Resolved: The national drinking age should be lowered to 18

First off I would like to point out that the developmental problems I brought up are completely different from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. By drinking as an adolescent you hurt your bodies ability to grow and develop, both physically and mentally as it needs too. Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome is an entirely different problem. However you now seem to be arguing the negative effects of alcohol, which is contradictory to what you are debating. I would also like to contend my opponents argument that the drop in driving fatalities due to alcohol is because of an increased awareness. Perhaps some numbers from before the law was passed in 1987 will help prove my point. 1982- 26,173, 1983- 24,635, 1984- 24,762, 1985- 23,167, 1986- 25,017. [1] If what you are saying is true, then awareness coincidentally was raised in the year the law was passed, because before then the numbers stayed consistent. If your want to look at the complete chart go to http://www.alcoholalert.com.... There are roughly 10 million citizens of the united states ages 18-21.[2] While I acknowledge that plenty of older people drink and drive there is no question that by taking alcohol out of the hands of 10 million drivers would make the drunk driving fatalities decrease. This decrease, due to the minimum age law (not awareness of drunk driving) has shown itself since the law was passed in 1987. My opponent also contests that there are people outside of college who drink and drive, which is true. However that doesn't change the fact that there are 4146 colleges and universities in the United states,[3] all of which have students who can drive. That is a very large number of potential drunk drivers, and young students who may not have the capacity to make wise decisions. "Myelination of the frontal lobes is not complete until very late in adolescence. Some researchers estimate that frontal-lobe development continues until age 25 to 30. The regions in the frontal lobe which are responsible for judgment, planning, assessing risks, and decision-making are the last areas to finish developing."[4] It is a wise assumption to say that college students have not finished developing and cannot always make the wisest decisions. This also reinforces my first argument. My opponent says, "These colleges and universities say that allowing alcohol consumption legally might help cut down alcohol related deaths in colleges because banning alcohol gets people to drink more. Rules are meant to be broken." If he wants to maintain that rules are meant to be broken and getting rid of the rules will stop these acts from happening, then surely he must advocate the same for everything. As an extreme example, one could say if we make murder legal, then the problem of murder will disappear, or significantly decrease. legalization of an act does not make something right. If it did the solution to the high crime rate in the country would be to convert to an anarchy with no rules. The problem is not eradicated by being ignored. I would also like to point out that the numbers and statistics my opponent has brought up are 10 years outdated. I cannot take these as seriously as I would more recent statistics. Conclusion Alcohol is harmful to development of the brain in all stages of life, but especially adolescence. Awareness of drunk driving may have increased, but it cannot be responsible for such a large decrease in drunk driving fatalities since 1987 when the minimum age law was passed. One cannot think this is merely coincidence. There are many citizens of America aged 18 to 21, and removing alcohol from the hands of these people does help decrease alcohol related fatalities significantly. Making it legal for college aged students would not eradicate the problems of fatalities, or complications in development. Sources [1] http://www.alcoholalert.com.... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://wiki.answers.com... [4] http://www.fcs.uga.edu...