The drinking age lowered

I wish him good luck, but not enough luck to offer a better argument than mine. I will begin by summing up my Con's argument. Because: Drinking during adolescence is is harmful for the development of the brain; A populace drinking at a younger age results in more alcohol-related car accidents; and the raise in the drinking age during the Reagan years resulted in fewer alcohol-related vehicular fatalities The drinking age should not be lowered from 21. I will begin my own argument by asking my opponent to provide reliable sources for the statistics he had cited. Con claims that drinking during adolescence is harmful for the development of the brain. There are a few problems with this analysis, which I will enumerate below: Drinking age is not an issue that needs to be legislated. Ideally, each individual would weigh the positive and negative consequences and make an informed decision no matter what their age. Con's issue with younger drinkers is that it is harmful to their development. 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. A study suggests 1 1/2 hours of television per day for toddlers is "harmful in terms of children's attentional abilities later in life, harmful in terms of their cognitive development. " [1] I doubt that Con would advocate allowing the government to regulate television viewing. Additionally, the drinking age has proven to be ineffective. Studies of the era before and after age-specific prohibition reveal "little impact upon behavior. "[2] For instance, a study conducted examining the before and after affects on 18 and 19 year old college students in New York showed that prohibition made had no effect on students' consumption rates or their view on alcohol. [3] From these studies, it is clear that the prohibition has little to no affect on consumption practices. Government regulation aside, removing a drinking age altogether teaches children to respect alcohol. Teens in nations with lower or no drinking age are less apt to binge drinking than their American counterparts. American teens are taught at a young age that Alcohol consumption is a taboo subject. Educators and families tell the youth that alcohol is bad, but fail to teach them about responsible drinking. Once teens realize that alcohol is not as harmful as they were originally told, they dive into drinking head first. Since educators refuse to talk about responsible drinking, teens and young adults have a noticeable lack of information in this regard. As with nearly everything in this world, alcohol is not bad when taken in moderation. Without learning these skills early on, American teens and young adults are more apt to heavy binge drinking than their counterparts in nations with lower or no drinking age. Con also cites alcohol-related deaths as a reason for leaving the age limit alone. However, this is not a valid reason, either. Non-alcohol car accidents are higher among younger drivers, this should be no surprise. In an effort to save more lives, does my opponent care to remain consistent and advocate raising the driving age as well? Undoubtedly, many lives would be saved in the process. There are many other things that cause death that similarly do not warrant government intervention. Among them are car accidents, cigarette smoking, eating unhealthy foods, air travel, and a great many others. We would not like the government to involve itself in these, or other aspects of our lives, so why do we put up with it with the age restriction on alcohol? Con concludes his argument by citing (without sources) that alcohol-related vehicular fatalities have reduced since the Reagan era because of age resrictions on alcohol. The evidence on this issue is inconclusive. The fewer number of deaths could be attributed to other things. Since the Reagan era, for instance, police forces have significantly cracked down on drunken driving in general. This seems to be a more compelling explanation for a decrease in alcohol-related vehicular fatalities than a high drinking age. CONCLUSION My opponent claims that protecting brain development is enough to warrant an age limit. I have shown that there are a number of other things that affect brain development that do not warrant an age restriction. This negates his first point. He claims that protecting the populace from drunken teenage drivers warrants an age limit. I have shown that there are a number of other things that cause death that do not warrant an age restriction. This negates his second point. He claims there is a correlation between alcohol-related vehicular fatality rates and a high age limit. I have offered an alternate explanation for a decreased death rates. This negates his final point. Ultimately, it comes down to parents teaching responsible drinking to their children. It is not the government's responsibility to legislate. Their involvement is actually harmful, as young adults obtain alcohol regardless of law. Teaching responsible drinking at a young age is a more effective means of protecting children from the harmful affects of binge drinking; and of protecting society from drunk drivers. 1. . http://www.commercialexploitation.org... par. 6 2. Hanson, David J. . http://www2.potsdam.edu... par. 3) 3. Davis, James E. Alcohol use among college students: Responses to raising the purchase age. Journal of American College Health, 1990, 38, 263-269.