the drinking age should not be lowered to 18
Debate Rounds (3)
many if not most who join the military are being taken advantage of due to their youthful naivette and lack of options. if they required the age be later, maturity would deter many. (among other committments they make, sure). also, at that age, ddeaths and harm is extremely common due to these folks. as the age raises w maturity, the problems decrease.
basically, at the age of 18 most kids are mature enough.
In my opinion if somebody wants to abuse alcohol their whole life then that is their decision and they should be held responsible for their own mistakes. Here in the UK we tend to follow this theory and the number of drink driving fatalities is much less than that of America due to the government's efficient regulating. We impose a high tax rate for beer and some establishments don't serve customers under the age of 21, although consumption still remains legal for those over the age of 18. Which brings me on to my argument of if a person is considered an adult in society, why aren't they allowed to drink alcohol?
he also says people should just be held accountable for their actions. no one disputes this, but being held accountable doesn't necessarily prevent the stupidity in drunk or sloppy driving, which is more prevalent in more youthful drinkers.
con says if they are considred adults, why not liet them drink? sure, as with the military point, maybe they should coincide. but that doesn't mean drinking age should be lowered, it means 'adulthood' should be considered higher, for many purposes.
The problem with modern society is that alcohol is generally frowned upon which means that when youths do eventually get to drink alcohol they unfortunately abuse it. An example of this can be found in Italy where alcohol isn't frowned on, and in fact is encouraged by society, and therefore children grow up with it from an early age. This has a dramatic effect on the countries well-being as alcohol isn't abused by youths an Italy has one of the lowest drink related deaths in the world. (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com...)
My point is that alcohol shouldn't be regulated by what pro deems as maturity, but should be better regulated by governments and encouraged from an early age, hence why the drinking age should be lowered.
if the USA has a cultural problem with alcohol, we have to take it as it is. italy might be different, but you admit they are different to begin with. perhaps we could work on our culture, but until that's changed, we have to take things as they are. that means keeping drinking age from being lowered. con even admits that youths abuse alochol. that means we have to be weary of lowering the drinking age.
im not sure how better regulation would change anything, as it hasn't been demonstrated. a regulation doesn't stop someone from drinking and driving. i assume this means the stuff he said about accountability, but this just goes back to what i said in my last post about accountability.
Of course I admit that every country is different, but you have to notice the correlation between drinking related deaths and countries with a high legal drinking age. I can assure you from a personal experience that no harm will come from lowering the drinking age, it definitely isn't a problem here in the UK, and the statistics show that.
I definitely think the drinking age should be lowered in the USA. Why should a person be allowed to vote, but not allowed to drink alcohol? In the eyes of the law and the government they have reached maturity, and so therefore should be trusted individuals of society.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.