The Drinking Age of 21, should be lowered to 18.

I look forward to future debates! Now for maximum clarity, I will review the debate and show how I've won. (also thanks for structuring your arguments Pro) Pro- 1. At this point, we can understand that neither of our "personal experiances" will hold any weight in this debate, so this point completely drops for both sides. as for the drunk driving, my opponent also concedes that he cannot prove it, and ends with simply stating "he feels there would be less drunk drivers on the roads, because all the minors would be at the bars. " Well that's nice and all, but the bars have to close some-time, so this proves my point entirely. Lowering the the Drinking age will lead to massive increases in drunken driving. 2. Still Dropped 3. 3a. If there is even a small chance there could be a tease to these minors, then not only does it make you point completely lose all validity, but even a 1% chance is too much risk. Following the the Pro logic, this will eventually lead to a complete collapse of all our society's morality. 3b. No, of course that's not what I'm saying. some may just die altogether! this is a ridiculous defense to a ridiculous attack. Of course there will be more drunk driver if there are more people drinking. Con 1a. Despite what you consider minors, the law recognizes a person of 18 years of age to be an adult. There is no hypocrisy here, as I said before; Ciggarettes do not impare cognative ability. while I agree (as I already have) ciggarettes are very much so bad for you, they won't cause people to drive drunk, or spend their entire pay check on ciggarettes instead of food, and necessities. (also again, I was never give a burden to have to prove cigarettes as good) 1b. I ask you to please re-read what My opponent said here. go ahead I'l wait. .. you see he only proves my point. there can be no good in lowering the drinking age. The ONLY benefit would be for the Alcohol industries as they would get more money out of it. Society as whole would detriment and suffer. 2a. I'll just extend my last refutation on this point, it sufices to prove my point completely. 2b. My opponet drops this point. 2c. My opponent questions how I claim he's bashing our men and women in uniform, however this confusion is completely unfounded- he continually refers to 18 year olds joining the military, as "throwing away their lives". secondly he's right this is off topic. 3. Now here, my opponent claims he's already made the points that the refutation here should be obvious, he claims that having the minors in bars would be better than the street (which is completely ridiculous). and that it could potentially lower crimes (this means nothing as anything could potentially lower or heighten anything). H ealso claims finally he claims that this would substantially lower the level of Binge drinking among college students. two points here, we have already conceded that college binge drinking is not much of a problem in the first place, and secondly no; as it will just heighten binge drinking in people ages 18-20, In conclusion, the vote must go to me. I have proven through both my opponent's mpoints and my own- that not good can possibly come from loweing the drinking age. (also I'm sorry if my grammer is poor, but I feel I've gotten my point across well enough without it. so I ask this not be a voting issue. )