"The minimum legal drinking age should be age 25"

Thanks for a great debate darkkermit. ==Round summary== I'll be changing the organization of the debate to focus on the major voting issues. ---Arguments specific to 21 to 25 year olds--- My opponent must win why people 21 to 25 specifically should not be allowed to drink. Drinking for people under 21 is already illegal, so they are irrelevant to the debate. My opponent is unwilling to advocate a complete ban on alcohol because of the failures of Prohibition, so people over 25 are irrelevant. Arguments that this invalidates: violence, drunk driving, unhealthy effects of alcohol This destroys all my opponent's arguments under "harm to others. " He only had two: violence and drunk driving. Violence No evidence was provided that people over 25 are more likely to be violent while drunk than people between 21 and 25. My opponent's only evidence is: "60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol. " For all we know, more of these homicides were committed by people over 25 than under 25. Drunk driving People in all age groups drive drunk. There's no valid reason to punish only 21 to 25 year-olds. "Unhealthy" My opponent claims a few times that he has "shown above that drinking even in moderation is unhealthy. " His new study says that the study effects disappeared "after adjusting for factors such as smoking habits, body mass and income. " It was a simple correlation/causation problem. The study was also of people over 25, so it should be disregarded. My opponent has only two arguments that relate directly to 21 to 25 year olds. Both are paternalistic, so if he loses that issue, he loses these. 1. Brain damage I have two studies that conflict with my opponent's claims here. My opponent claims that my MRI study is invalid, but I've read his study, and it has the same methodology as mine. In fact, his study says we have all the neurons we need after adolescence, but the brain prunes the neurons we DON'T need until age 25. My MRI study proves that the maturity center of the brain is fully developed by age 21. Lastly, I cite a study of 12,000 children proving that moderate alcohol consumption, even during pregnancy, does not impede brain development. Such conflicting evidence does not justify changing the current law. 2. Binge drinking My opponent has evidence that 36% of 18 to 20 year-olds binge drink, while 46% of 21 to 25 year-olds binge drink. But these are percentages of total people, not percentages of drinkers, which is a problem because according to the same source, only 50% of 18-20 year-olds drink, while 68% of 21-25 year-olds drink. So 72% of 18-20 year-old drinkers binge drink, while only 67% of 21-25 year-old drinkers binge drink. These statistics prove that drinkers over the age of 21 are more likely to drink in moderation than people under 21. Drinking age laws are clearly ineffective at stopping binge drinking and may even encourage it. I provide two specific reasons why people 21 to 25 need the right to drink 1. Social lives When you move to a new city after college, it is hard to meet people. Over 21 clubs, bars, and house parties are a great socializing venue. My opponent claims there are other venues, but you can't meet new people at a restaurant, for example. None of the venues he names are venues where people can be social. My opponent points out that people under 21 have social lives, yet most of their social lives in college seem to revolve around drinking and partying. 2. Business opportunities My David Hanson evidence explains that many important business meetings happen over drinks. 21 to 25 year-olds can no longer attend meetings at these venues if we make their drinking illegal. My opponent claims that CEO's are often older, but there are young CEO's like Mark Zuckerberg. The memoir about him makes clear that many of his early business meetings in California took place over drinks. My opponent drops, also, that investment bankers and consultants need to attend important business meetings that take place over drinks. My opponent claims people can drink abroad, but he is then simply encouraging them to break his law. Why pass a law when you ENCOURAGE circumvention? He also drops that most business is conducted domestically. Lastly, he brings up Prohibition, but business and culture are really different today than in 1920, and Prohibition wasn't effective. Because I have proven why 21 to 25 year-olds specifically need the right to drink, and I have disproven my opponent's specific reasons why they should not be allowed to drink, I urge a Con vote. ---Paternalism--- The idea of "liberty" in the Constitution was intended to give us the right to make all the decisions regarding things that affect us and only us. We may not agree with people's decisions, but the decisions are theirs to make. The right to be free of paternalism is the only thing that protects us from the tyranny of the majority, who try to impose their will on us through legislation. My opponent claims politicians are smarter and have more free time than average people, so they should make all the important decisions. However, many recent revocations of rights, particularly in California with Prop 8, have been through direct democracy. In addition, politicians rarely vote against the will of their constituencies. Lastly, under this logic, we should pick the smartest person in the country and make him dictator and allow him to regulate our every move. Our brains automatically analyze costs and benefits. Whenever we are deciding between ordering the burger or the chicken breast, our brains calculate whether taste or health is more important to us. And we know more about our personal preferences than politicians do. My opponent claims that I commit the slippery slope "fallacy," but slippery slope is a valid argument. It is only a fallacy if my opponent shows why we wouldn't roll down the slippery slope. Eating unhealthy food can be extremely damaging (obesity) – should government have the right to tell us what to eat? Sunbathing can be extremely damaging (skin cancer) – should government arrest people who are too tan? Only rejecting the paternalism principle in favor of the concept of liberty can prevent rolling down the slippery slope. Government has no right to intervene into our private lives. The specific examples don't matter since the broader principle is unjust. My opponent can prove there are harms to many things, but people should have the right to analyze the costs and benefits for themselves. My opponent asks if school should be compulsory. Answer: no. If someone wants to drop out at 14, making him wait until 18 merely deprives him of 4 years of job experience. But considering how many people attend non-compulsory college, most people recognize the value of school. ---Criminal justice vs. public health--- Criminal justice fails My opponent drops my Marc Thornton evidence that Alcohol Prohibition failed. He also drops my study that drug use hasn't changed in the last 25 years, in spite of drastically stepped up enforcement. My opponent claims only 2% of Americans are regular cocaine users. According to the source HE cites for this, 8% of Americans use cocaine regularly, 14% use marijuana regularly, and 11% use Ecstasy regularly. His #4 footnote doesn't say what percentage of Americans used cocaine in the past, so he hasn't proven a decline in cocaine use. Public health works My opponent drops my evidence that education campaigns were responsible for drunk driving declines (since the decline was also among adults) and for seat belt wearing. ---Drunk Driving--- Being drunk, putting on makeup, talking on a cell phone, and reading a book are all dangerous while driving. These should all be illegal while driving, not illegal entirely. Enriched uranium is a silly example – private power companies CAN own enriched uranium.