Youth rights (Youth meaning 16-21)

The resolution(Note: I don't have a problem with the format of the Pro response, although I suggest that leaving an extra carriage return after each paragraph improves the readability.)Pro must prove that 16 is the correct age to grant voting, drinking, and driving rights. Why 16 and not, say, 18 .. or 21? In the negative case I cited scientific evidence that maturity in terms of brain development is not reached until at least 21. Until that age, individuals inherently are more subject to addiction and they lack the full ability to relate actions to consequences. I pointed out that Japanese society, where alcohol is more enshrined s a social activity than in the US, is well fixed on 20 as the legal age. Drinking, driving, and voting are serious responsibilities and both the science and the evidence points to having a legal age closer to 21, than to lowering the age to 16. So unless there is compelling factual evidence to the contrary, which has not been presented, the legal age for the specified rights should not be lowered.Pro did not contest any of the evidence or arguments presented in the negative case, so the negative case stands. The resolution includes voting rights, but Pro has not made an argument that 16 year-olds have sufficient experience to vote. C1: Do teens have adult responsibilities?Pro grants that 16-year-olds should no be granted full adult responsibilities. Pro says he does not "foolishly pretend a 16 year old should be allowed to sign contracts, sue, and move out on their own." However, if it is "foolish" to allow 16 year-olds to sign contracts or move out, it is even more foolish to allow them to drink, drive, and vote. The damage to themselves and to society is greater. A nuisance lawsuit can be quashed, and a runaway can return home upon reflection, but alcohol abuse and vehicle accidents are not so easily undone. Young voters can damage society by promoting irresponsible self-interest -- youthful brains to not link up consequences.Pro argues that high school case have a great deal of stress. I agree with that premise. However, alcohol use is not the right way to attempt to reduce stress. It isn't the right way for older people either. It is worse for youth because of their inherent susceptibility to addiction. There are better ways to cope with stress than alcohol (or drugs). A philosophical attitude is the best, but if that cannot be managed, then video games or any hobby fulfilled with a passion. (Sex is better than alcohol, ... sometimes even the kind involving another person.)Pro argues "if you can afford something (IE. Wine, a car) with your own hard earned money, it should be available to you." That's not true at any age, e.g., prescription drugs (antibiotics as well as dangerous ones), automatic weapons, high explosives, poisoned gas, exotic pets of various kinds, infectious agents, radioactive materials. Those are perhaps obvious, but local ordinances forbid all sorts of things from advertising signs to flags on flagpoles. Soon, you won't be allowed to buy an ordinary light bulb, no matter that you an afford one. Some prohibitions are reasonable and some are unreasonable, but the argument that if you can afford it you should be able to have it is invalid.Pro challenges, "You mention that adolescence is prolonged more then ever. Do you think this is right?" I think that adolescence should not be prolonged beyond 21, but up to 21 rights and privileges need to be considered case by case. Even for young children, society has too much of an attitude of entitlement, and that is carried well beyond age 21. So in that are, maturity should be pressed sooner. But drinking, driving, and voting are not in the category of things that ought to be put to younger ages. What sots out the cases is the penalties to the person and to society by the privilege being carried out irresponsibly by a person not able to evaluate consequences.Because individuals mature at different rats, I think there may be a place for testing to determine qualifications. Perhaps I stringent simulator test that includes applying judgment in dangerous situations might qualify a younger person to drive, for example. I suppose even a voting test is theoretically possible. However this debate is solely about rights determined by age. Alcohol would not fit under any circumstances.C2. Unfairness to the young by those older?Pro argued that a reason for giving additional rights to 16 year-olds is that it is unfair for older people to deny them. That is the second of the two arguments advanced in Pro's case. My rebuttal to that argument is that it applies equally to any age at which rights are denied. Pro dropped that contention, so it stands refuted.Pro separately argues that having drinking, driving, and voting rights all granted at 18 poses problems of adjustment. He says that people may use too much alcohol if the privilege is long denied. I don't see any arguments for driving and voting privileges causing problems. First, the greatest adjustment, by far, is in providing for one's own well-being. That's not just earning a living, but making all the decisions about where to live, how to budget, and what to do with one's life. that'sthe real difficult adaptation, not drinking privileges. Driving is often necessary for independent living, but eighteen works fine for driving. Many people get by fine without drinking, but having a brain better suited to appreciating consequences makes maturity helpful, not harmful. The potential for addiction is also reduced.In terms of fascination with forbidden fruit, that can be satisfied by drinking in private, presumably under some supervision. " ... only a few states prohibit minors and young adults from consuming alcohol in private settings. As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws." http://en.wikipedia.org...Pro must prove each of the three elements of the resolution, lowering the age to 16 for drinking, driving, and voting. He has not met the burden of poof for any of the three.