The Instigator
seaapple
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
xxXChelseaXxx
Con (against)
Tied
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,324 times Debate No: 33420
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

seaapple

Pro

I, as the affirmative, proprosed that alcohol should be banned. Before I begin, let me define the meaning of alcohol. According to Health Check Systems. com, alcohol or ethyl alcohol (ethanol), refers to the intoxicating ingredient found in wine, beer and hard liquor. May I begin with my first point. The consumption of alcohol damages health. Based on U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, for the short-term effects, alcohol causes difficulty of walking, blurred vision, slurred speech, slow reaction times and impaired memory. While the long-term effects are diseases such as liver diseases, heart attack and stroke. The most dangerous effect of alcohol is death. Therefore, I strongly support that alcohol should be banned. I'll present my second point in the second round.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

I thank Seaapple for the creation of this debate and wish her luck in her first debate on DDO.

Yes, alcohol is harmful, and quite frankly toxic, but these are not sufficient reasons to enforce a ban. I will briefly outline some reasons to keep alcohol legal and I will expand upon them in future rounds if need be.



The right to self-autonomy

This is my main issue with an alcohol ban. Basically, if what you are doing does not harm or have an excessive negative impact on society or individuals, you should have the right to do that. In all honesty, getting drunk only harms the individual. Sure, the individual might act harmfully with the help of his or her intoxication, but the laws are not lax in regards to alcohol and the person will be charged accordingly. To put this in perspective, should it be illegal for people not to eat regularly?- in other words, should it be illegal for people to not be at their energetic peak? Whilst not at their energetic peak, people can become lazy and make bad decisions.


Non-negotiably, people should have information readily available about the dangers of alcohol (perhaps even have to prove that they are informed). If people know the dangers of alcohol consumption and persist in consuming the substance, then that is their choice and they will be held accountable all the same.

Not all dangerous things are banned

Sport can be very dangerous -- a great majority of injuries come from sport, and even death is sometimes a part. Why then do we have sport? Sport, whilst somewhat dangerous in some disciplines, can bring great entertainment and pleasure to many, many people. Again, anyone who participates in sport would almost invariably know the risk of playing. Similarly, alcohol can bring an entertainment and or pleasure value to the table (occasionally via a waiter or waitress).


Historically, alcohol bans have failed

The alcohol ban that begun in 1920 was repealed due to its unpopularity in 1933. I'm not sure what kind of Democracy would have legislation that does not favour the (clear) majority's opinion[1]. Besides, "prior to 1920, and the institution of the Volstead Act, approximately fourteen percent of federal, state and local tax revenue was derived from alcohol commerce." [2] Also, “the restart of beer production allowed thousands of workers to find jobs again"[3]. As you can see, there is also an economic burden in this sense.

[1] Peck, Garrett (2011). Prohibition in Washington, D.C.: How Dry We Weren't. Charleston, SC: The History Press. pp. 12­­­5–133.
[2]Davis, Marni, "Jews And Booze: Becoming American In The Age Of Prohibition," New York University Press, 2012, p. 191
[3] New York Times, 50,000 barrels ready in St Louis, March 23rd 1933


Debate Round No. 1
seaapple

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. Before I lay out my second point, I want to rebut all the points that you had stated earlier.

THE RIGHT SELF-ANATOMY
Your explanation about this point is totally misleading. How can you say that getting drunk only harms the individual himself? I'm sure that you weren't thinking out of the box when you wrote about this point. It's quite surprise that you never heard any news about women being rapped by drunk men, children being abused by their drunk parents and so much more. According to Alcoholic.Victorious.org, drunk people was involved in at least 34% of cases of all murders. Therefore, what you said just now is totally untrue. You also said something about 'should it be illegal for people not to eat regularly/should it be illegal for people not to be at their energetic peak'. I don't think that the motion that we are debating for now has anything to do with eating regularly or energetic peak. But if you still insist that they have something to do with the motion, I'll say that you can have your energetic peak by doing something other than drinking alcohol. You also said "If people know the dangers of alcohol consumption and persist in consuming the substance, then that is their choice and they will be held accountable all the same." While banning alcohol is the wisest choice, why do you want to wait the dangers of alcohol happened and made the responsible persont held in prison? You just make everything complicated!

