Resolved: The national drinking age should be lowered to 18

Rebuttals: It seems that since my opponents first argument he has seemed to mention body development issues that a minor experiences from alcohol consumption, but again has mentioned these problems as if these complications never happen to adults as well. The long term effects of alcohol range from possible health benefits for low levels of alcohol consumption to severe detrimental effects in cases of chronic alcohol abuse . High levels of alcohol consumption are correlated with an increased risk of developing alcoholism , cardiovascular disease , mal absorption , chronic pancreatitis , alcoholic liver disease , and cancer . Damage to the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system can occur from sustained alcohol consumption. [2] [3] Long-term use of alcohol in excessive quantities is capable of damaging nearly every organ and system in the body. [4] The developing adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of alcohol. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... ﻿Second, of all my opponent says that: "As an extreme example, one could say if we make murder legal, then the problem of murder will disappear, or significantly decrease." This is exactly what what he said an extreme example. If he says this, I'm sure that he must advocate this analogy with everything. Computer is to monitor as alcohol is to murder. This statement is asinine. He says that a person's conscious sees murder and alcohol consumption as the same thing. He says that raising the age of alcohol consumption from the age of 18 to 21 puts 10 million less people on the road drinking. Well, if we raise the age from 18 years of age to 30, I am sure that less people will drink and drive. My opponent says that: "Making it legal for college aged students would not eradicate the problems of fatalities, or complications in development." My opponent argues for the total eradication of fatalities and complications of development due to alcohol, yet he doesn't realize that the total eradication of drunk driving cannot be solved through raising the age limit. That the persecution of minors cannot go on. Especially if the minors are the scapegoats in society saying that an 18 year old is not as competent as a 21 year old in making critical decisions. An 18 year old can make a decision about the future yet cannot drink. With age does not come maturity. A 65 year old can be as mature as an 18 year old. He also states that frontal-lobe development continues until age 30. Does this mean that people below the age of 30 should not drive. My opponent says that my arguments are contradictions because I'm arguing the dangers of adults drinking and driving. Just because you argue the dangers of alcohol consumption for minors does not mean that I cannot argue the dangers of alcohol consumption for adults. My opponent says that the stats prove raising the age of alcohol consumption has resulted simply in lowered drunk driving fatalities. This is untrue... ever since the year 1987, the number of drunk driving casualties has GRADUALLY decreased every year. Is this due simply by raising the age. GRADUAL change points to only one logical explanation. The increased knowledge in drunk driving. http://www.alcoholalert.com... Conclusion: If my opponent strives for to total eradication of drunk driving, then he should strive for prohibiting alcohol... I do not know how far he will get in convincing people to do this. Simply pointing the finger at one age group and persecuting them as if they are the only ones wrong for drinking is ALMOST like punishing people for being gay. My opponent has to admit there are problems in adults drinking as minors drinking.