....very lame justification . We don't let under 21's possess alcohol so we certainly don't have to allow them to carry firearms when they are in the civilian world .

The drinking age used to be 18 and is 18 in many other countries.

If you can fight in wars for your country you should be able to have a beer.

I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit so i'll say it again.

If you cannot prove that the benefits outweigh the harms, then it would be an unsound choice to change the age restriction.

This had nothing to do with wether or not i think there is any benefit or not. I provided evidence that supported my argument that lowering the age requirement would increase the harm caused. The burden now rests on you to either refute my evidence or prove that whatever benefit you perceive outweighs the harm. Basic debating 101

...you are making a statement but can you make a case for it ? The lowered drinking age was mostly a result of the ongoing draft but since our military is now all volunteer that argument goes out the window .

It is my opinion. I'm sorry if it offends you.

...doesn't offend me at all kid . You made statement without an awareness of why the drinking age was lowered and how entwined it was with the draft policy of that time . Today's service members know before they enlist that drinking under 21 is prohibited so it has become a baseless argument .

You just can't resist twisting yourself into the ground over a straw man, can you? You're arguing a point I NEVER MADE. I never said anything about whether it would be a good decision or not. I also didn't not argue that any such benefit outweighs any harm that would result from said decision. I simply stated that, because you cannot see "ANY" benefit, does not mean that no benefit exists.



Basic debating 101. And my reading comprehension is perfectly fine, but thanks again for playing.

If you're not making an argent then why are you even here?

Moreover, i already stated that whether or not i think there is a benefit is completely irrelevant...yet you continue to get stuck on this point.

If you don't want to debate, that's fine. It seems you're incapable of it anyways.

First straw man, then ad hominem. And I'm the one incapable of debate?

After prohibition was over there were states that the age was 18 and some had 19, 20, and 21, also depending what kind of alcohol it was (wine/beer).

I stated my opinion that I think it isn't fair that an 18 year old can choose to join the military, vote in elections, and choose to smoke, but they cannot choose to have a beer.

Regardless what happened during the 70s I still think it isn't fair.