"The minimum legal drinking age should be age 25"

I was not expected to debate such a superb debater. This should be a very challenging debate and interesting debate. O1) Paternalism Principle Persons do not have time to analyze risk over reward for every action. Even if one does have the time, most people are not rational enough to make the best decision. People often regret doing certain actions and these actions can cause permanent damage that can either ruin their lives or cause death. Unless one can prove that nobody regrets any action he or her took, it is illogical to assume humans as perfect rational being. Stating ‘oh, that person is an idiot and deserves to die' is both uncompassionate and immoral. a)War on Drugs The main issue of the war due to the creation of organized crime. It is effective in reducing drug use as explained later. b)Seatbelts You yourself state that those who don't wear seatbelts are dumb yet believe people are rational enough to make their own decisions? c)Helmets I was referring to motorcycle helmets, not cyclists. However, your own source states "Despite his results, Walker doesn't suggest all cyclists stop wearing helmets. " O2) Brain Development Your source states: "Dosenbach estimated they were able to distinguish between the brains of children ages 7 to 11 and that of adults ages 25 to 30 with 90 percent accuracy. " Why are these scientists looking at adults over 25 if the brain is fully developed at 21? There is no evidence that the brain is fully developed at age 21. The only ‘evidence' your source state is: "They found that close connection weakened while distant connections strengthened as the brain matures, until about age 21 or 22. " That does not mean the brain is fully developed. An international effort led by NIH's Institute of Mental Health and UCLA's Laboratory of NeuroImaging showed that the brain is not fully developed until 25 was. It used ongoing MRI assessment on 2000 people. [1][2] C1) Alcohol impedes brain development As show before, the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. As such, the brain would stunt full development if one consumes alcohol [3] C2) Other harms alcohol causes Con states "All the other detriments of alcohol are not unique to people aged 21-25, so they are irrelevant. " This is false. Those below the age of 25 are statistically more likely to engage in violent crimes, drunk driving, and binge drinking and are therefore relevant to this debate. Not only that, but drinking at a younger age also makes one more prone to alcohol addiction. [4] C3) Alcohol harms others- Con states that my statistics "Statistics here also go to prove that people don't stop drinking and driving between the ages of 16 and 21, in spite of a minimum drinking age law. " No. My statistics were from before the passage of the minimal age law of 1984. It is not a good measure to see if drunken driving fatalities decreased during MADD's public safety campaign, since the campaign also occurred around the same time as the passage of the minimal age law of 1984. Lowering of drunken driving fatalities could be caused by BOTH enforcement of the law and public safety campaign, and not mutually exclusive. Instead, a good measure is to rely on peer-reviewed scientific articles like this "Compared with a wide range of other programs and efforts to reduce drinking among teenagers, increasing the legal age for purchase and consumption of alcohol to 21 appears to have been the most successful effort to date"[5] Con states that "Lastly, the right to drink alcohol should be considered separate from issues regarding drunk driving. " No, drunk driving is caused by drinking. Should the issue of owning enriched uranium be separate from the issue of creating nuclear weapons? No. Should the issue of owning possibly dangerous chemical substances be separate from the issue of using it to kill many? No. The analogy of comparing drinking and driving to reading in a car is absurd. One can voluntarily stop reading. However, one can not voluntarily become sober after drinking. This is why drinking and driving is a prevalent issue that kills thousands, rather than reading and driving. The best way to prevent drinking and driving is of course to prevent the drinking. C4) Alcohol related crime CON's right that those over the age of 25 can also engage in alcohol related crime. However, those under the age of 25 are more likely to engage in alcohol related crime. Con's case: R1) Revoking a right is impractical Based on Con's logic, no new laws would be passed since it would be inconvenient for those who lived under the old system. R2) Damaging social lives Nightclubs will accommodate those under the legal drinking age. Many clubs allow people under the age of 21 to enter their club. People will find new ways to socialize without drinking. People have had social lives before the age of 21, what's to stop them now? Muslims are prohibited from drinking yet have social lives. A method of socializing without drinking would actually be better, since people will find healthier ways to be social that do not involve damaging ones. R3) Career opportunities It is very unlikely that a person under 25 years old would be involved in very prestigious business deals. Even, if a 25 year old was involved in these deals, one can drink in other countries that do not have minimal drinking age law of 25. Others would understand that someone under 25 cannot drink. Also, if drinking is so important to business than why during the prohibition period, did the US economy flourish? R4) treats the issue incorrectly Con states that "'I've already shown how criminal justice (War on Drugs, Alcohol Prohibition during the 1920's) fails, and how public health education campaigns (seatbelts, drunk driving) succeed. " For 12 years, public education systems teach the dangers of smoking and drinking, yet despite this almost every person in America at least drink occasionally and 20% of all people are regular smokers Let's compare this to other ‘illegal drugs'. Only 2% use speed and 1% use mushrooms on a monthly basis. Only 2% of people have tried heroin, 3% GHB, 4% crack, and 6% crystal meth. [6] If the government allows actions that are harmful to be legal one tends to underestimate the overall harmful effects. It is much easier to rationalize those certain substances or actions are ‘healthier' and ‘safer' than another by determining whether it is legal or legal, than to find or learn the information yourself. The main issue with the war on drugs is that it causes organized crime. Increasing the minimal age for alcohol consumption will not cause bootlegging. R5) Diminishes likelihood for calling for help If one's friend's life is in danger one will still be likely to call since the danger of death is much worse than any legal repercussions. Also everyone knows that medical personnel cannot disclose medical information, so one is unlikely to get in legal trouble for calling for help. R6) Increases risky behavior A person's unfounded opinion does not constitute as evidence that binge drinking causes risky behavior. Instead one should look at evidence. [7] According to this graph, binge drinking increases once one reaches the minimum drinking age. R7) it's a right Rights can be taken away if they pose a threat to one and especially to others. The act of drinking does harm oneself and has potential to harm another. The same principle applies to deadly chemical substances are heavily regulated and often cannot be purchased by layman. Although the act of owning certain chemical substances does not directly harm others, it can cause the potential to harm others. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6] . http://tinyur