The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered To 18.

**Note my opponent is claiming I needed to attack his arguments, but his format forbid that, his accusations against his own rule are false. Therefore my arguments this round are just. R1: 18, freedom, lets drinkThis assumption is highly faulty. It also fails to look into other changes. People drive from 15-18 in america (majority say 16). You must be 35 to run for president, rent a car at 25. Your argument has many failed assumptions, and under the same logic we might see an 18 year old president. You must also look at the states interest, in Louisiana:"...statutes establishing the minimum drinking age at a higher level than the age of majority are not arbitrary because they substantially further the appropriate governmental purpose of improving highway safety, and thus are constitutional." [1]So based on governments interest there is no reason to lower the drinking age. Further, his argument fails to look into laws itself. If his argument where correct, murder, rape, robbery would all be legal because its "deadly" like smoking. So before using his failed logic we have to look into the reason for these laws. One of the main reasons is the children's health, the brain is not fully developed. That happens in the mud twenties. [2] So my opponents argument also does not work, as you must look into:1) States interests, 2) Reasons for the law. The answers are:1) Saving lives (see above)2) to protect young people, save lives, decrease users. As my opponents argument fails to look into laws (the reasons listed) his argument is invalid in a legal war. *****Case:C1: Saves livesMy opponent essentially concedes the point, until the end. You say "slowing it down", but that makes no statistical nor neurological sense. When the alcohol age is higher, you are twice times less likely (did that make sense?) to become a binge drinker. And, as stated, his argunemnt does not work with stats. So 21 year olds in general less likely to get into the same trouble as 18 year olds with alcohol. [3] So there is no statistical or factual "slow down" effect. *States with higher drinking ages generally mean less youth and overall users. *10-12 graders in areas with lower drinking ages drank significantly more then states with higher drinking ages.*The younger you drink the more likely you will drink to drunkeness in college (no slow down effect, basic nuerology, younger = *more likley to die etc. Older = less likely)*Behavior of 18 year olds has large effects on younger teens, so a lower drinking age means more users. [http://www.cspinet.org...] DWI:-Lower drinking age = 11% increase in DWI fatalities-Lower drinking age = 25% increase and 25% increase in DWI deaths in Arizona-Lower drinking age = 35% increase in crashes, 17% increase in car deaths for men: Michiagan-Lower drinking age = 141% increase in DWI arrestsNo "slow down effect". It saves lives, period. And more:"It is difficult to deny that the 21 year-old drinking age law is effective in reducing underage drinking and its many associated problems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates more than 25,000 lives have been saved since the 21 year-old drinking age law became uniform among states in the 1980s. Additionally, in looking at more than 50 peer-reviewed studies of countries that lowered the legal drinking age to 18, the Centers for Disease Control found fatalities increased in those nations by 10 percent." [4]***saves lives, my opponents argunment does not work. C2: Less problemsYour point is irrelevant, as I support a higer smoking age for this ^ reason. It also fails to compare the point. ou dont refute it, you concede it. Drinking whilst younger is very bad. I count your argunment as an FF, the states interest is to save lives with this law[1], worse problems = more lives lost. Its the states interest to not lower the age, hence your argunment fails. C3: Lowers usersYou FF the argunment sayign of course its harder to get. Yoru only criticism is hen the graph stops, so here:http://www.cdc.gov... (graphs aren't posting, it goes through 2010, only decreases in users)"student data" starts right before we switched to 21, we see a decrase, hence the age saves lives. Your concession of the argunment and this graph prove my point. I win the point.CONCLUSIONMY opponent conceded most of c1, dodgs c2, and concedes c3 and only criticises the graph. The drinkign age:Saves livesLowers usersAnd prevents youths from gettign worse alcohol problems. Dont raise the drinking age, its the states interests from these 3 points to keep it high, so keep the minimumw age 21, Vote CON------------[1] Manuel v State of Louisiana, 1996.[2] "Lower the Drinking Age?" Minnesota health department, dept. of health, research papers[3] http://www.cspinet.org...[4] http://www.iowa.gov...[4] http://www.iowa.gov...