State's should fight to lower the drinking age

The one definition(taken from Black's Law Dictionary) I have is: Justice: giving an individual his/her fair due. Observation 1: "States's" is a typo made on the Facebook page and is actually mean to be "States". This is the only logical conclusion as it breaks grammar rules in its current form and the change I mentioned is the only one that makes the topic make sense. Observation 2: The "states" that are being referred to in the topic refer to the states of the United States of America. This is the fairest possible conclusion as both debaters live within the United States meaning one does not have an unfair advantage based on where one lives. It is also the most logical conclusion as the maker of this topic (not me) lives in the United States. I advocate that the states fight to lower the drinking age in order to achieve justice. Since we live in a society that attempts to be as just as possible, the goal of achieving justice must be held high. For my first (and more conventional argument), I say that the lowering achieves justice by righting a wrong. The current law provides no warrant for the age limit being a fair due because there is none. With a lower age limit, it would be much easier to have a just reason to have the restriction. Thus, the lowering of the age limit would remove injustice and thus cause justice. WARNING: Off-the-wall argument ahead! ! This is a more unconventional argument that shows how a victory in the fight to lower the drinking age would create justice in the long run. For readability, I will bullet how the success of the states' fight to lower the drinking age will lead to this justice. 1. States win the fight and the drinking age is lowered. 2. As common sense would dictate, more drunken related accidents and deaths would happen as the amount of drinkers would rise because more people would be able drink legally. However, this is not because of the age of those legal. This is simply because there are bozos in every age group, from 19 to 99, that do foolish acts. Thus, this increase cannot be used to justify keeping the age limit where it is. 3. More people would drink to relieve themselves of the depression of losing their loved ones causing more drunken accidents and growing chaos. 4. Eventually, the spiraling ball of chaos and deaths would make the leader of the United States realize that nihilism is the most logical philosophy to adopt. 5. In order to save more lives, the president realizes that he must kill as many people as possible to prevent more lives being born that would be killed. Hence, as commander-in-chief, he orders all nuclear weapons, intercontinental-ballistics missiles, etc. , etc. , to be fired. 6. Invriably, at least some of these weapons will fall in other countries. They will interpret this as threat to them selves and will volley weapons back, thus starting a nuclear war. 7. All humans die either from the nuclear war directly or from the resulting radiation. A (multiple) god(s) decide what the proper punishment/reward is. This(These) higher power(s) would be perfect in knowledge, wisdom, and justice concerning any situation and hence would be able to make the most just decision. Thus, ultimate justice is achieved. This would also have the added bonus of fixing almost every current problem including national debt, world hunger, and every human disease that has ever existed. Now I made the claim in the seventh bullet that at least one God/higher power exists, which obviously needs to be defended. I will defend the claim by stating that god is defined in Merriam-Webster's dictionary (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Since the whole well-being of the dictionary depends on its factual accuracy, they would not define something that does not exist. Thus, at least one god, or some other higher power, with the aforementioned qualities, must exist. With my warrants now given for my claim, I must wait for my opponent to respond.