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

I'm also glad that he has a sense of humor; when it comes to debate, though, logic is superior to comedy. Definitions: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Although I do not answer the argument explicitly about not prohibiting versus allowing, this is an issue that we still have in the constitution of strict versus loose interpretation. Strict interpretation advocates that the rights the federal government has are ONLY the rights that are explicitly mentioned; loose interpretation advocates that the rights the federal government has are ALL of the rights that aren't explicitly prohibited. Seeing as my opponent, again, has the burden of proof, he has to give reasoning as to why his strict interpretation has to be used. The debate is over on his part though, so it would seem that I have won this section of the debate. My opponent continues "This, however, functionally makes the consumption age in the U. S. 21". But functionally would be a loose interpretation in his favor; therefore there is an inherent double standard he is using to advocate his definitions. I'll let the judges resolve this in voting. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Final arguments addressed _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Age of maturity If we can get married at 18, why can't we decide to purchase Budweiser? The answer is a critique of the entire issue; I don't feel that there is a specific age at which we can identify brain and mental-functional maturity. I suggested 21 as a safer zone, but again, 18 is arbitrary regardless. This is a totally subjective argument that gets the Pro case no where. 2. Students into criminals My opponent wishes to reduce the crime of alcohol; at the same time, he only wishes to do so up to a certain point, that being age 18. He is fine with the 41% of people who have had "more than just a sip" by 8th grade continuing to break the law; this appears to be a double standard, and his argument is invalid. 3. Diverts police attention I apologize for my shallow knowledge of Latin; regarding the rest of the argument, I do in fact disregard the logical premise. I agree that it does divert police attention, but again, it does seem to use the same double standard that my opponent has been using throughout the round. Moreover, my opponent with the burden of proof doesn't provide a solid link between increased unresponded-to crimes and the NMDAA. The argument can be neglected as there is no real warrant, or justification. 4. No rational basis My opponent's question: " if my opponent (looking at the issue through Western standards) thinks it's okay for 18 year olds to drink (since this was his basic strategy from the beginning – to argue that they can drink alcohol but not purchase alcohol), then how does that make even a modicum of sense? " I said that it would make sense because their is a more rational mind/source from which they have to get their alcohol, that being an adult. I do recognize the contradiction my opponent points out, but it is reconcilable with the use of a little analysis: in my opinion, having a middleman through which alcohol is brought to minors is an excellent regulatory policy. 5. States' rights I wasn't referring to the 10th amendment as a "lie", and I do recognize that that IS in fact the 10th amendment. I was referring to the quote after that. Here it is, as a refresher: ==="We, of the United States Congress, know many of you have passed laws to make the drinking age 18, but anti-alcohol lobbyists in Washington D. C. convinced us that these laws are ‘wrong,' so we're going to let your highways fall into disrepair unless you change these laws" === I'm not sure how true that quote is. He cites Associated Content but provides no link; it is unverifiable for the purpose of this round. Meanwhile, my opponent still has yet to uphold his burden. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regarding the "no new arguments" issue, my opponent and I did the same in addressing the final statements using previously made arguments. I urge that the voters provide a "tie" for the conduct portion of this debate. Overall, my opponent was several deficient in providing solid reasoning as to why we should change the status quo. His arguments seemed to be more emotionally and syllogistically charged than they were substantiated empirically. He has failed to effectively uphold his burden of proof, and for this reason, I urge a con vote. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________