The drinking age is the USA should be lowered to 19

For clarification, I will first outline why the drinking age should remain at 21. Facts1) The corpus callosum functions to transfer motor, sensory, and cognitive information between the two brain hemispheres. [1]2) The corpus callosum typically does not finish developing until the mid-20's. [2]3) There is an association between heavy drinking and physical brain damage. Consuming alcohol causes brain shrinkage, especially in the frontal lobe, where higher cognitive faculties are located. [3]4) In 2009, there were over 9000 fatal car accidents involving alcohol consumption. [4]ConclusionNow, let's apply these facts to the resolution. If we affirm the resolution, we are allowing 19 year olds that are still undergoing vital brain development, to partake in a substance that further degrades their cognitive functions and cause brain shrinkage. This is not only causing harm to themselves, but it also harms other people; especially on the road. We must negate this resolution because we are socially and morally obligated to protect our teenagers, as well as the people those teenagers could potentially harm. Now, moving on to Pro's arguments. 1. Not allowing 19 year olds to drink is logically inconsistent with other freedoms that are granted to young adults. Pro's argument here is essentially that 19 year olds are allowed to do other dangerous things, therefore they should be allowed to drink alcohol as well. This argument is only effective if I am defending the entire status quo, which I am not. If Pro expects me to do this, then they are placing a very heavy burden on me. In this debate, I am only tasked with defending the current age that citizens are allowed to drink at. Furthermore, none of the things Pro has listed here are as serious as teenage alcohol consumption in their potential physical dangers. This contention fails because it is not a logical argument, it is simply an attempt at shotgun argumentation to try and overwhelm me. Pro is trying to make a change to the status quo, so they must fulfill their burden of proof instead of trying to shift it over to me. 2. The Law has been Ineffective at stopping drinkingThis argument is absurd. I could easily make an argument that the law has been ineffective at stopping murder, but that does not mean the act of murder should be decriminalized. Furthermore, this is contention blatantly false, as fatal accidents involving alcohol have decreased in the last ten years. [4]3. The law does not greatly effect drunk driving deathsThis contention rests on a bare assertion. This bare assertion is that drunk driving deaths have decreased, but not because of drunk driving laws. Pro provides no evidence for this, so we can safely dismiss this argument as a bare assertion fallacy. 4. Punish the crime, not the derivative of the crimeI agree that drunk driving should carry harsher penalties, but I don't see how this warrants lowering the drinking age to 19. "Those adults who drink responsibly should not be deprived of liberty for the poor actions of a few. "The fact of the matter is that people often don't drink responsibly, therefore we need to take measures to prevent drunk driving as well as underage drinking. 4. Many societal benefits for reducing the drinking ageSo let me get this straight; one underage student died of alcohol poisoning in Colorado, and you're blaming his death on the laws regarding alchohol, as well as using this instance to warrant the lowering of the drinking age? I really don't see how that logically follows. By keeping the current drinking laws in place, we are providing a deterrent to under age drinking. I don't know about you, but drinking alcohol under age seems a lot less appealing when I consider the fact that I can be fined at least $250. What this debate comes down to is the fact that under age drinkers are harming themselves as well as other people around them. The current laws against drinking have been effective in lowering fatal car accidents involving alcohol, and that is what's important here. The Pro case is willing to wrecklessly allow young teenagers to partake in a substance that degrades their cognitive functions and impairs their decision making. With Pro's case refuted, we can safely negate this resolution. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1) . http://biology.about.com... 2) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3) . http://www.alcohol-drug.com... 4) . http://www.census.gov...