The U.S. should repeal the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Definitional Debate _________________________________________________________________________________________________ At the end of the day, the act does not prohibit drinking between the ages of 18-21. And, unfortunately for my opponent, if something isn't prohibited, is IS allowed, although not encouraged. There is no reason to debate this anymore, I feel like it is clear enough. Even if not, let's move on. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Burden of Proof _________________________________________________________________________________________________ We have come to consensus on this issue. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Refutations _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Old enough to die for your country; old enough to drink My "amusing" argument is rather serious. My opponent takes the position that we have the highest drinking age in the world, and should reduce it to match that of others. By that standard, there is no reason to deny that we have an army that can easily reduce its minimum age to match that of others. And even if 13 is too low, as by Ugandan standards, there are countries that conscript from age 14-17. Since my opponent wishes to match the drinking age to the age at which 1) we are old enough to die, and 2) we are the same as other countries, the two are equivalent reasonings pushing for the same factor. Thus, we should also have the same "old enough to die" age as other countries, which in turn would reduce our drinking age. My opponent basically concedes this argument anyways, by saying "I do, however, believe that if Uganda continues this deplorable practice that they have "no rational basis" to deny these child soldiers the right to drink alcohol. " 2. Students into criminals The argument is that the problem will be very inadequately solved. Drinking occurs at a very high rate in high-school age teens, and, matter of fact, over 40% of students have had "more than just a few sips of alcohol" by 8th grade! [1] The argument also necessitates that we lower the drinking age to 13, just like argument (1. ). These arguments are all tied together, and calling them "amusing" does not invalidate them. 3. Diverts Police Attention The source says "Ibid", which is why it is invalid. That isn't really a source I can look at, or click. 4. No rational basis I am not okay with any drinking; I am a Muslim. But with looking at it strictly through Western standards, I've already discussed why purchasing should remain up to adults. See the argument regarding brain development. 5. States' rights Your quote is not cited, and seems to be evident that you made it up. Moreover, my opponent has not fulfilled the burden of proof in this argument. I. e. he shows no analysis as to why the status quo should be changed, provides no clear violation of states' rights, and doesn't provide the explicit link between alcohol consumption and states' rights. He gives no reasoning as to why this ought be a State right, not a National power; I could claim it is National by the status quo or through the elastic clause of the Constitution. But I need not go into detail; again, it is up to my opponent to do the arguing. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Since we are now at round 4, an ideal debate would dictate that no new arguments be added; just summaries and voting issues be mentioned, and possibly a final reiteration of a refutation of some sort. If my opponent does in fact argue, that gives me the right to argue in the last round as well. I wish my opponent the best of luck. ________ Source(s) ________ [1] . http://www.sadd.org...