The Instigator
Lee001
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
StrawmanHasAPoint
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Would You Lower The Drinking Age?

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 3 votes the winner is...
StrawmanHasAPoint
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 64260
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Lee001

Con

Why would you lower the drinking age?
StrawmanHasAPoint

Pro

I would indeed.
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Con

Why would you lower the drinking age? Technically your not an adult till your 21. Kids today are worse than they have ever been. They get into drugs and alcohol and then they end up getting inedible and going to jail. Why make it easier? I'm 18 and I'm against it.
StrawmanHasAPoint

Pro

18 is the age of majority, when you are clear to engage in legally binding contracts, vote, have sex, smoke, and drive without another adult in the car. So you're seeing a lot of responsibility. And there are cases where you can drink under 21.
An example would be our military personnel. These guys can drink on base if they are under 21. This establishes a precedent for the 18-20 year-olds to successfully get the drinking age lowered.
Another would be to take a spin down to Mexico.
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Con

Clearly your for this because you 17. Yes Military can drink but they are way more mature then kids in society. They are trained to behave like adults, The rest of your argument doesn't make sense, just because kids in other country can drink doesn't mean kids here are responsible to drink.
StrawmanHasAPoint

Pro

StrawmanHasAPoint forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Lee001StrawmanHasAPointTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: tied conduct due to ff but cons attack on pro's age. Arg's to pro because con never rebuts pro in the fact that pro shows people have the responsibility and are expected to be able to take risks at 18, the "adult" age.
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Lee001StrawmanHasAPointTied
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: My vote has been cast for the same reasons as the previous voter. I would also like to note the importance of rebuttals and sources. Adding sources to your argument will enlighten your view and add more credence to your argument. Rebuttals are important for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
Lee001StrawmanHasAPointTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: No award of conduct due to Pro's FF and Con's attack of Pro's age. Con misspelled several words. Although no sources were used, Pro's argument was at least based in some fact. Pro references what responsibilities an individual gains upon becoming 18, while Pro arbitrarily defines adulthood as the age of 21 and dismisses the fact that other countries function with a lower drinking age. I warn both sides to base arguments on facts rather than assumptions. Individual's under the age of 21 may not drink on military bases unless in a country with a drinking age lower than that of America (i.e., Japan).