Everything at 18 (driving, drinking, voting, etc.)

Upon re-reading my previous round, I couldn't help but feel like I came off as incredibly rude and pretentious and I apologize profusely. Deduct conduct points as necessary. However, I will still rebut your argument points, with a newfound clarity now."...I think you forgot that this system is made to be understood by people..."This is true. The law must be understood. However, this brings me back to my other point, which I believe you drastically misinterpreted. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was making a point.The law isn't just meant to be understood and simple. It's also meant to regulate behavior to keep people safe. So, obviously, we would only make it simpler to the most convenient, yet still safe, limit. I could argue that it'd be easier to understand the law if no laws were made. There's nothing much to know because there's nothing at all.However, even then, you'd be contradicting your argument of 18 being the age, because the age limit would really be nonexistent. So, your argument should really be why 18 is the safest age."...you say that you become an adult because that means you get all of those new rights. But in the US? What is the use of 'becoming an adult'?"I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this point. You didn't really give any definite value for a sufficient amount of rights, so I evaluated it off of my own perception, and I believe we acquire a fluous amount of rights at the age of 18. To list a few, you get to: Vote Form a Will Sign an official contract independently in your own name Donate Organs Be Independent from Parental Control Get a Legal Attorney ...and more![1] I'm curious as to how many rights you get at 18, as I'd like to discern a ratio and see if it's as unreasonable and ridiculous as you claim it to be. "Everyone know things like alcohol effects on the brain are researched, that's not the point. Although you may say that we should not allow drinking at 18 because it damages the brain MORE than at 21, we all know that this rule is almost in everyone's life broken at least once." I must say, this rebuttal left a taste of...confusion, and quite possibly discombobulation, in my brain. It seems poorly formed, so I'll let you develop more on it the following round, but I'll rebut it anyways. You're saying that we shouldn't put it at 21 because people don't respect the law. ...But if we put it at 18, people will!? Pardon me for any inaccuracy, but it seems to me that this is your logic: If it is a written law or regulation, people will not respect it. We need some way to restrict the right of drinking to those 18 or above. It ought to be done that there is a written law against people drinking below the age of 18 years. To simplify: If A, no C. C. We should have A for C. Upon seeing this, I had some sort of intrinsic, unconscious inclination to be reminded of this.[2] If A and C cannot possibly satisfy each other, why are you saying we should have A to satisfy C in complete contradiction of this!? "I know that the president does not make up the laws, and this has nothing to do with wether or not I paid attention in class." I apologize. However, in your thesis, you said "that the US had different ages for each thing." This implied that you thought these rules were at national/federal level. I simply made a reasonable presumption. Again, I apologize for coming off so rudely. This isn't an excuse, it's just an explanation, I was having a bad day as we all do, but I shouldn't have let my emotions spill onto an objective debate. I'll send you cookies. Wait, you're in another country. That could be expensive. Never mind. http://opi.mt.gov... http://youtu.be...