The legal drinking age in the U.S.A. ought to be lowered to 18.

This rule violation should be forgiven by the voters only if, in the final round, he types only, “No round as agreed upon. ” If he does not do that, then that gives him an unfair amount of space for argumentation (he will have had four rounds of argumentation, while I would only have three), and that round by him should be ignored so I have the final word. So to begin my case, it is important that the voters notice a crucial distinction that will be made in this debate, which is alcohol use vs. abuse. If a person is drinking and acting responsibly, then there is clearly no problem presented by the alcohol use. However, if a person is abusing alcohol, is driving drunk, is binge drinking, etc. , then there is clearly a problem. This means that if, as a result of the drinking age being lowered to 18, alcohol use goes up but abuse goes down, then the change in legislation has a positive result. It is therefore important that alcohol use not be conflated with alcohol abuse, and that alcohol use not be seen as something inherently bad. In this debate, my case will center around three main contentions, which deal with sovereignty, because an adult has ownership over his or herself, safety, because we can reduce abuse and the consequences thereof by lowering the drinking age, and maturity, because the law describes 18 year olds to be mature enough to deal with other decisions of equal or greater severity than the decision to drink alcohol. I will refute my opponent’s contentions in the next round. Contention One: Sovereignty In the Bill of Rights, all of our individual rights come from the basic assumption that a person has ownership over his or herself. We can say what we want, protect ourselves, not testify against ourselves, etc. because fundamentally, we own ourselves. This interpretation of legal rights is also supported by the Supreme Court case, “Roe v. Wade,” where it was decided that a person could do what they want with their own bodies (1). This means that it is a violation of our rights to have the legal drinking age at 21, and regardless of whatever positive or negative impacts might be the result of a change in the age to 18, our legal system is fundamentally based on the ideals of protection of our rights, so this ought to be restored. Additionally, respect of an adult’s right to be able to drink (which derives from self-sovereignty) is analogous to the right to make most other choices over what an adult can choose to put into his or her own body. A person can decide to eat red meat or candy even though those foods might be bad for them because it is their right to decide what he or she consumes, not the government. To say that an adult can’t drink until they become 21 would be to apply a wholly inconsistent standard. So regardless of whether or not drinking is bad for people, adults have the right to choose what they consume (which derives from self-sovereignty) and this should be respected by the law. Lowering the drinking age to 18 would accomplish that. Contention 2: Safety With the legal drinking age being 21, we are implicitly encouraging alcohol abuse. This can be thought of logically, and it can also be supported empirically. So to create an example, let’s imagine an 18-year-old named Joe. Joe is going to a party tonight. Once there, he realizes that he won’t get a chance to drink again for a few weeks. For this reason, he decides to drink more. At this point, instead of just drinking socially, he ends up binge drinking, because, in his mind, an opportunity like this will not come again for a while. Here Joe is abusing alcohol, which creates infinitely more problems than simple use would. He might decide to drive home (thus putting himself or other drivers at risk), he might get alcohol poisoning and really damage himself, he might act out aggressively. However, if the drinking age is reduced to 18, the scarcity problem is drastically reduced. This is because Joe now has access to alcohol whenever he wants. He might still drink irresponsibly, but the scarcity incentive to binge drink has gone away, so it can logically be concluded that significantly less binge drinking will happen. This means that the harms presented by my opponent are significantly reduced. Additionally, we can look at international drinking ages and their effects to determine trends that could apply in the United States. For example, our problems with alcoholism and teen alcohol abuse are far more severe than they are in Europe, yet most European countries have lower drinking ages. This is caused largely by differences in how teens learn about alcohol. In the European countries, they are able to be educated about alcohol, and they often see it as simply a part of a meal, while in the United States, teens are often introduced to it without parental or experienced supervision in basements or backwoods with friends (2). It should also be considered that drinking could be made even safer if the drinking age was lowered to 18 because colleges would be able to actually educate their students more effectively on alcohol and alcohol abuse, thus reducing alcohol abuse even more. So we can conclude from the evidence and logic presented that, by lowering the drinking age, we would substantially reduce the alcohol abuse problems that come with the status quo. Contention 3: Maturity In the United States, certain decisions are restricted due to the maturity of the decision-maker. For example, we are not allowed to run for president until we are 35, because that requires a large amount of responsibility. However, there are many things that we are allowed to do at 18 that require significantly more maturity than drinking. We can enlist in the military and thus willingly die and kill for our country, and we can vote and thus contribute to deciding the fate of our country. These certainly require more maturity than drinking, which, when done responsibly, does not harm anyone. This means that, as long as the drinking age is 21, the legal standards are totally inconsistent and unfair, and lowering the age to 18 reduces that problem. Conclusion As you, the voter, may or may not have noticed, I have structured this case in such a way that each contention is capable of upholding my burden of proof independent of the other contentions. People have the legal right to self-sovereignty, so the law should respect that. Lowering the drinking age would reduce alcohol abuse, thus reducing overall harm to society, and reducing societal harm is what the law should be doing. People have the right to die for our country and change its fate, so the law would be inconsistent and unfair so long as the legal drinking age is not reduced, so the law should be changed. This means that, while the voters should, of course, take the entire case into account, if any one of my contentions still stand at the end of this debate, then I have won. Thank you for taking the time to read my case. I will refute my opponent’s points in the next round. Also, I apologize for the strange spacing, it appears that debate. org does not like copying from word. Sources: 1. . http://www.oyez.org... 2. . http://www.nationalreview.com...