The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 years of age.

-OBSERVATION- I originally stated that whichever policy discourages drinking should be chosen, and I stand by this idea now. Drinking is almost never good for society, even (as my opponent suggests) in moderation. -REFUTATIONS TO MY ARGUMENTS- "…society will progress without regard to a certain drinking age. Simply put, natural selection will always advance society and there will always be those who choose not to partake in drinking at any age. Therefore, society will have progress and is too big to be affected by under aged drinking laws." If this is true, then there is no reason for us to debate the issue. If there will be no effect on society, then it is futile to waste time and energy changing the status quo. This idea would work for the CON side, should it be true. Unfortunately, however, a change in the legal drinking age would encourage more drinking, which would affect society through higher levels of substance abuse, alcohol-related crime and accidents, and teen pregnancies. This is because the majority of Americans do follow the law and wait to drink until age 21. Until my opponent presents a survey of Americans showing that a majority of Americans do not wait to drink, then he cannot show that the current laws fail. -- "Even now, in a place and time when people can only legally buy alcohol when over the age of 21, are there people who given their own personal characteristics are more likely to become alcoholics or have a drug problem. So should we penalize those people who are mature and responsible enough to handle the responsibility of drinking at an age lower than the current legal one of 21?" There are always some members of society who are more prone to substance abuse problems than others. However, the Norberg study shows quite plainly that those individuals who chose to drink before age 21 were a third more likely to have problems with alcohol later in life, and 70% more likely to have drug problems.[1] By lowering the drinking age, we would allow substance abuse to increase much more rapidly and become more widespread than it is now. -- "This contention made by my opponent, once again may be true. However, it falls outside the relevancy of our debate. We are once again arguing, lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Unplanned pregnancies by teenagers occur everyday. Sure teenagers may be under the influence of alcohol, but maybe we should be focusing more on sex education…" My opponent has conceded that my teen pregnancy contention is true. I agree that we are debating about lowering the drinking age. One effect of lowering the drinking age would be more frequent and widespread teen pregnancies, which is obviously a problem for the US. Sex education is a useful tool to combat teenage pregnancies, but that is irrelevant to this debate about the drinking age. -- "And this leads back to my contention that teenagers most often binge drink when they do partake in illegal consumption. The idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities." Binge drinking will not be solved by lowering the drinking age. It will always happen; in fact, if we do lower the legal drinking age, we will only change the nature of binge drinking from a phenomenon among college students to a phenomenon among high schoolers. This can be seen not only logically, but also in other countries. if we lower the drinking age to 18 or even 16, drinking will become more important for high schoolers, because they will have more contact with alcohol. This will encourage them to begin "bingeing," which will be more serious because of their younger age. Newsweek reported in September 2008 that "In England and Germany, where the drinking age is already 18, bingeing is also a growing problem."[2] -- "And this more than likely leads to actions resulting in possible pregnancies, which could be avoided if the drinking age were lowered, thus changing the social status quo towards drinking to be more responsible and controlled." A lowered drinking age will only encourage drinking at a younger age, which will lead to even more substance abuse problems and pregnancies in even younger children. -REFUTATIONS TO MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS- I. Service in the Armed Forces & Alcohol "In my first contention, no where did I mention that consumption of alcohol by our service men and women would be 'beneficial' … Is it beneficial for our service men and women to be serving at all? Is it beneficial for them to be allowed to smoke or chew tobacco? Is it beneficial for them to have bullets whizzing by their heads? Is it beneficial for the psychological damage that they may incur? No it may not be beneficial for them to consume alcohol, at 18 or at 21, but if they are experiencing all these other things, why not be allowed to legally partake in the consumption of an alcoholic beverage?" My opponent has not explained why being put in a dangerous war zone should allow members of them military to drink a glass of beer. What I explained in Round 1, and what my opponent completely ignored, is that there are unique harms associated with drinking at a young age, whereas military service is equally dangerous at 18 as it is at 27. "If our military, the most powerful and possibly well organized and respected, can trust that the responsibility of an 18 year old is good enough to go to war, then why can't we trust their responsibility in terms of alcohol consumption?" It is not that we cannot trust them, but that it would be dangerous to their health and general well-being to drink alcohol. II. Binge Drinking As I stated earlier this round, lowering the drinking age will cause a shift in the population that partakes in binge drinking, so that it will then be 16 year olds who drink at such unhealthy quantities. My opponent seems to have misunderstood the idea that underage Americans have access to alcohol through older friends. This actually shows that, if we lower the drinking age, younger and younger teenagers would begin drinking. That would be especially harmful because the younger a person is, the more harmful alcohol is. III. Teaching of Responsible Drinking Habits In response to my ideas about his third conention, my opponent only restates what he already told us in Round 1. Unfortunately, this remains illogical and untrue. A lower drinking age will foster more early drinking. Early drinking leads to drug problems[1] and unplanned teen pregnancies.[3] Parents who are addicted to dangerous substances and who are unready to raise children in the first place will not even begin to teach their young ones responsible habits. This is from where the moral degradation derives. IV. Law Enforcement Resources My opponent continues to believe that teenage drinking is not a serious problem. He also twisted my analogy without looking at its real meaning: he is advocating that the US make a crime legal, so that we don't have to "waste" resources enforcing the law. So, should we also make murder or armed robbery legal? Aren't we wasting resources arresting those criminals, too? Shoplifting and underage drinking can most definitely be compared. They are both crimes. -SUMMARY- Drinking is a serious problem in our society that must be curbed. The policy that my opponent supports will only encourage underage drinking, which causes substance abuse and unplanned teen pregnancies, among other devastating harms. Binge drinking will increase and unhealthy habits will be taught to children. For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON. [1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://www.uga.edu...