Youth rights (Youth meaning 16-21)

The resolutionThanks to Pro for initiating a topic that will interest many DDO members. Hey, I'm not too keen on all 45-year-olds having full rights, but that's a subject for another day. To be clear, Pro has the burden of proving: 16 year-olds should have the right to drive accompanied, drink beer and wine, and vote; 17 year-olds may drive unaccompanied; and 18 year-olds may drink spirits. I will focus mainly on the case of 16 year olds. If you are 18 and in the military, for example, I think you should get to drink whatever you want.Pro makes two arguments in favor of the resolution: 1. Teens have adult responsibilities, 2. It is unfair for older people to deny rights to younger. I will contest those claims, then present the negative case.C1. Do teens have adult responsibilities?This is an odd argument in an era when adolescence is prolonged longer than any time in history. The protected environment of schooling over extends to 21 or older. The law provides for children to receive their parents medical benefits until age 26 and "The issued regulations state that young adults are eligible for this coverage regardless of any, or a combination of any, of the following factors: financial dependency, residency with parent, student status, employment and marital status." http://www.ncsl.org... The median age of firs marriage is now 28 for men and 26 for women, the oldest since statistics have been kept. http://www.infoplease.com... About 40% of college graduates in 2006 and 2008 had returned home and were living with their parents in 2010. http://www.newyorklife.com... It's worse for non-grads, "According to the census, 56 percent of men age 18 to 24 and 48 percent of women in the same age group live under the same roof as their parents." http://www.nytimes.com... Pro says that teenagers must do chores, attend school, and that some work. Children 6-13 must also attend school and do chores, and Pro explicitly disqualifies from the rights he claims for teenagers. Some teenagers work, but in most states parents are legally responsible to care for their children until age 18. In addition, "all States but New Hampshire and New York have provisions holding parents civilly responsible for youth crime," http://www.ojjdp.gov...Those age 16 do not have all the rights and responsibilities of adults. In many states, more of the rights of adults can be obtained through a legal procedure of emancipation, notably for those married under 18. Those cases are rare, and Pro is not claiming rights only for those legally emancipated, but rather that age be the only criteria. C2. Unfairness to the young by those older?There is nothing in Pro's argument that especially applies to those aged 16. Suppose the rights were granted to 16-year-olds as the resolution requires. Then 14 year-olds can argue that it is unfair for the 16 year-olds who an jump in their Lexus and go drinking until midnight from prohibiting 14 year-olds from doing the same ... and so the argument can be made for 12, 10, and 8 year-olds. I ask Pro why specifically he excluded those under 16 from the scope of the resolution? His argument applies to all ages.Pro says that if a person happens to die young they will have missed living live to the fullest. Adult privileges go with adult responsibilities. If 16 year-olds are to drink and vote, then they must also be required to support themselves and pay for their schooling. That means that part of their youth will be missing. Teen mothers experience that most directly. Adulthood is experienced sooner, but youth is lost. It's not a good trade. Many old people would gladly give up the privileges of age to recapture the opportunities of youth. The transition at 18 is soon enough. Negative Case: Teenage brains are differentThere two important differences, one is relating actions to consequences and the other is inherent susceptibility to addiction. ... scientists used to think human brain development was pretty complete by age 10. Or as she puts it, that "a teenage brain is just an adult brain with fewer miles on it." But it's not. ... "It's the part of the brain that says: 'Is this a good idea? What is the consequence of this action?' " Jensen says. "It's not that they don't have a frontal lobe. And they can use it. But they're going to access it more slowly." ...[Also] Their brain chemistry is tuned to be responsive to everything in their environment. After all, that's what makes kids learn so easily. ...But this can work in ways that are not so good. Take alcohol, for example. Or nicotine, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy ... "Addiction has been shown to be essentially a form of 'learning,' " Jensen says. After all, if the brain is wired to form new connections in response to the environment, and potent psychoactive drugs suddenly enter that environment, those substances are "tapping into a much more robust habit-forming ability that adolescents have, compared to adults. http://www.npr.org... This research is now well established, Consider http://health.howstuffworks.com... Links to the scientific literature are given by the National Institute for Mental Health. http://www.nimh.nih.gov... Referencing the research, an American Bar Association article on Adolescence, Brain Developmentand Legal Culpability cites: “The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsively, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’ age of maturity.” http://www.americanbar.org... Applying the research to the resolution, Expanding driving privileges for 16 and 17 year-olds should not be done because teenagers have a limited ability to make good judgement, particularly with respect to considering the consequences of risky choices. Making alcohol more available to 16 year olds should not be done both because of the judgement problem and because of the increased susceptibility to addiction. Voting privileges should not be extended due to impaired ability to judge issues. Experience also contributes substantially to the ability to vote wisely. Political ideas that seem novel and practical are revealed by experience in past campaigns to have been tried and failed. In Japan, the legal age is 20 and the 70% of the population is opposed to lowering it. http://factsanddetails.com... A survey of Japanese youth themselves showed that nearly half of young people opposed lowering the age. They are unusually mature. The resolution is negated.