The U.S. should repeal the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

I apologize for my late response; we all know college. I wasn't out drinking, if that's what you thought, though. Definition debate _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyways, let's get to the definitions first. My opponent tries to bring his case back into the round in the definition debate by providing some definitions of his own. These are the reasons why he is still debating a lost cause: 1) He never refuted my definitions and, since they were provided first, an ideal debate would dictate that mine are accepted and his dropped. No definitions are generally allowed after the first round of debate; only definition refutation. Again, no additional definitions can be accepted. 2) http://i55.tinypic.com... His first source I can edit right now to make invalid. His second source (princeton wordnet) is only one example to counter mine. But here's the issue: he defined "minimum drinking age". This round isn't looking to that phrase in general; rather, it is looking to the minimum drinking age mentioned in the NMDAA, which is lucid in its reference ONLY to the purchasing age which is 21, and it is also explicit in distinguishing between that age and the consumption age, which is 18. 3) His quote from the previous round, "The United States has the highest legal drinking age in the world, as established by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984" directly contradicts the text of the act, which dictates that 18 is the minimum drinking age. For these reasons, my definitions have to be accepted. I can already urge a con vote. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Burden of Proof _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regarding the burden of proof, my opponent basically states that I need to defend the status quo. I don't because he wishes to change the current situation. I am advocating that we do nothing in this case, and I don't need to justify not taking action. In a debate in which one side advocates that we economic deregulation, they would have to defend why we need this deregulation by providing an affirmative case for it. The non economic-deregulation side would provide a negative case against it. This is a comparable situation to this debate. On the other hand, my opponent is trying to draw a similarity between this debate and something like the conservative/liberal stance on abortion. It is not absolute in either way; conservatives make the moral case against abortion (con) and make a case moral case for preservation of human life for disallowing of abortions (pro). They defend the stance that fetuses are alive (con of liberals) and attack the liberal advocacy of pro choice (pro of liberals). This is not the case here, in which both have a burden of proof. Only my opponent has one in the case of this debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Refutation of Pro case _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. 18 years old: old enough to die, old enough to drink This argument is extremely biased to my opponents case, and is a logical fallacy. First, anyone is "old enough to die"; this is a misnomer on my opponent's part. I assume he means to say "old enough to be in the army". If we just go retrogressively ad infinitum, we can get to an extremely low drinking age. My opponent says that the US has the highest drinking age of any country in the world, and advocates simultaneously that we should lower the drinking age to the same age to the age of army enlisting. But, in Uganda, the youngest soldier that is eligible to enter the army is 13 [1]. Thus, as there is apparently a reason to match the minimum standards of the lowest minimum standards on the planet, we should lower our army enrollment age to 13. Even if we don't, by my opponent's standard, 13 is still "old enough to die". So, using my opponent's logic we should lower the drinking age to 13. That would seem to be problematic. 2. Students into criminals, cops into robbers To sum up the argument, my opponent argues that drinking has been driven underground. It's not like changing the law would change anything; if, at the average birthday party, 14 year olds are drunker than Birdy the scarecrow from Conker's Bad Furday, N64 classic game [2]. The argument is really non-unique and won't solve any problems; it will only reduce it by a percentage that is rather insignificant. Moreover, the average person in the US has had is first drink WAY before he turns 21, or even 18 [3]. The average person has had a drink by, according to this source, approximately age 16. 3. Unenforceable My opponent's source is invalid, as are many others. But disregarding that fact, see my previous arguments regarding the average drinking age and the international standard argument. 4. No rational basis This is the same argument that my opponent makes in (1.). My argument about brain development can be extended because my opponents (1.) argument has been refuted. 5. States rights My opponent needs to define "abuse" to make this argument. Moreover, there needs be a balance of federal and state powers. I feel that, in this case, the current law is fine. Again, seeing as my opponent wishes to change the status quo, he has the burden of proof. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate, and anticipate a great response. I thank the readers for their time. Sources _________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] https://www.cia.gov... [2] http://www.xbox.com... [3] http://www2.potsdam.edu... _________________________________________________________________________________________________