NOT ALL DANGEROUS THINGS ARE BANNED
The example that you gave - sport, is totally laughable. I admit that sport sometimes can bring injuries and death. But it does not making people drunk and lost their minds like alcohol! You should know the difference between sport and alcohol.

HISTORICALLY, ALCOHOL BANS HAVE FAILED
I know that if alcohol is banned, people who worked with alcohol company would lose their job. But we are in modern world now! A lot of better jobs are available, so why still want to stick with alcohol? On the other hand, even when the authorities declined the alcohol bans, we can try it all over again until they accept it. We shouldn't lose hope for something that will make our society safe!!

Now that I have finished my rebuttal, I want to present my second point.

A NUMBER OF BABIES BORN ANNUALLY WITH PROBLEMS RELATED TO ALCOHOL
For your information, 2.9% of 1000 live births have fetal alcohol syndrome. Which means that the babies are 'damaged' but still alive. This situation can make their future shattered to pieces! Do you want our next generation that will somehow rule the world have alcohol syndrome?! I leave this question for you to answer.

Now that I have finished rebutting and presenting my point, I'm looking forward to get a response from you.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

THE RIGHT TO SELF-AUTONOMY

"Your explanation about this point is totally misleading. How can you say that getting drunk only harms the individual himself?" - This is a straw-man argument. This is what I said: "Basically, if what you are doing does not harm or have an excessive negative impact on society or individuals, you should have the right to do that." Note that the underlined part refers to people other than individuals, essentially proving that your argument is a straw-man.

In regards to my comment: "In all honesty, getting drunk only harms the individual", I mean it in the sense that ultimately, it is the individual that is harming themselves (polluting his or her body with toxins). Someone getting drunk does not directly cause other people harm. Your counter-argument basically assumes that because someone is drunk, he or she will cause violence. Yes, alcohol may be a factor in crimes, but it is NEVER the sole reason and does not directly correlate. I apologise for the (huge) vagueness in my statement, but hopefully this explanation should make things clear.


"It's quite surprise that you never heard any news about women being rapped by drunk men, children being abused by their drunk parents and so much more." - Your argument holds the small-sample size fallacy -- a few instances of drunken rape/ drunken alcohol abuse do not call for a total ban. Please at least demonstrate that there is a sizeable minority in cases where this is apparent. Besides, "they [the criminals] will be held accountable all the same."

"According to Alcoholic.Victorious.org, drunk people was involved in at least 34% of cases of all murders." Yeah and 66% of murders involved non-drunk people; does that mean everyone should be drinking? Goodness no. Simply because alcohol is a factor does not mean it was the only cause. You need to understand that there can be other factors involved in crimes EVEN WHEN alcohol is involved.

Similarly, a car can be a weapon if driven irresponsibly. You can cause great harm and even death by driving recklessly. Alcohol can be taken recklessly too, and a person can become irresponsible both in taking alcohol and controlling themselves while under the influence. While perhaps driving a car is more required than alcohol consumption, the latter is a remarkably efficient way of having a good-time.

…and before you make the argument that ‘driving a car does not change your mind’, yes, this is true. However, only large amounts of alcohol consumption can near eradicate your ability to make decisions. Please understand that an alcohol ban means that you can’t have any alcohol.

"I don't think that the motion that we are debating for now has anything to do with eating regularly or energetic peak." - Then allow me to explain: there is an underlying principle that I was referring to. People are not in an optimal position to make good decisions whilst they are hungry, similarly, people are not in an optimal position to make good decisions whilst under the influence of alcohol. As it would be ridiculous to ban people from being hungry based on not being in an optimal position to make a decision, therefore, it would be ridiculous to ban being from alcohol purely on the basis of not being in the optimal position to make a decision. Of course, excessive consumption of alcohol would leave a person in a far less better position than someone who hasn't eaten for a day, but a simple restriction on the amount of alcohol consumption would be the remedy (as opposed to an outright ban).

