"The minimum legal drinking age should be age 25"

Thanks, darkkermit. ==His case== O1) Paternalism Principle My opponent says that people are not fully rational. I agree. This applies just as much to the people who make our laws (heavily influenced by emotion, peer pressure, and lobbying). Why do we want other non-rational people telling us what we have to do? Extend the John Stuart Mills evidence that we know our own personal preferences better than government officials do. My opponent says people can't "analyze risk over reward for every action." First, my opponent has no evidence of this; our brains our extremely quick and sophisticated utility calculating machines. Secondly, if this justifies paternalism, then the government should regulate our every move. We should be fined or sent to jail for failing to brush our teeth, not getting 8 hours of sleep, or eating too much chocolate. Obama's health czar is on the record as saying that the paternalism principle infantilizes all of us. Adults don't need the government acting like our parents. a) War on Drugs I prefer to debate this here, instead of under my case. As evidence that the War on Drugs is successful, my opponent says that a number of illegal drugs are used less often than tobacco and alcohol. This is ridiculous. Alcohol and tobacco are still legal precisely because they have always been used more often than other drugs. However, illegal drug use has remained flat for the past 25 years, in spite of significantly stepped up enforcement. [1] In contrast, drug use declined in Portugal after legalization. [2] My opponent also conveniently leaves out the three most popular illegal drugs – cocaine, marijuana, and MDMA (Ecstasy). 42% of Americans have used marijuana and 16% have used cocaine; the law is obviously not a deterrent. [3] Lastly, even if my opponent could prove that paternalism worked, that doesn't justify the principle's use. If I win that paternalism isn't justified, it doesn't matter if it is successful. b) Seatbelts What is individualistically rational for me is not necessarily rational for someone else. Some people drive in isolated areas of the country, where crash risk is low. Some people have sensitive skin and the seatbelt bothers them a lot more. People should get to make their own decisions, even if you or I judge them to be irrational. The law is also not successful. In spite of "click it or ticket" campaigns, 20% of Americans still refuse to wear a seatbelt. [4] c) Helmets Walker was being cautious in his assertions, as all scientists are. The study still proves that wearing a helmet can be more dangerous than not wearing one, since cars will drive a lot closer to you. O2) Brain development My opponent asks, "Why are these scientists looking at adults over 25 if the brain is fully developed at 21?" Before they did the study, the authors didn't know when brain development stopped, so they included people older than 21. My opponent questions how this - "They found that close connections weakened while distant connections strengthened as the brain matures, until about age 21 or 22" - proves the study results. When the brain is maturing, neurons continue to grow and form new connections. When the neurons stop forming new connections (around age 21 or 22), the brain is fully mature. We now have two conflicting studies on when the brain is fully mature. If the evidence is conflicting, the government should not change the status quo. I would also like to note that my opponent's first source (the Washington Post) says that his study proves people shouldn't be able to drive until age 25. If you truly believe my opponent's paternalistic logic and his study, then people shouldn't leave home until age 25 because they are a menace to themselves and others. 1) Alcohol impedes brain development Answered above. My opponent's source here doesn't prove that moderate drinking disrupts the brain - only that heavy drinking does, which is even true in adults. In contrast, a study of 12,000 children found that drinking done during pregnancy, in moderation, does not affect the brain development of the child. [5] 2) Other harms My opponent claims he is being specific to the age group 21-25, yet his only source here (his footnote #4) is another reference to adolescents (people aged 13-19). 3) Alcohol harms others My opponent concedes that the MADD education campaign was successful, since drunk driving declined amongst adults (people over 18) by 35 percent over the same time period. The decline amongst adults cannot be explained by the drinking age law. The peer reviewed article my opponent cites here is about alcohol consumption patterns, not drinking and driving patterns. In fact, there is reason to believe that illegality increases drinking and driving, since the local bar is in walking distance, but illegal parties usually are not. Extend my argument that the decision to drink alcohol and the decision to get behind of the wheel of a car while intoxicated are separate. My opponent asks if enriched uranium and dangerous chemical possession should thus be legal. My answer is that the only possible use for either substance is in a weapon. In contrast, drinking and reading a book can be conducted in such a way that they don't harm others. My opponent says, "One can voluntarily stop reading. However, one cannot voluntarily become sober after drinking." True, but one CAN choose not to drive while drunk. One can choose to have a designated driver, walk home, take public transportation, or call a taxi. 4) Alcohol related crimes My opponent says, "those under the age of 25 are more likely to engage in alcohol related crimes." First, these statistics are significantly skewed by including people under 21. Second, this is mostly due to including gangs in the data. Third, this is still not a good reason to punish everyone aged 21-25, just because violence is slightly more prevalent among their age group. ==My case== Extend: C2) Social lives Muslims meet people through their local mosque. The bar is the social gathering place of the non-Muslim. My opponent says clubs accommodate people under 21 – not true. From personal experience, I can tell you clubs don't let people in who are under 21. My opponent says a "less damaging" social life is desirable. No evidence has yet been presented that drinking in moderation is damaging. Extend my analysis that people can't befriend co-workers without being allowed to attend happy hour after work. C3) Career opportunities My opponent claims that people under 25 never face an important business meeting. This is definitely not true of young CEO's, investment bankers, and consultants. It doesn't matter if people can drink in other countries; most U.S. business is conducted domestically. Lastly, the 1920's had a different culture regarding business meetings, but people could still drink if they stocked up before the Prohibition law went into effect or at a speak-easy. The fact remains: alcohol is an integral part of the business world. People age 21-25 would no longer be invited to meetings at bars or parties if they couldn't drink. R4) criminal justice or public health? The fact remains that people don't listen to the government, which is why alcohol and drug prohibition have not decreased consumption. However, people do listen to themselves, which is why public education campaigns work (seat belts, drunk driving). R5) calling for help My opponent claims this would never happen; yet it happens all the time. One example: according to 60 Minutes, Gordie Bailey died of alcohol poisoning because his friends were too afraid to call for help since his drinking was "illegal." [6] R6) risky behavior The graph is because drinking overall increases at 21. As a share of total drinking, binge drinking declines at age 21, according to the graph. R7) Answered and extended above [1] http://ti