The American Drinking Age Should be Lowered

Firstly, I have to concede the "teenager" point. My maths obviously need a little practice. Now I move on to my opponent's arguments. 1. Stable environment when entering the adult world. With all due respect, an 18 year old has already entered the adult world and is no longer entering it. People are considered (legally and socially) adults at 18 years of age. Secondly, that stability that my opponent seeks is not affected by being legally allowed to drink alcohol. It can only be affected by abusing alcohol; by not being mature enough to make a decision as to whether or not to consume it. 2. Other rights. My opponent claims that the fact that we can drive at 16 works to support her argument. She says that if the legal drinking age were lowered, an 18 year old driver might find himself behind the wheel with a bottle of booze in his hand. That much is true. But there are laws against drinking and driving at the same time. There are also laws against driving whilst over a certain BAC limit. 3. Mothers Whateve age women on average have children at, teenage pregnancy is rife in the USA. And teenage mothers do make good mothers. You get neglectful teenage mothers, that's true. But you get neglectful mothers of all ages. The fact is the Government does not take your child away just because you're a mum under 21 years of age. You are entrusted with someone's life. You should therefore be equally entrusted with your own health. You are an adult in every other sense of the word! 4. 18-21's not responsible enough to handle alcohol It is not the first time my opponent makes that contention; with no support for it whatsoever. I say that by far most teenagers are responsible enough. I say that we recognise that by giving them all the other rights we give them. I say that a legal drinking age of 21 creates a hypocritical dichotomy. I say that the fact that most states allow youngsters to drink alcohol privately is even more dichotomous. I say that my opponent must do more than merely say that young people are not responsible enough. She must do something to show it. 5. Other countries My opponent claims that teenagers in Germany know how to drink in moderation whereas those in the USA don't. Again, no source for this. If that's true in her experience, could it be because teenagers in the USA are not allowed to drink? Therefore once they somehow do get their hands (illegally) on some booze, they tend to get absolutely butchered. Those who don't drink, don't drink at all. Those who do drink (illegally) are the ones who do so because they're problem drinkers in the first place. Or at least more likely to be problem drinkers. After all, they are the folks who feel a need for alcohol that's strong enough to make them go through the hoops of obtaining it illegally. This is of course my pure conjecture and it is of course based on what my opponent says from her own experience. By no means am I conceding anything about American teens generally. 6. Access through seniors (friends). My opponent says this: "If one were to survey an average senior class in a High School, many of them would be at least 18. High schoolers often have friends outside their own grade. Meaning, making alcohol legal for an age group that is still in High School would make it easier for younger people to gain access to alcohol." Firstly, this point's validity is premised on my opponent's contention that 18 year olds are not responsible enough in the first place. I have argued (and continue to argue) against that. Secondly, having the legal limit at 21 we still have the same problem. College students are often aged from 19 onwards. Thus, they have many friends who are 21 and above and who can quite easily provide them with alcohol. Thirdly, with respect, my opponent can't have it both ways. Firstly she claims in Round 1 that the fact that the 21 limit is not widely obeyed is not a valid reason to change it to 18. Now she claims that giving 18 year olds access to alcohol would allow them to break the laws and supply younger friends with it. Either we agree that enforcement problems are not a relevant consideration or we agree that they are. But my opponent can't have her cake and eat it too (this saying really would make more sense if it was "You can't eat your cake and continue to possess it"...)