The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 years of age.

My Opponent's Observation "The goal of this debate should be to determine which solution (more relaxed policies on alcohol on the affirmative, or the status quo on the negative) will ameliorate society by effectively discouraging drinking and reducing the negative side effects associated with alcohol. " "If my opponent can prove that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking, he has won. If I prove that lowering the drinking age will not improve the situation, I have won. " Our intention should not be to prove that drinking can be "discouraged" through relaxed policies or the status quo, but to prove that drinking can become safer and a more responsible activity for those partaking. Refutation My opponent argues that "A lowered drinking age will encourage behavior that impedes the successful progress of society. " To begin, society will progress without regard to a certain drinking age. Simply put, natural selection will always advance society and there will always be those who choose not to partake in drinking at any age. Therefore, society will have progress and is too big to be affected by under aged drinking laws. Opponent's 2nd Contention "People who grew up in a place and time when they could legally buy alcohol before age 21 are more likely than others to be alcoholics or have a drug problem, even well into adulthood…" Even now, in a place and time when people can only legally buy alcohol when over the age of 21, are there people who given their own personal characteristics are more likely to become alcoholics or have a drug problem. So should we penalize those people who are mature and responsible enough to handle the responsibility of drinking at an age lower than the current legal one of 21? Opponent's 3rd Contention "Early use of alcohol makes teenagers more prone to activities resulting in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. " This contention made by my opponent, once again may be true. However, it falls outside the relevancy of our debate. We are once again arguing, lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Unplanned pregnancies by teenagers occur everyday. Sure teenagers may be under the influence of alcohol, but maybe we should be focusing more on sex education, which for me only happened like twice throughout my entire grade school experience, instead of trying to restrict alcohol. And this leads back to my contention that teenagers most often binge drink when they do partake in illegal consumption. The idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities. And this more than likely leads to actions resulting in possible pregnancies, which could be avoided if the drinking age were lowered, thus changing the social status quo towards drinking to be more responsible and controlled. Lastly I would like to rebut my opponent's refutations. I. "My opponent's first contention is that Americans who are old enough to serve in the armed forces should similarly be allowed to use alcohol. He seems to believe that it would be beneficial to our servicemen and women to be allowed to drink. " I would like to focus on one word in my opponent's refutation, "beneficial. " In my first contention, no where did I mention that consumption of alcohol by our service men and women would be "beneficial. " Let's look at the definition of beneficial. Beneficial- conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful [dictionary. com] So I ask… Is it beneficial for our service men and women to be serving at all? Is it beneficial for them to be allowed to smoke or chew tobacco? Is it beneficial for them to have bullets whizzing by their heads? Is it beneficial for the psychological damage that they may incur? No it may not be beneficial for them to consume alcohol, at 18 or at 21, but if they are experiencing all these other things, why not be allowed to legally partake in the consumption of an alcoholic beverage? My opponent also refutes with, "If there is indeed a problem, it is not a problem with the drinking age, but rather with the minimum age of eligibility for military service. " The acceptability of serving at 18 years of age is supported by the fact that in terms of legality at 18 years of age a man or woman is lawfully an adult. Adults serve in the military, so therefore teenagers 18 and 19 years old are able and many willing to serve in the armed forces. If our military, the most powerful and possibly well organized and respected, can trust that the responsibility of an 18 year old is good enough to go to war, then why can't we trust their responsibility in terms of alcohol consumption? II. I would like to rebut my opponent's argument for my contention being logically unreasonable. My opponent says, "When an activity such as drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will certainly partake in that activity more frequently and to a greater extent. " I argue the opposition of this point, in that when drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will partake more frequently, but to a lesser extent. As I mentioned before, the idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities. By lowering the drinking age, we are condoning drinking, but condoning in a manner which yields a sense of openness and responsibility. I would much rather see a teenager be able to drink legally and responsibly over the course of more occasions, than drink once, binge and potentially die from alcohol poisoning. The fact is teenagers, as my opponent affirms, are going to have access to alcohol whether they can legally or illegally. Opponent: "In fact, one way that many teens gain access to alcohol is through older friends. Now, that means an 18 year old getting a 22 year old friend to by him or her alcohol. " We should condone a lower drinking age to reduce the occasions of binge drinking and foster responsible drinking habits III. Responsibility does come naturally. However, over the course of several generations instead of seeing our society's values wither away, we should see improved drinking habits and more responsible adults. Good teaching will foster more good teaching. My opponent seemingly argues that all children will grow up with bad habits and that several generations will erode our values. However, it would be logically unreasonable to assume that all children would be raised with bad habits towards alcohol, or other drugs, or early pregnancies. And moreover, it would be more likely that a greater percentage would be fostered with better habits. Many drug commercials today talk about parents being open with their children about drug use. Our society should be open with its children about alcohol abuse. Lowering the drinking age allows for this kind of openness. Children would be raised with good drinking habits and that would breed future generations with responsible alcohol consumption habits if the age were lowered to 18. IV. I am simply stating that officers should be more focused on stopping shoplifters rather than hunting down teenagers at a football game, or at a party who are partaking in a few alcoholic beverages. And quite frankly, if an officer was faced with a choice between two situations… 1. knowing of an 18 year old drinking a beer under aged. Or 2. A shoplifter stealing hundreds of dollars of merchandise. Which would he choose? I sure hope in our society today he would pursue the latter. So therefore, shoplifting and under aged drinking cannot be compared.