"The minimum legal drinking age should be age 25"

I thank darkkermit for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, affirmative, and the one advocating a change to the status quo, my opponent has the burden of proving that changing the drinking age from 21 to 25 would be a good idea. ==Rebuttal== (a) protect oneself from harm My opponent assumes here that the paternalism principle – that government should protect us from ourselves – is sound. However, John Stuart Mills explains that we know our own preferences better than the government. [1] If someone over 21 gets more value from drinking alcohol than the potential detriment to her brain or liver, then she has the right to choose to consume alcohol. Libertarian ethics argue, in contrast, that if something does not harm others, the government should not regulate it. My opponent cites a few examples of good paternalistic policies: ---The war on drugs--- The war on drugs is largely considered a failure. [2] People simply refuse to stop using drugs in spite of their illegality, leading to the development of large crime networks for drug smuggling. James Gray of Rice University points out that it is easier for a teenager to purchase drugs in this country, than to purchase alcohol. [3] Mark Thornton of the Cato Institute points at that Alcohol Prohibition was equally a failure, and merely contributed to a rise in organized crime due to alcohol smuggling. [4] ---Seatbelts--- Lives saved due to seatbelts are mostly attributable to public education campaigns. [5] Even so, if people are dumb enough not to wear seatbelts, it's their right to risk their lives for the marginal comfort benefits. ---Helmets--- A study of 2500 overtaking motorists in the U.K. found that cars pass much closer to cyclists wearing helmets than those without, negating the safety benefits; thus, "a blonde wig is safer than a helmet." [6] People should get to choose if they want to accept the safety risks of wearing a helmet. ---My opponent argues that people's brains aren't fully developed until age 25--- A federally funded MRI study on maturity levels looked at 12,000 brain connections in 238 volunteers and found that the brain is done developing by age 21. [7] ---My opponent argues that alcohol impedes adolescent development--- Adolescents are, by definition, under the age of 21 and thus cannot drink under current law. All the other detriments of alcohol are not unique to people aged 21-25, so they are irrelevant. My opponent is not advocating that alcohol be entirely banned, so he should limit his arguments to this age group. (b) protect others from harm My opponent notes that since the implementation of a minimum drinking age law in 1984, drunk driving deaths have declined among young people. What he fails to mention is that a significant public health campaign started during this time period involving groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). A good test of the minimum drinking age law is to see whether adult drunk driving fatalities also declined during this period. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, between 1982 and 2008, adult drunk driving deaths declined by 5,585, a decline of 35 percent. [8] This proves that drunk driving fatality declines are due, in large part, to education campaigns telling people to assign a designated driver and due to raising awareness of the dangers of drunk driving. The educational video Red Asphalt should convince anyone not to drive drunk. My opponent's statistics here also go to prove that people don't stop drinking and driving between the ages of 16 and 21, in spite of a minimum drinking age law. Lastly, the right to drink alcohol should be considered separate from issues regarding drunk driving. The dangers of drunk driving only prove that drunk driving should be illegal. Something being dangerous while driving is not a good standard for banning something entirely. Reading a book while driving is extremely dangerous. This doesn't mean reading should be banned entirely. A raised drinking age on the basis of drunk driving would be unfair to the vast majority of drinkers who never get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. ---Alcohol related crime--- Alcohol related crime, again, is not specific to the age group 21-25. My opponent takes no actions against a 26 year-old drunk husband who beats his wife, but punishes all 21-25 year-olds for the actions of a 24 year-old drunk husband who beats his wife. (c) overall benefits to society of a drinking age of 25 My opponent, again, fails to show any benefit of denying the specific age group 21-25 of alcohol privileges. I agree that Einstein should not be binge drinking at age 14. I, however, uphold his right to choose whether or not to drink after the age of 21. ==My case== C1) Revoking a right is impractical There will be significant backlash against raising the drinking age, among people who are between the ages of 21-25. These people have grown accustomed to the right to drink and will go to significant lengths to circumvent the new law. C2) Damages social lives Most people's social lives post-college (ages 22 and up) revolve around bars, nightclubs, and house parties. Many co-workers get to know each other outside work during happy hours. Denying alcohol consumption to working-age 22-25 year olds is extremely harsh, will limit their friendship circles, and will prevent them building relationships with co-workers. C3) Career opportunities Many business deals are struck over alcohol – the new law would hurt people's business opportunities if they are 25 or under. According to David Hanson, Ph.D., "Sharing an alcoholic drink is a common part of doing business around the world. There's an expectation that people will indulge in alcohol on business-social occasions and it's useful in building business relationships." [9] C4) Treats the issue incorrectly Raising the drinking age treats alcohol consumption as an issue of criminal justice instead of as an issue of public health. I've already shown how criminal justice (War on Drugs, Alcohol Prohibition during the 1920's) fails, and how public health education campaigns (seatbelts, drunk driving) succeed. C5) Diminished likelihood of calling for help If drinking is "illegal," people are less likely to call for help when someone gets alcohol poisoning. [10] This often leads to death. C6) Increases risky behavior Pushing drinking for 21-25 year-olds out of public places (bars, nightclubs), behind closed doors, increases risky behavior like binge drinking. According to Professor John McCardell, the law would create "a dangerous culture of irresponsible and reckless behavior, unsupervised binge and extreme drinking." [11] C7) It's a right The act of drinking itself doesn't harm others. It, therefore, ought to be considered a right, and rights should not be unjustly revoked by the government. ==Conclusion== My opponent has only proven one harm to alcohol that is specific to the age group 21-25: that it stunts brain development. Yet I have proven that the brain is fully mature by age 21. In contrast, I cite benefits to the current drinking age law that are specific to the age group 21-25, such as the importance of alcohol to a social life and business relationships. I have thus upheld the Con side of the resolution. [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... [11] http://tinyurl.com...