the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

Pro kept repeating that it's a "fact" that lowering the drinking age would cause more drunk driving accidents. Unfortunately for him, I already explained why (and provided links with citation) that is completely false. He ignored the explanation that I repeated in the last two rounds, which explain drunk driving accidents occur most around the age of legalization whether it's 18 or 21 (meaning age is irrelevant, and it's the novelty factor that is). I explained this several times. His statistics are a moot point and do not remotelty address my argument. He pointed out that younger people tend to get into more drunk driving accidents than older people. This completely ignores the fact that accidents occur closest to the age of legalization. Of course a 30 year old will be less likely to get in a drunk driving accident than a 22 year old. My proposition (backed by research -- Pro provided none to counter it) is that a 22 year old who lives where alcohol becomes legal at 18 will be far less likely to get into a drunk driving accident than a 22 year old who lives where it becomes legal at 21. Again, Pro never addressed this point and kept repeating his misguided "fact" that I've already demonstrated false multiple times. Pro also repeated that kids who start drinking younger are more likely to be involved in alcohol related deaths. This doesn't prove that raising the drinking age prevents kids from drinking. This also doesn't prove that age is more of a factor than novelty. Other arguments of mine that Pro completely ignored and/or did not negate include but are not limited to:- Drinking alcohol does not automatically violate the rights of anyone, and it's immoral to restrict someone for simply consuming a beverage unless they specifically cause harm or danger to others. - Forty five out of 50 states allow for underage legal drinking with certain stipulations, proving moral ambiguity and pragmatic inconsistency. - Prohibiting young people from drinking in public encourages risky behavior. - Young people continue to drink anyway, making them criminals and creating harmful repercussions for their actions including but not limited to secrecy (even to their medical detriment) and the problems that go along with an arrest. - Cultures where alcohol is not taboo to young people have a totally different social outlook on alcohol, and have nowhere near the drinking problems that Americans do.These are all arguments that I have repeated multiple times from Round 1, and that I specifically outlined by number to make it easier for Pro to respond. He intentionally chose not to, and therefore they must all be acknowledged in my favor. We have no choice but to believe Pro didn't respond because he cannot combat those arguments with logic or reason.Furthermore I negated Pro's claim that drinking alcohol is a "life or death" experience and he never responded meaning he agrees with my point. I also mentioned that I was not advocating drunkenness, just a younger drinking age. Finally I argued that statistics show negative behavior associated with drinking alchol INCREASED among young people along with the drinking age increase. Considering Pro chose to ignore the vast majority of my arguments, it's not surprising that he didn't respond to that one either. [[ CONCLUSION ]]There are about ten arguments I have presented since R1. Pro chose to blatantly ignore around six of them. The other four responses he gave have been demonstrated either completely irrelevant and/or undeniably false. Pro has never proved that raising the drinking age would be safer (and my research suggests otherwise). He never proved that a 21 year old drinking age was moral; I explained why it's not. If the drinking age is not practical or moral, it should be lowered to 18 for all of the aforementioned reasons of the last three rounds. Thank you for this discussion.