"The minimum legal drinking age should be age 25"

O1) Paternalism Principle The government is more rational and better at making decisions than most people. Almost all lawmakers have a college degree. Congressmen have consultants to help them understand technical details. Lawmakers debate extensively using scientific research. Lawmakers have the time to analyze risk and reward. The average person does not. Therefore the paternalism principle has merits. We are not designed to ‘analyze risk over reward for every action'. Con has the BOP to show otherwise. Adults under 25 are especially bad at this task [1]. We are designed to survive in prehistoric times, not modern times with automobiles, weapons, and drugs. Con also uses a slippery slope fallacy to state that ‘why not the government regulate our every move? ' It is better to learn from one's mistake as long as the mistakes will not cause serious permanent damage. Con's examples do not fit into this category. Consuming large amounts of alcohol does. If Con truly believes in the libertarian ethics, would he allow all drugs and banish the FDA? Should school not be compulsory? a) War on Drugs Drugs are still illegal in Portugal just decriminalized. Drug trafficking is still a criminal offense, and possession is still fined. [2] Con states "16% have used cocaine. " The key word is "used" not "active users". If one takes that into account, the number is only 2%[3] This is a much smaller number than when cocaine was used widespread[4], demonstrating the success that the war on drugs has had. Con states that "even if Pro can prove that paternalism worked, that doesn't justify the principle's use. " Pro has made a positive affirmation without backing up his claim. How is it unjustified? b) Seatbelts Seatbelt laws are effective. 80% of Americans using a seatbelt is a great number! People still commit murders even though it is illegal. That does not mean murder should be legal. c) Helmets Con's source proves nothing. The study didn't even apply to motorcyclist. Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets in laws in some states, not bicyclist. According to an article in the Journal of Medical Associations: "Head injury death rates based on motorcycle registrations were also lowest in states with comprehensive helmet-use laws. "[5] O2) Brain development Unless Con can debunk the study I presented, it is a safer bet for the minimum drinking age to be 25, not 21. Your source says nothing about neurons not forming, just the distance between connections. It's a very hasty assumption to assume that means the brain does not mature. C1) Alcohol impedes brain development Often if people drink, they drink more than moderation. Both personal experience and evidence demonstrates this. Still, even moderate drinking causes brain shrinkage [6]. C2) Other harms Adolescents are still below the age of 25 so my sources still stand. C3) Alcohol harms others The source I cited states in its conclusion: "Compared with a wide range of other programs and efforts to reduce drinking among teenagers, increasing the legal age for purchase and consumption of alcohol to 21 appears to have been the most successful effort to date"[7] The issue of drunk driving is associated with alcohol consumption, since one need to consume alcohol in order to drink and drive. This is the same logic of why enriched uranium and dangerous chemical possessions are regulated. Con states there is a difference since they can only be used for weapons. This statement is false. Enriched uranium can be used for energy. Perhaps a person could be a rare metal collector. Many dangerous chemicals are regulated even if they are not used for dangerous purposes. For example, special transportation needs to be considered for chemicals that are hazardous or explosive. The fact remains that drunk driving is a problem since one cannot voluntarily become sober. This is why it is treated differently from other issues as reading and driving, which is far less common. The best way to stop this would be to stop the drinking in the first place. It would be impractical to get rid of the car, since it is necessary for transportation. Drinking is unnecessary. C4) Alcohol related crimes 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol. [8] Imagine how many lives could be saved if the minimization law was 25. Even if this might ‘unfairly punish' some people, these people can wait until there 25 until they can drink. Many of our laws restrict certain age groups in participating in certain activities (ex: driving, voting, sex, etc. ) based on statistics conducted on these age groups. Why should alcohol be any different? ==Rebuttal== R1) Con drops this case R2) Social lives There are alternative places for social gathering. Entertainment, mall, doing an activity (ex: golfing, paintballing, etc. ), restaurants, etc. There are clubs that allow people under 21 to enter. I know from personal experience. With the demand to be social, businesses will create settings for social gatherings for people under 25. People rarely drink in moderation in social gatherings and I have shown above that drinking even in moderation is unhealthy. Con does not address that people under 21 also have social lives despite a minimization law already in place. R3) Career Opportunities I am correct that those of age 25 are unlikely to enter into a prestigious business deal. The average age of a CEO is 50[9]. Considering that it takes an average of 28 years to become a CEO, it seems very unlikely for someone with only a few years of professional experience will get involved in important business deals. Con states that business deals are domestic. Businesses are increasingly global [10] If the economic could progress during the times of prohibition, the positive effect on alcohol in business is minimal. This article shows how to build business relations. There is not one mention of alcohol [11]. R4) criminal justice or public health? I've shown ample evidence that making an act illegal is not only effective, but more effective then public health campaigns. R5) calling for help There are people who do not call for help. However, this number is still low. This point is moot unless Con proves that more lives are lost by people not calling for help than the amount of lives saved by the minimal drinking age law of 1984. I've shown, through plummeting drunk driving, minimum drinking age laws has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. R6) Risky behavior Binge drinking increases after the age of 21. My source states "Rates of binge alcohol use in 2007 were 1.5 percent among 12 or 13 year olds, 7.8 percent among 14 or 15 year olds, 19.4 percent among 16 or 17 year olds, 35.7 percent among persons aged 18 to 20, and peaked among those aged 21 to 25 at 45.9 percent"[12] R7) No refute against claim that "rights can bet taken away if pose threat to oneself and others". Everyone is better off, and the resolution would result in diminished harm. Even if one disagrees with the parental principle, one at least agrees that the government has the right to protect others from harm, based on social contract theory. Conclusion: Almost all of my sources are peer reviewed journal that use the scientific methods as opposed to my opponent who uses mainly anecdotal and opinions. I have shown how the parental principle is effective in saving lives. Many people unnecessarily die at the hand of alcohol. This resolution could save many lives. Any benefit alcohol has is minimal compared to the unnecessary destruction it causes. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6] . http://tinyurl.com... [7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8] . http://tinyurl.com... [9] . http://tinyurl.com... [10] . http://tinyurl.com...