State's should fight to lower the drinking age

Since my opponent has not posted any arguments in the last round, I will being my final round by reiterating my arguments. States should fight to lower the drinking age to create justice. Since we live in a society that attempts to be as just as possible, the goal of achieving justice must be held high if not as the highest goal. The victory creates justice in the short term and the long term. Short-term: The lowering achieves justice by righting a wrong. The current law provides no warrant for the age limit being a fair due because there is none. With a lower age limit, it would be much easier to have a just reason to have the restriction. Thus, the lowering of the age limit would remove injustice and thus cause justice. Long-term: 1.States win the fight and the drinking age is lowered. 2.As common sense would dictate, more drunken related accidents and deaths would happen as the amount of drinkers would rise because more people would be able drink legally. However, this is not because of the age of those legal. This is simply because there are bozos in every age group, from 19 to 99, that do foolish acts. Thus, this increase cannot be used to justify keeping the age limit where it is. 3.More people would drink to relieve themselves of the depression of losing their loved ones causing more drunken accidents and growing chaos. 4.Eventually, the spiraling ball of chaos and deaths would make the leader of the United States realize that nihilism is the most logical philosophy to adopt. 5.In order to save more lives, the president realizes that he must kill as many people as possible to prevent more lives being born that would be killed. Hence, as commander-in-chief, he orders all nuclear weapons, intercontinental-ballistics missiles, etc., etc., to be fired. 6.Invriably, at least some of these weapons will fall in other countries. They will interpret this as threat to them selves and will volley weapons back, thus starting a nuclear war. 7.All humans die either from the nuclear war directly or from the resulting radiation. A (multiple) god(s) decide what the proper punishment/reward is. This(These) higher power(s) would be perfect in knowledge, wisdom, and justice concerning any situation and hence would be able to make the most just decision. Thus, ultimate justice is achieved. This would also have the added bonus of fixing almost every current problem including national debt, world hunger, and every human disease that has ever existed. My reasoning for the existence of this higher power is in the first round. My opponent's attacks in the first round were shown not only to be irrelevant, but that they were flawed besides their irrelevancy. Thus, both of these arguments should be extend to the end of this debate Now, I must make two notes to the voters: 1.Although I do not think this will be a problem with the three judges, I will say that what my opponent does not bring up does not count against me. Even if I "get away with highway-robbery" with certain arguments, as long my opponent does not bring it up, it does not matter. Basically, all I asking is that the voters (judges or otherwise) not base their decision on arguments created by them that are not present in the debate, 2. Although I also don't think this will be a problem with the judges, I will mention it to be safe. What I will mention is that any new arguments by Con in the third round are abusive as I will not have a chance to respond. Hence, they should not be considered. As both of my arguments stand and Con has not fulfilled his burden of refutation, I must urge a vote in affirmation of today's topic: States should fight to lower the drinking age. Thank you.