The drinking age should be lowered to age 18.

Thank you Justinisthecrazy, for joining in this debate, and for the impressive opening argument. This is where my challenge begins. Just a little background on my belief in the negative (that I should have stated in my opening statement): My mother started drinking after her and my father split. It started out as an "I'm lonely, and it keeps my mind off of things" habit. As time progressed, she became worse and worse to the point where she would become, not only verbally abusive, but physically abusive as well. She eventually ended up going to jail for a week and was released into a strict rehabilitation facility, where she was to stay for six months or more. She has since been released, and, though she doesn't drink anywhere near as much as she used to, she still, to this day, will get drunk at least once or twice a week. My relationship with my mother has not, and will not, and cannot be the same as it was before her alcoholism. Granted this is about my relationship with my mother, who is not between ages 18 and 20, but in her early 40's, I have still seen alcohol destroy the lives of my friends (all underage), not only socially, but physically. I'm not saying this for pity votes, only to show the voters just what kind of effect alcohol can have on people. Now, to quote a quote from my opponent: "'I think we would all be better off if the drinking age were 18,' says the President of Dartmouth College, Dr. James Wright." I'd like to have my opponent answer this question: How, but more importantly why, do people between the ages of 18 and 20 NEED alcohol? I would also like to define the term "need" as I would like it to be expressed in my inquiry: need n. 1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection. 2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: "Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues … shared a common vision in the needs of women" (Olympia Snowe). 3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go. 4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need. I am referring to "need" as it is referred to in the third definition. Now here is the argument I ALWAYS see the affirmative turn to, and where I happen to love to see it turn to: "'If the nation could send 18-year-olds to Iraq and if the College could send its students to off-campus programs in places where drinking was not regulated below age 21, then it should be deemed reasonable that students be able to drink legally at age 18 in the United States.'" Soldiers and students in exchange programs are given the OPTION to participate. They are not required (unless soldiers are drafted, but the act of war is entirely incomparable to the act of drinking alcohol). Sure, drinking is also an OPTION that people who partake in the activity choose to do, but it's not always THEM that die in the car accidents. It's not always THEM that become emotionally traumatized by THEIR actions further down the road. My opponent also stated that legalized drinking can be expressed out in the open where it can be monitored by police and other securities, whereas illegal drinking is hidden in basements and frat-houses. Though it IS illegal and, I in no way support it, how is this bad? It keeps a large percentage (11% of all consumed alcohol, as I stated in the first round) of people off the streets where they have access to vehicles. Granted most of my arguments in this round apply to ages beyond those confined in underage drinking, my argument still applies: If drinking has no benefits, other than health benefits (which as I quoted in the first round, don't come about until around age 50), and has more negative effects on peoples' lives than those where it has no effect at all, then the drinking age should not be lowered. And if it is to be a true consideration, it should AT THE VERY LEAST not be a priority. I'm not sure which section of my opponent's argument he states as being "all quoted from article", but his effort in strong, emotionally-backed personal opinion seems to be truly lacking. I say this, not to discredit my opponent, but to show the voters that I have a strong reason that can be held up, not by university studies and facts off the internet, but by my own personal experience. By my heart. Thank you