the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

Pro claims that I haven't presented any stellar arguments, and instead have limited my responses to an "all or nothing" factor. Of course that isn't true. In addition to the point about consistency regarding legal adulthood (which is in fact a great argument that Pro hasn't come close to addressing in full), I also pointed out -- 1. Intelligence and the capacity of self restraint are not determined by age. 2. Drinking alcohol does not automatically violate the rights of anyone, and it's immoral to restrict someone for simply consuming a beverage unless they specifically cause harm or danger to others. 3. Forty five out of 50 states allow for underage legal drinking with certain stipulations, proving moral ambiguity and pragmatic inconsistency.4. Prohibiting young people from drinking in public encourages risky behavior. 5. Young people continue to drink anyway, making them criminals and creating harmful repercussions for their actions including but not limited to secrecy (even to their medical detriment) and the problems that go along with an arrest. One has to wonder why Pro hasn't responded to these "not so stellar" arguments. If he doesn't negate them, they stand in favor of Con.Pro's only defense is that an 18 year old is not ready to make "life or death" decisions. In addition to this simple explanation not remotely addressing my previous five (or rather six) arguments, Con hasn't proven that drinking alcohol is in fact a life or death situation. Billions of people around the world drink alcohol, and yet most experiences do not result in fatalities. Myself, my friends and my family have spent thousands of nights combined drinking (and drinking heavily) without any of us ever suffering a devastating injury or death related to alcohol consumption. So while drinking alcohol can in fact be dangerous and increase the chances of being hurt, the fact is that statistically drinking alcohol alone will not kill or even necessarily hurt you. It's only drinking copious amounts of alcohol (which is irrelevant to the resolution) that can have severely damaging effects. However, I am not advocating that young people go out and get drunk a lot; I'm just advocating that the drinking age be lowered.Pro says he advocates "easing kids into adulthood." That is a completely irrelevant point. As I mentioned, in Europe there is a much lower drinking age (there used to be no drinking age at all) and those kids transition into adulthood just fine. Furthermore the fact that nearly 3/4 high school students drink alcohol prove that kids are "transitioning" to adult experiences regardless of the drinking age. Therefore, it is Con's burden to show why the drinking age being over 18 is specifically beneficial. He claims that a drinking age of 21 inhibits underage drinking which has been demonstrated false by the statistics and resources that I posted in the last round.Finally, I would like to point out that I did in fact cite sources that proved a correlation between drinking age and car crash fatalities. I noted that traffic incidents regarding alcohol are most common among newly legal drinkers. This is true regardless of the drinking age. Ergo Pro's comment that "the younger you are, the more likely you will be involved in a fatal crash due to alcohol" is not necessarily true. Pro must prove this is true with a cited study or source. In the last round I cited research that explained if the drinking age is 18, then sure a lot of 18 year olds will be in alcohol related crashes. And similarly, if the drinking age is 21, then a lot of 21 year olds will be in alcohol related crashes. This completely negated Pro's supposition that age alone (especially those measly 3 years) are a large factor in maturity or accidents, and supports my claim that the novelty factor of drinking is what encourages risky behavior. Another argument I would like to present is based on more research. The legal drinking age was raised to 21 in 1987. Pro claims that a lower drinking age would be more dangerous, but the facts point out that vomiting after drinking, cutting class after drinking, missing class because of a hangover, getting poor grades due to alcohol consumption, and being in a fight after drinking -- all irresponsible behavior related to alcohol consumption -- INCREASED after the drinking age was raised [1]. This further extends the novelty argument (that young people engage in risky behavior because it's new and cool) and negates Pro's continuous, unsupported position that a lower drinking age necessarily yields more dangerous or negative outcomes. Cultures such as Italians, Greeks, Chinese and Jews who have a totally different social outlook on alcohol allow minors to drink, and have nowhere near the drinking problems that Americans do. Ergo it's a cultural influence and not necessarily an ageist one that dictates responsible drinking habits. Dwight B. Heath, anthropologist at Brown University, has written a handful of scholarly articles explaining that criminalizing alcohol consumption until age 21 has been detrimental insofar as shaping people's attitudes and subsequent behavior regarding alcohol. He claims that the younger people start drinking, the safer they tend to be [2]. [1] http://www.indiana.edu...[2] http://www.cnn.com...