The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated

Since my opponent has said nothing against the definitions and my way of attacking, then it must be assumed that he agrees with the said terms. Also, my opponent hasn't given much of a response. But that's probably due to him barely getting by the time limit ;). A response is better than no response anyway, so let's get going with this. ==================== 'Forbidden fruit' effect ==================== My opponent hasn't given me ANY evidence for the forbidden fruit effect. All he said that it is "simply human nature". Where is the evidence for this? Psychological evidence? Biological evidence? Just saying it is true does NOT make it true - it's literally ipse dixit[1]. ==================== Forces more dangerous "underground venues" to appear ==================== >>>"The difference between guns and alcohol is clear: guns provide protection against other guns. Alcohol does not have that feature. In underground alcohol parties, more drinking occurs (since the next time it will be available may be far off) and reports of alcohol poisoning are less likely (for fear of arrest). The combination leads to a huge increase in deaths."<<< Legalizing alcohol for all will result in more alcohol related accidents, leading to MORE death and unwanted injury for those who are not involved with the drinker (drunk driving as a prime example). The gun example is analogous because what will happen if we legalize EVERY type of gun for civilian use? We will have some very serious crimes involving .50 caliber sniper rifles and fully automatic high powered assault rifles. Do realize, that my concern is not for those who drink, but rather for those who are the victim of alcohol abusers. Thus, this point also applies to my opponent's example of "underground alcohol parties". While they may exist or not (my opponent has yet to show they are a common occurrence), they only affect those in the parties. The government should be limited to protecting people from others, NOT people from themselves. >>>"If one assumes that the punishment for causing an accident is less than that of violation of the drinking age, the drinking age is redundant. With the opposite assumption, the law that effects everyone, rather than the discriminatory law, is redundant. The first situation seems much preferred."<<< I'm sorry, but this bit is very confusing. Can my opponent clear this up? This way I won't commit a strawman. ==================== Violation of the Equal Protection Clause ==================== My opponent has clearly either ignored a part of my source, or has failed to read the rest of it. Especially when it states that "traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose"[2]. It's common sense - the law is applied equally UNLESS there is a good reason to do otherwise. Why is there a voting age? Because toddlers are unequipped to make coherent decisions, especially when considering their psychological development. Why is there a driving age? Because adolescents not only have less of an impulse control, among other things. Why is there a drinking age? Because uninhibited drinking by adolescents with less impulse control leads to more drunk-driving accidents leading to more deaths and injuries on INNOCENT bystanders. ==================== It's not possible to reasonably enforce ==================== My opponent says nothing to refute my argument concerning this point. However, he does reply to my latter statement which said that legalizing alcohol would lead to many more tragic accidents. He says this is an emotional appeal and that the sake of freedom shouldn't be given up due to the risk of accidents. My argument is NOT an emotional appeal, and the risk of death is NOT an emotional argument. The point is that legalizing alcohol will lead to further deaths on OTHERS, people who aren't drinking or having to do with alcohol. Drunk driving is an obvious example, and allowing alcoholic drinking to go rampant just worsens the situation. ==================== Other nations have lower drinking ages and yet lower rates of alcohol problems ==================== My opponent says nothing to refute my argument concerning this point. ==================== The problem of drinking games ==================== My opponent says nothing to refute my argument concerning this point. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent agrees with me that the government should be concerned with only protecting individuals from others, but this doesn't mean that I support his position. Freedom is a great right to have, but we shouldn't go around allowing everything on sight. This will inevitably lead to senseless accidents and deaths for those who are NOT invovled, essentially violating the principle both my opponent and I agree on. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://topics.law.cornell.edu...