The Instigator
PeterGray
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Alcohol Should Be Banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 10/4/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 18621
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

PeterGray

Pro

I hate alcohol. it winds me up how people socialise by pouring poison down their mouths. It changes them and people are talking to a different version of them. Its really only around so government can make money. I hate that, if it was found out about now, it would be illegal due to health and safety
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. I will first clarify some definitions, then let my opponent go into their opening arguments.

Alcohol - any beverage which contains ethanol for the purpose of consumption. This excludes ethanol based fuels and cleansers.

Ban - "Officially or legally prohibit." [1]

I will likely address this from both a libertarian rights perspective as well as a utilitarian perspective, but that really depends upon my opponent's arguments.

[1] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
PeterGray

Pro

Thank you for the definitions. I would like to view this from a utilitarian point of view, at first at least. People will be unhappy at first, as the alcohol will be gone but they will start to see improvements in time.

1. Less crime. Things will be more calm

2. People can socialise in other ways, sports, cinema...endless possibilities

3. I dont want to socialise with someone for eho they are when they drink alcohol, I want to socialise with themfor who they really are

Thanks :)
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick response. I will address his three points and move into a counter argument. It should be noted that my opponent stated that people will be unhappy at first, but improvements will be seen over time.

1) Less crime. Things will be more calm.

This is a curious claim to make. I have a feeling that my opponent may be leading somewhere, but I will address as normal and not try to predict (i.e. setup strawmen) where he is going. Of course, I will first point out the USA's first attempt at prohibition, which began in 1920. Now, according to my opponent's logic, we should see a sharpe spike of increased crime right as alcohol is made illegal, followed by the crime slowly dropping each year as people accepted the law.

However, what we see is something entirely different. From the date Prohibition takes effect, the murder rate in US cities continually grows year after year [1]. And once prohibition is removed in 1933, we see the murder rate start plummeting back down. This shows that when people disagree with a law (in large numbers) they don't just get mad for awhile, they get mad and stay mad and get madder. From a utilitarian point of view, this would need to be factored in, that if alcohol is banned, murder rates will increase for a long time and remain high for a long time.

2) People can socialise in other ways, sports, cinema...endless possibilities

People can socialise in ways other than going to the movies. Does that mean that movies can be banned? Simply because there are alternatives, does not mean that the original option is any more or less moral.

3) I dont want to socialise with someone for eho they are when they drink alcohol, I want to socialise with themfor who they really are.

This is a personal opinion and so has no bearing on what a national policy should be.

Now that refutations are done with, I shall move on to counter arguments.

A) Banning alcohol will not stop consumption

Prohibition taught us an interesting lesson. While it is true that during prohibition, alcohol consumption greatly dropped (and so, prohibition could be viewed as a success), it did not stop consumption and it increased crime. This is likely because those that continued to drink were the individuals that were willing to comit crimes for their booze. As such, the only people that were taken of their booze were those that were law abiding, and likely were law abiding, good natured people before hand. All it really did was take the people that could drink and be responsible and took away the drink. For those that could not, they continued to drink.

This is evident by the increased crime over that time frame [1].

B) Banning alcohol will hurt the economy.

Alcohol sales generate over $5.7 billion a year in taxes for the federal government [2], and that is not including the income tax on employees that work in the alcohol industry, nor the income tax of the alcohol companies. In 2005, the global alcohol industry was estimated to be over $150 billion [3]. In the US, 1.78 million jobs are tied to our beer industry alone (that doesn't count our hard liquor or wines), which results in over $54 billion in wages to those employees [3]. Banning alcohol would remove most of that (all of the tax revenue and most of the jobs).

C) Moderate drinking is healthy

There have been many studies that show that frequent, moderate drinking, is actually healthier than abstaining from alcohol altogether [4][5][6].

D) Regulations are superior to an outright ban

From what is shown, we can see that the problem is not with alcohol itself, but with particular individuals that drink it. Namely those that are not responsible drinkers. As such, regulations which allow for responsible drinking, while not allowing or punishing irresponsible drinking (binge drinking, drunk driving, etc) would be a better option. It tells people that they can still drink so long as they do it responsibly, and so that will create an incentive for individuals to be more responsible.

Since that yeilds the most good for society, that is the ideal utilitarian method. If we go from a libertarian rights method, the argument is simply that since I am the sole owner of my body, only I have a say on what can be put into my body (alcohol, in this case) and the government has no moral authority, nor right, to prevent me from doing so.

[1] http://library.thinkquest.org...
[2] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
[3] http://www.icap.org...
[4] http://jama.ama-assn.org...
[5] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[6] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Debate Round No. 2
PeterGray

Pro

PeterGray forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

Well, my opponent has forfeited his last round. I hope that all is well with my opponent and wish him luck in future debates. I will extend my arguments and pass this through to the voting.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kinesis 2 years ago
Kinesis
"1. Less crime. Things will be more calm"

I LOL'd.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
PeterGrayOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited and never gave an argument
Vote Placed by kkjnay 2 years ago
kkjnay
PeterGrayOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have liked to see more diverse arguments from Con. It wasn't necessary though, since Pro didn't really participate in this debate. Clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
PeterGrayOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes unsourced assumptions which were easily negated by Con who proved him wrong on all points. Newbie sniping FTW!