The drinking age should be lowered to age 18.

Thanks again Justinisthecrazy, for your quick rebuttal. I acknowledge that the drinking age in other countries is lower and that they do drink in moderation, but it has been so since their laws were enacted and because of that they are expected to respect that privilege. If the United States dropped the drinking age to 18, we have not, even at age 21 and up, learned to respect our privileges to consume alcohol. Why do people between the ages of 18 and 20 deserve to drink if not even their elders can do so appropriately? I also understand that this debate is not about whether or not people ages 18 to 20 NEED to drink alcohol, and I'm sorry if I was unclear. Let me restate the question in a manner that more suits the debate topic: Why does the drinking age need to be lowered to 18 if people don't NEED to drink? In other words, if the law is set at age 21 and does not NEED to be lowered to 18 for any reason whatsoever, then why should it be enacted? I have already clarified my point on "old enough to fight, but not too drink", but as I stated, the draft situation is a different story. Do with it what you will, but when you go to war, either forced or at your own will, you are not taking innocent lives with you. When you drink and drive, anyone around you is a potential target for disaster. Here, my opponent reminds me that: "We are not debating the effects of alcohol but rather whether it should be legal or not. There are positive and negative effects for everything." Which is kind of ironic because we are not even debating on whether or not alcohol should be legal or not. We are debating on whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to 18, but I would still like to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. Let me explain my information: I let my opponent and the voters know about the positive and negative effects of alcohol consumption because, if we WERE to extend the offer to people between the ages of 18 and 20, it would only be a burden, and therefore should not be enacted as a law. "The policing is easier when it is public..." This is true, but has policing stopped drunk driving amongst people ages 21 and over? It HAS lowered the rate, but NO it HAS NOT entirely eradicated the issue. Drunk driving amongst people ages 18 to 20 is not anywhere near as big of an issue as it is amongst their elders for reasons the even my opponent as stated before, and I reasons I will state again for clarification: "When the drinking age went up, the spigot wasn't turned off, it was simply moved underground--to homes or cars or frat-house basements..." Now when my opponent says that drinking was moved "to cars" I'm assuming he means that people park their cars in parking lots and have a few beers with their friends because he was talking about underage drinking NOT being policed. If they were drinking and driving, it WOULD be policed. So, with what my opponent stated, isn't the fact that underage drinkers choose to remain immobile whilst drinking a good thing? It keeps them off the roadways, so they don't drag innocent lives down with them. Lowering the drinking age would put them (though still illegal) on the streets. My opponent's next argument, which I'd like to refer to as the "No Trespassing Metaphor" is a common argument for the Pro side of these debates: "The fact that most college-age youth cannot legally drink alcohol makes many of them want to drink..." This is a hard argument to combat, but I will do my best. It is true that, when a privilege is cut off to certain people, they are more likely to try and achieve that privilege through any means possible. In this situation, it's underage drinking. If we extend this privilege to people between ages 18 and 20, sure they are less likely to consume large amounts of alcohol, but MORE people will be drinking because there is no fear of being caught. When more people drink, that adds to a higher concentration of potential drunk drivers on the road. In my opponent's last clarification he states: "I would like again to talk about it is not a need so therefore the need or neccesity argument isn't there we are just talking about legalizing the drink age not whether or not it is a need to drink at that age. Because as shown it is a choice." He agrees that drinking is not a need, which, if you browse back up to my restatement, I made this argument relative to the debate, so it has now returned to the debate. It seemed to me as though my opponent felt threatened by me, and I would just like to let him know that I am in no way trying to be malicious, I am just trying to form my rebuttal in the most effective way possible. I would also like to thank my opponent because, in his rebuttal, he seemed to use more personal knowledge than mindless facts, so thank you Justinisthecrazy. I can't wait to see your closing argument.