Should legal drinking age be dropped back down to 18?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
In this paper, we summarize a large and compelling body of empirical evidence which shows that one of the central claims of the signatories of the Amethyst Initiative is incorrect: setting the minimum legal drinking age at 21 clearly reduces alcohol consumption [by minors].
Pro seemed to think that 18 year old people would just break the law anyway, and that 18 year old people will manage their consumption of alcohol responsibly. Con dismantled both of these in my opinion. His shoplifting analogy was acknowledged but never rebutted by Pro, as a result I am left believing that Pro's first argument didn't hold up to Con's criticism. For point two, Pro pointed out the clear health drawbacks to consuming alcohol that Pro acknowledged, along with the increased risk for addiction. Once again Pro fails to properly address this point. Lastly, Con points out that choosing 18 as the legal drinking age was arbitrary, once again there was not a valid response to this point.
So, I see that alcohol deals tremendous damage to young people, along with Pro's 18 year barrier to entry being completely arbitrary.
Pro repeats his arguments and concedes at one point where alcohol is harmful. Con did none of that. Con also used sources.
Argument: Pro repeated arguments in each round. Con's arguments successfully rebutted all Pro arguments. Points to Con
Sources: Pro had no sources. Con presented multiple, reliable sources. points to Con
S&G: Con had fewer S&G issues points to Con
Conduct: Both treated one another respectfully.
Pretty straight forward. Pro agrees it's more harmful at a young age, and con makes an argument that lowering the drinking age will cause increased availability to those even younger (effectively, right now 18 year olds can get it easily, but with the change 15 year olds will be given it just as easily as current 18 year olds).
Con further used respectable sources to both show the harm from underage drinking, and that the drinking age is an effective deterrent. I would have left this tied had pro used a source for the gang claim (a competing harm).
Oh my bad, haha.
I just called you pro lol
In the begging of your seconded to last argument you said he. I was just making a joke- I do that a lot haha.
I don't understand the first line of your last round. I never referred to any person as male or female during the entire debate.
I mean that I understand you are pointing out that you are a she, I just don't understand why since I never called you a he.