The drinking age is the USA should be lowered to 19

Burden of ProofDo I have the burden of proof? It seems like it should be shared? If the state is going to deprive young adults of their liberty they should present good reasons. Does the instigator, or the person who wants to change the status-quo always have the BOP? Or is it like calling "shotgun", the first person to mention it decides it?I don't really understand why BOP is often debated. While BOP may affect who the reader agrees with, it does not effect the quality of arguments (which is what is voted on). Claiming to not have the BOP is no excuse to make weaker arguments. 1. Not allowing 19 year olds to drink is logically inconsistent with other freedoms that are granted to young adults.It is helpful to compare the dangers of drinking to other responsibilities granted to 19 year olds. Comparing these parallel examples help determine whether drinking is a responsibility 19 year olds can handle. It is a logical argument. If A is more dangerous/at par with than B, and 19 year olds can handle A, then they can handle B. I didn't mean to overwhelm/sabotage my opponent. It probably seems overwhelming because there is no other responsibility at 21 to compare to drinking. All the other responsibilities are granted at 18. To have logically consistent beliefs, one would have to think that the age of some/all responsibilities (joining the army, owning a gun, smoking) should be changed to 21 ( therefore making 18-20 yos in the USA the oldest "kids" in the world), or claim that there is a reason that makes drinking more dangerous. My opponent claims that there is a reason that makes the choice to consume alcohol more dangerous than the many other comparable responsibilities mentioned in round 1. Further argumentation in this debate will show otherwise.2. The Law has been Ineffective at stopping drinkingMy opponent argues he argument can be made for murder. I proved that over 4 out of 5 underage students drink. The percentage of underagers who break this law is VERY HIGH. The percentage of people who break the murder law is VERY LOW. The latest homicide rate in the USA is 4.8 murders per 100,000 people or .000048% [1]. So, if no one committed duplicate murders, .000048% of people in the USA murdered people. So, about 82% of Americans break the underage drinking law, while .000048% break the murder law. How can you make the same argument for murder? My opponent argues that since overall drunk driving fatalities have decreased the past 10 years, the law has been effective. I assume that this was meant to object to my argument regarding drunk driving fatalities, so I will address it there.3. The law does not greatly effect drunk driving deathsThis is not a bare assertion. Drunk driving deaths have been decreasing at a constant rate since 1982 to present day. The law to change the drinking from 18 to 21 occur in 1984. If the law had a profound effect on overall drunk driving deaths, the drunk driving decrease should have accelerated around 1984,1985. However, it did not, the decrease remained constant. There is a natural rate of decrease. This is because of increased vehicle safety technology, life saving technology, alcohol awareness, that occurs with time. My opponent showed that overall drunk driving deaths decreased from 1999-2009. This is consistent with the natural decrease of drunk driving deaths. Also, since the law was past in 1984, the effects just after the law passed compared to before would present a better case. It is hard to believe that the effects of raising the drinking age are just occurring now.Some may argue that the fatalities of 19-20 year-olds would increase (This is an important statistic and may be why my opponent claimed I made a bare assertion. I thought I would let my opponent bring this argument up instead of making it myself) . This is probably true. A study shows that a drinking age of 21 leads to a 5% decrease in in 18-21 year-old drunk driving fatalities. However, this is also shows that a 21 yo drinking age results in an 8% increase in 21-23 yo old deaths [3]. Drinking experience is more important than drinking age. A higher drinking age just shifts deaths to higher ages. Dr. Mike A. Males of the University of California states"The bottom line is that raising the drinking age to 21 did not improve a young person's odds of avoiding fatal alcohol mishap before age 25." [3]4. Punish the crime not the derivative of the crimeThis shows that the reason that under 21 yos cannot drink, should not solely be to prevent drunk driving. The chain of causation is too distant to ban alcohol usage for those under 21, solely to prevent drunk driving. This is especially true seeing as how drunk driving is not punished harshly. Prohibiting alcohol consumption is an overreaction to drunk driving crashes. For example, texting and driving is very dangerous. Some studies claim that it is more dangerous than drinking and driving [2]. Prohibiting those under 21 to own a cell phone with texting features is an overreaction. However, laws against texting while driving are acceptable. This shows that it is wrong to have a drinking age of 21 soley for the reason to prevent drunk driving as it is not the most appropriate action. 5. Many societal benefits for reducing the drinking ageNot just for this one incident. I was giving an example of how many lives are lost each year due to underage drinking off the roads. 1000 lives of 18-24 year olds are lost due to drinking off the roads. Also, 60% of deaths due to underage drinking are for incidents off the roads.[6] These lives are just as important to protect. The 21 drinking age may slightly decrease the amount of drinkers, however it increases the amount of heavy drinkers. As I showed in round one,compared to Canada, while less college students drink in the USA, more American students binge drink. Binge drinking is the cause of most problems ( alcohol poisoning, health damage)[5]. My opponent claims that "There is an association between heavy drinking and physical brain damage." The 21 drinking age increases heavy drinking, which results in the majority of health problems.Having a drink is a good way to relax, make friends, and network( American employees cannot drink with their co-workers bosses, this is a big disadvantage especially in a business professional environment). Studies show that moderate drinkers are in general happier people[5]. If 19-20 yos are treated like adults, they will act more like adults. Police should not waste time and money enforcing this rule. There are better things they can do with this time. ConclusionThe 21 year old drinking age is a failed, absurd social experiment. The USA is the only modern democracy, and one of the only countries in the world to have a drinking age this high. many countries such as Spain, Greece and Italy teach there children to drink in moderation as early as preschool [3]. Both the Ukrain and South Korea have tried the 21 yo drinking age, concluded it did not work and abandoned it [3].I have shown that a 21 yo drinking age is logically inconsistent with other freedoms given to young adults, the law has been ineffective at stopping underage drinking, the law did not greatly affect drunk driving deaths, it is wrong to deprive responsible acting adults of their liberty to drink and their are many societal benefits of lowering the drinking age ( including decreasing the amount of binge drinking). The USA should lower the drinking age to 19. This should be an easy vote for Pro.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.cnbc.com...[3] http://www2.potsdam.edu...[4] http://alcoholism.about.com...[5] http://www.masenka.be...[6] http://www.chooseresponsibility.org...