The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act 1984 should be repealed and the drinking age eliminated

My opponent has forfeited his round due to time restrictions, but it was a bug or an error in the coding that didn't allow him to enter his argument (he still had 13 minutes left). No worries to my opponent - I have agreed to refute his argument that he wrote in a pastebin link. So check it there if you need. ==================== 'Forbidden fruit' effect ==================== In response for the evidence of the forbidden fruit theory (FFT), my opponent gives me an abstract from a research paper showing evidence for the FFT, but is it really conclusive? In psychology, there has been a debate raging over the FFT and the tainted fruit theory (TFT), which says basically the opposite of the FFT. Since I am almost out of time, I unfortunately won't get to refute the FFT, but I will take an alternative route: Simply redesign the methods of prohibition. Studies have shown[1] that the FFT can have different effects on different gender groups, such as adolescent boys preferring to watch age-appropriate television while adolescent girls do not, so it's obvious that all degrees of prohibition aren't effective for every age and gender group. In fact, the FFT is based on the reactance theory, which states that "if the costs are seen as too great, the individual may refrain from initiating freedom restorative behavior and ultimately accept restrictions placed upon his/her freedom." This means that if we make the punishments for alcohol harsh - an obvious form of prohibition - then we can avoid the FFT. This, or many other types of methods (such as rewording warning labels), all have credible psychological evidence from BOTH competing theories. Because face it - with a wide abundance of free alcohol, the amount of drunk driving will stay higher than it will if there was a drinking age AND an effective system of prohibition. ==================== Forces more dangerous "underground venues" to appear ==================== My opponent points out the use of personal transportation, which can lead to drunk driving. A good notice, and I concede this point. However, this doesn't mean I lose my footing on this position - I simply need to take one step back. In concurrence with my previous point, you simply need to redesign the methods of prohibition. I gave an example of how: by significantly increasing the punishment for such behavior. ---->>>"There are two relevant ways to reduce drink driving: punishing the activity itself and punishing underage drinking for the chance it will result in drink driving. Since (assuming equal enforcement, of course) punishing drink driving affects everyone, and only those who are actually causing danger, and the drinking age affects only those under 21, even if they are not causing danger, drink driving laws are preferable to a drinking age. ----> There are more dangers to abuse of alcohol than just drunk driving, such as the potential for long term abuse. ==================== Violation of the Equal Protection Clause ==================== My opponent has not said anything to refute my arguments here. He has, however, tangent off and instead replied to my statement of why there is a voting age...by linking me to another of his debates. Sorry, but just giving me a link for some other debate you have does NOT constitute as an argument here. Otherwise, it'll just be a battle of links. ---->>>Actually, the drinking age (slightly) increases drink driving. "States that did not raise their MLPA's [minimum legal purchase ages] during the 1976–81 period experienced a slightly larger decrease in fatal crashes among drivers under twenty-one years of age than did those states that did raise their MLPA's. The difference is not large enough to be called significant, but it does suggest that raised drinking ages are not associated with any net reductions in fatal crashes by young drivers --> Again, refer to my first argument. If we can redesign the methods of prohibition more effectively, than occurrences like this won't happen. ---->>>"But such impulse control problems are caused by age restrictions such as the drinking age." --> Dr. Epstein's work is certainly interesting, though prone to controversy. This author, who my opponent cites, does no fully comply with his suggestion however. While my opponent is against all forms of age limits, Dr. Epstein suggests something slightly different. He presents us with the option of giving children from the age 13-17 a competency test (realize that there is still an age limit for those under 13)[3]. So even if we were to go with his suggestion, there is STILL an age limit. Why for the 12 and under? Simply because of biological differences in the brain. Studies have shown that "the last to mature [of the brain] is the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at the very front of the frontal lobe. This area is involved in control of impulses, judgement and decision-making"[4]. ==================== It's not possible to reasonably enforce ==================== My opponent says nothing to refute my argument concerning this point OR his statement saying that my argument against legalizing alcohol is an emotional appeal. ==================== Other nations have lower drinking ages and yet lower rates of alcohol problems ==================== My opponent gives me another link showing how America has high alcohol abuses and a drinking age and whatnot, but he STILL misses the point. You can't accurately compare to nations and show why one statistic (in this case alcohol abuse) differs from another unless you explain the complex factors for it. America could have higher alcohol abuse because of more abundance of alcohol, stress due to work, low class poverty, etc. - nothing to do with prohibition. ==================== The problem of drinking games ==================== ---->>>"Of course, but at least "21 for 21" would become "0 for 0". Let's see someone dying of alcohol poisoning that way." ----> Does my opponent really think that some obscure drinking game, which he has yet to shown occurs at great rates, is a valid argument against prohibition. Because 1. there are so many existing and possible drinking games that can kill you and 2. he supposedly believes in individual freedom, so why not let the people drink?! This very argument COUNTERS his beliefs! ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's argument is a bundle of scattered psychological papers, misdirected statistics, and counterproductive arguments. He needs to realize that prohibition can be accurately achieved without inducing the supposed FFT. ---References--- 1. http://books.google.com... 2. http://findarticles.com... 3. http://www.fourmilab.ch... 4. http://www.newscientist.com...