peaple that there an adault at the age of 18 and that they can can sex and all of that...then why make a big deal on drinking....there suppose to be adults right?...if peaple dont think 18 is old enogh then they need to raise the adult age....if a person is old enough to have sex,drive,and everything else...why leave drinking out?
Posted by michellular091 7 years ago
michellular091
i didn't know that this was already debated.
i took it up myself. i personally think pro's arguement
was stronger, not only because i agree with his
reasoning, but he provided more of a case.

if you don't mind jbblake, can i use some of your sources?
Posted by dance_mi_amor 8 years ago
dance_mi_amor
kids drink when ever they want, its really if they get caught how they are punished by age
Posted by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
I like my government hands off as well, but I do believe there is some things that the government should enforce, such as drugs alcohol and other things of that nature.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Yes, no age limit whatsoever would be ideal. Personally, I don't like my government telling me what I can and cannot ingest - and at what age.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
People will continue to party on a higher level than it is now if you lower it. Where do we draw the line? age 18? 16? 14? no age limit whatsoever?
Posted by mizziz 8 years ago
mizziz
I am a teenager, and i find that having the legal drinking age higher is making us want to go for alcohol more...making something inaccessible is making it more special, more fun to have!
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Oh yeah, so ready, you're not even sure of how ready I am......
Posted by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Sure, I will debate this again but now now maybe in a few days if thats alright with you?
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hey Keith, if you're willing to debate this again I have some unbeatable arguments.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by mizziz 8 years ago
mizziz
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Evakian 8 years ago
Evakian
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 8 years ago
Rodriguez47
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pongolator 8 years ago
pongolator
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Jim92 8 years ago
Jim92
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
KeithKroeger91JBlakeTied
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