The Drinking Age of 21, should be lowered to 18.

So just very swiftly, I will be extending the attacks I made that my opponent covered, I will be refuting the attacks my opponent made against the Con Case, and I will end with some analysis of this debate thus far. Pro- 1. I thank my opponent for providing a warrant (his personal experience), and I will now show how the warrant is false. First of all experience is completely subjective. we cannot evaluate this debate on anything personal, or on our own opinions. but we must provide either steady logic, or empirical fact. My opponent has done neither. and if you will remember I also gave my own "personal experience" showing this to be false. So even if you choose to look to simply personal experience, I have also had personal experience in regards to the topic. Essentially you have no reason to prefer my opponent over me in the ground As for morality, you never show us HOW lowering the drinking age would lower fatalities in driving accidents. this is simply an unfounded Claim (i. e. still no warrant 2. My opponent has dropped my arguments here, so please simply extend them 3. Okay, I ask you all to simply re-read my opponent's refutation here. This statement only proves my point two-fold. a. It will be (as pro said) a teas to older teens. b. It won't kill them to wait, (In fact it'll keep them from killing themselves. Con- 1. Okay, first off. I agree that we should set higher standards for smoking, drinking and even driving. That aside I believe even more fervently that taking away rights already guaranteed, with-out reason to do so; is constitutionally wrong. There is a grave difference between taking rights and giving rights. Also, I was never given the burden of proof to have to show that cigarettes are good. I concede that Cigarettes are bad. Don;t drink, don't smoke. second, Cigarettes do not impair cognitive ability; they simply destroy lung tissue, and cause cancer. (which many minors can get any-way due to second hand smoke from their parents) Now going onto my opponent's defense on the "buzz" argument. let's be frank here; life doesn't work like that. If we took such a liberal stance to lower the drinking age, what indicates that we would bother taking such a conservative stance to make sue these young adults didn't drink too much? absolutely none. (also there is nothing funny about watching a friend, or family member fall victim to alcoholism. ) 2. First of all; in the current system young adults are given this "Cool-down-period" that being their time ages 18-20. why on earth would we throw everything on them at once. At eighteen, not only do they get the right to move out, and the responsibility to take care of themselves but we're going to throw drinking into the mix as well? I say we reject this faulty Ideal also as for the claim about the UK, This is an evidence based attack, which he provides no evidence for. we have absolutely no reason to believe this. according don't! unless my opponent provides proof before his next speech is concluded do not listen to this point. As for the military; first while this is incredibly off topic, I will cover it all the same. Joining the military is something person does because of a deep moral conviction to pretend their country. I won't sugar coat it, our soldiers die every single day, and they do this by choice, they love their country and their freedoms; such as the ability of the free speech my opponent is exercising to bash our service men and women. Whereas drinking, is only a very selfish activity to stimulate one's own personal pleasure. there is no morality at play here. 3. Since my opponent has extended his attack, I extend my defense. As for the "college thing" this really does nothing to prove his point, but I am glad we can agree on this, that said he has no warrant to prove that lowering the age will do more good than bad, at least not in regards to all prior arguments made in this debate. so in closing, My opponent still has not accurately proven that the drinking age should be lowered nor has he dis-proven my stance; whereas I have both shown the logical and empirical fallacies in my opponent's and provided extensive logically backed reasons why lowering the drinking age would be detrimental. so for all of these reasons, you must Vote Con in this debate! Go for it Pro.