The US Government shall lower the drinking age requirement to 19.

You say: "This debate is whether or not the United States Federal Government should lower the drinking age requirement to 19." And the fact of the matter is that the federal government lacks the authority to do this. Read the Constitution. The 10th amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to set a national drinking age is NOT delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and thereby, as per the 10th amendment, IT IS RESERVED TO THE STATES. As you state in your OWN WORDS -- "The debate is whether or not THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should lower the drinking age requirement to 19." And the answer is, NO. It does not have the authority, and to do so would be an act outside of its authority. You are making an argument for an unlimited government that does not have to obey its own laws. You are making an argument for dictatorship, for if the government is not bound by its own laws, then it is completely unrestricted. The power to set the drinking age is the power to suspend elections, torture citizens, and ban free speech -- none of those powers are granted in the Constitution, but if the government is allowed to go beyond its constitutional bounds in one case, what is to stop it from doing so in other cases? You have presented no logical reasons why the drinking age has to be national, or why that age should be 19, instead of 18. YOU ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT SOLDIERS WHO RISK THEIR LIVES SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENJOY A BEER, even if their state says they should. You have invented an imaginary problem of "cross-state drinking," when there are various laws that differ from state to state, and the drinking age is different in Mexico and Canada, where much of the country borders. Although there may be some "problems" associated with border-cross drinking, you completely overstate them to justify your cause. And besides, the argument for centralization of all laws in order to avoid any "friction" is the argument for a one-world government and dictatorship -- no more township hall meetings, the World Government Politburo makes the "universal zoning laws" now! The laws of a community should reflect the community's values (while respecting the Constitution) -- there is no need for every law to be the same in South Dakota and New York City (and Tokyo and South Africa, for that matter). Here is why I feel I've won this argument: 1. I've answered the question, "Should the federal government set a drinking age of 19?" My answer is NO, it lacks the authority. 2. I have shown your age of 19 to be arbitrary and oppressive, even if there were to be a national drinking age. Obviously, people who are old enough to serve in the military are old enough to drink a beer. 3. I have demonstrated that there's no reason for there to be one drinking age. There wasn't just one drinking age until 1988. Were all the years prior to 1988 as horrible as you indicate a future with different drinking ages would be? Thank you for the lively debate. Good luck.