"While banning alcohol is the wisest choice, why do you want to wait the dangers of alcohol happened and made the responsible persont held in prison? You just make everything complicated!"- Do you want to ban people from making decisions altogether? Should you ban someone from buying a knife? Should you ban someone from buying a car? These are dangerous things that people have the responsibility of using, much like alcohol. However, there are plenty of instances where drunk people are not causing violence, far more than instances of alcohol violence. Alcohol (in moderation) does not prevent the brain from making decisions altogether; people still have to choose to commit crimes. Again, I could understand a restriction on the amount of alcohol a person can have, but an outright ban is unjustifiable.


NOT ALL DANGEROUS THINGS ARE BANNED

"The example that you gave - sport, is totally laughable. I admit that sport sometimes can bring injuries and death. But it does not making people drunk and lost their minds like alcohol! You should know the difference between sport and alcohol." - This argument is void as it does not address the premise of my argument. Simply because alcohol is dangerous is not a sufficient reason for an outright ban. You seem to suffer from an inability to understand the underlying principles of different things, hence your comment, "you should know the difference between sport and alcohol". Yes, there are differences, but I'm drawing upon the similarities -- are you arguing that these similarities don't exist?

Furthermore, people do not automatically lose their minds should they consume a millilitre of alcohol, even a couple of glasses will not have a significant impact on some people.


HISTORICALLY, ALCOHOL BANS HAVE FAILED


"I know that if alcohol is banned, people who worked with alcohol company would lose their job. But we are in modern world now! A lot of better jobs are available, so why still want to stick with alcohol?" - You've straw-manned my argument (again). It is not just that jobs will be lost (which is relatively minor, therefore easier for you to defend against and probably why you chose to ignore the rest of my argument), it's also that PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE ALCOHOL BANS. Here's a recent example where the Northern Territory and Queensland are angry with suggestions of alcohol restrictions: [1]. Here's another older one in Iceland [2]. Another one in Canada [3]. All were repealed due to unpopularity.

To answer your question, we should stick to alcohol because:
1) Alcohol itself does not cause crime
2) People are still responsible for crimes regardless of whether they are under the influence -- it can be consumed responsibly
3) Taxation revenue from alcohol is large
4) It creates a few jobs in the economy


"On the other hand, even when the authorities declined the alcohol bans, we can try it all over again until they accept it. We shouldn't lose hope for something that will make our society safe!!" -Yes, you have every right to spout your anti-alcohol beliefs -- I have no problem with this.




A NUMBER OF BABIES BORN ANNUALLY WITH PROBLEMS RELATED TO ALCOHOL

"For your information, 2.9% of 1000 live births have fetal alcohol syndrome. Which means that the babies are 'damaged' but still alive. This situation can make their future shattered to pieces! Do you want our next generation that will somehow rule the world have alcohol syndrome?!" - I personally think that procreation is a thoroughly disgusting 'right' that imposes great misery on other people without any consent, but I don't think I have enough characters to argue this (and I don't think it would be very popular either). So, I'll allow your assumption that everyone should be allowed to procreate.

I'm going to also assume that your unreferenced statistic is correct as well. Again, a woman should take responsibility for the child she is bringing into the world. Perhaps the foetus should be aborted and the mother sentenced to gaol if there is found to be alcohol poisoning. Make people responsible for their actions -- alcohol can be a factor, but never the only cause.


[1] http://www.abc.net.au...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Debate Round No. 2
seaapple

Pro

seaapple forfeited this round.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
seaapple

Pro

seaapple forfeited this round.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

That's a pity -- it was shaping up to be a good debate...
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by seaapple 3 years ago
seaapple
Haha. I'll try my best brother. ^^
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
oh little sis.
u have taken 4 debates at a time. how u gonna manage them.
Posted by seaapple 3 years ago
seaapple
Ragnar: What do you mean by that? I just joined this site and this is my first debate.
Posted by seaapple 3 years ago
seaapple
Ragnar: What do you mean by that? I just joined this site and this is my first debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
This should be a good one. I'd take it if you'd had more prior debates.
No votes have been placed for this debate.