The drinking age lowered

He starts off with: "Con does not address my argument on government regulation, instead focusing on issues not related to the topic." Forgive me if you didn't understand my argument on government regulation but I felt like I addressed it just fine when I stated that the Government only regulates things that could be harmful to OTHER people, but I guess my opponent doesn't seem to understand what I mean by this argument. Guns is a perfect example of Government regulation, why? because guns could harm OTHER people. Why are cigarettes regulated? Because cigarettes cause harm to OTHER people. Just about everything that could cause a lot of harm to other people in someway IS regulated. My opponent stated: "Since he seems to have dropped the first half of his argument (development of the brain), I will proceed by addressing only his second point." In my argument I was simply giving FACTS on Alcohol, and reasons why alcohol is very bad for your brain and why it should not be consumed by anybody 20 years of age or younger that was not my MAIN argument it wasn't even half of my argument like my opponent suggests it was, that is a slight exaggeration. But, appears my opponent wants to argue me on this point so be it. My opponent says: "Well, not exercising the proper amount each week is harmful to development as well. I doubt Con would advocate allowing the government to regulate exercise, or create an age limit for video gaming. Similarly, television has been shown to harm brain development in toddlers." Well, I am going to inform my opponent of something right now the government DOES regulate exercise its called P.E.. But as for regulating television I seriously doubt that people watching TV as toddlers is really going to effect their brains like the way alcohol does. If my opponent wants to win on this argument he is going to have to prove that Tv somehow messes up children's coordination emotional control and reasoning and that TV interrupts hormones needed for kids to grow up and mature (the same goes with video gaming). So, unless he is able to prove all of this his arguments are discredited. If he questions my source on this argument then he is a fool because these facts come straight from the health book. My opponent- >>This is hardly a compelling statistic. If you look at it from the opposite side, this means that 45% of family violence comes from homes that cannot offer Alcohol as an excuse for their behavior. Hardly a convincing reason for its prohibition. >>If this incest is among consenting adults, I don't see the problem. Neither my opponent nor his source cite whether it is among consenting adults or if it is mostly cases of molestation. This seems to be a deliberate blurring of facts to make it seem more appauling." The fact is that there is MORE homes with violence related to alcoholics then there is with homes with no alcoholics. That was indeed the point of the statistic. His incest argument is a very silly argument here is the definition of incest. Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry ; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship.. http://www.merriam-webster.com... There's the source since I know the audience will want it. In my opponents argument it sounds like he does not know what the word means. He says: ">>Once children become adults, it is their decision on whether or not they become alcoholics. This is another area where government regulation is unwarranted. The inclusion of this statistic implies that something should be done to fix it. Unfortunately, to fix this one would require the government to overstep its boundaries. Further regulation would be required, perhaps even including a full prohibition." Once childrens brain stops developing that is when they have the choice to excessively drink or not. Do you honestly think people who's brains are not fully developed and matured are going to make the rational choice to drink responsibly? The fact is that most underage drinkers do not drink responsibly and education isn't going to change a thing about that. Let me ask both you and the readers a question. When kids get drunk the first time and liked the feeling they got out of it do you think they are going to listen to those teachers rambling on about the dangers of excessive drinking? or will they continue to drink excessively to get that loose feeling? I want everybody to sincerely answer this question to themselves. My opponent- " Not all studies are in a controlled environment. For this study, they look at trends among college students from both before and after the age prohibition. As I stated in the first round, they found little to no difference in New York State." All I really wanted to know is how did they do this study and how many people exactly did they use and which type of people did they use for the study? These are all valid questions that I would like to hear a direct answer from because there has been many flawed studies in the past. My opponent- " He continues his argument by stating that raising the driving age would not save lives because no matter what age a person begins driving, he/she will be inexperienced. I ask the reader to apply this very same logic to alcohol consumption. Why would this be true for driving and not to alcohol consumption?" There is a huge difference between drinking alcohol and driving I hope the voters understand this. Driving is a SKILL drinking alcohol is a HABIT. My opponent- "However, these statistics are irrelevent to my opponent's case that the age restriction should remain as a means of protecting society from drunkards and drunk driving." Those stats are not irrelevant, the point I made was that ever since it became law underage drinking has steadily declined. My opponent- "Here my opponent concedes that it is more likely that police crackdown was the cause of a decline of alcohol-related vehicular fatalities, and that it was not the age restriction on alcohol. This is particularly damning for his case. Yes, lives were saved, but not because of age restrictions on alcohol." I did not concede to the point I never admitted that the reason there was less deaths was due to policemen cracking down there is thousands and thousands of drunk drivers that go unnoticed by policemen, because policemen are LIMITED. The point I was trying to make but I didn't make myself clear on it was that there are less drunkards on the road because of the law. Throughout his round 2 it seems to me that he seems to be attacking me more on my sources and not enough on my arguments. He accuses me of getting flawed sources, well he can believe it all he wants but they are facts and I am going to ask the voters to do a little research for themselves to find out the the truth for themselves. By the way Jake just for your information I am not upset I know at times I may sound upset but I am not. Sorry if it came across that way at any time. :p