The Instigator
wolf24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Alcohol should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 61830
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

wolf24

Pro

I am taking the stance that Alcohol should be illegal. There have been so many lives lost due to alcohol related accidents, broken families, and health issues.
MonetaryOffset

Con

I accept.

=Framework=

Pro is advocating for a change in the status quo, and therefore he has the sole burden of proof, and must demonstrate why we should make alcohol illegal. If he fails to prove his plan beyond a reasonable doubt, you vote to negate.

=Rebuttals=

Pro aruges that, because there have been many lives lost due to alcohol-related accidents, this culminates in a case for illegalizing alcohol. However, many lives have also been lost by virtue of accidents pertaining to cars, guns and knives. The commonality is not with inanimate objects, but with the individuals using them. Alcohol itself cannot kill anyone; rather, people, be it by virtue of their ignorance or negligence, engage in reckless, potentially life-threatening behavior. But the problem is, the case is fundamentally inconsistent: people will always find ways to negligently deal harm to themselves and others, so Pro would need to take a much broader stance for this to carry any weight. Moreover, simply banning any substance does not remove access to that substance -- it merely changes the venue and safety thereof. Black market sales will continue, and will result in higher costs, less safety, and ultimately more death because government isn't able to legally intervene and regulate it.


Pro doesn't offer any additional constructives or list any sources at all -- note that his BOP requires that he do so -- so I'll now outline my own case.


=Neg Case=


I. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein


As I think Pro has passed over, prohibition of alcohol was already tried in the early 20th century, and it was a complete disaster [1]. There was a significant demand for alcohol, and gangsters, e.g., Al Capone, capitalized on this via the creation of speakeasies. Organized crime shot through the roof [2]. Not only does the history demonstrate that prohibiton of alcohol was a complete and utter disaster, but it demonstrates what we have already learned: prohibiting alcohol will not quell demand, so a natural consequences will be black markets. If Pro is concerned about alcohol-related incidents even when the government is capable of regulating alcohol, surely he must concede that it would be far worse without any regulation.

II. Self-Ownership Principle

Via Murray Rothbard:

"The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation" [3].


This principle, which asserts a natural right to dominion over our own bodies, is important for several reasons. First, if we rightfully own ourselves, meaning that we are free from the coercion which would result from someone else owning or exercising constraint on us, we have the liberty to choose what goes into our bodies. Second, it treats people as fundamentally, intrinsicly valuable individuals capable of deciding for themselves whether it is best to engage in potentially harmful activites, such as smoking or drinking. Therefore, the government has no business in prohibiting substances in spite of whether or not it deems them to be dangerous.



III. Victimless crime

Prohibiting alcohol would require placing people in jail for substance ingestion, in spite of the fact that doing so does not impose a harm on anyone else sans the person opting to drink. Via the self-ownership principle I delineated earlier, choosing to drink is perfectly permissible. Moreover, the costs of incarcerating people, most of whom will be using alcohol which happen to be highly addictive and thus in need of medical assistance [4], will far outweigh any of the benefits Pro outlines, especially in light of the resulting black market.



IV. Economic Impacts


Prohibiting alcohol would deal a signficant economic blow, not only by killing jobs and displacing workers which would necessarily lead to a self-reinforcing decline in aggregate demand, but would also deal a significant blow to tax revenue. This would necessarily result in less tax revenue to the government and more outlays on automatic stabilizers for people unemployed, directly or indirectly, as a consequence of this policy.

"The U.S. beverage alcohol industry is a major contributor to the economy, responsible for over $400 billion in total U.S. economic activity in 2010, generating nearly $90 billion in wages and over 3.9 million jobs for U.S. workers.In 2010, distilled spirits accounted for over $120 billion in total economic activity, or 30% of total economic activity from all beverage alcohol. The beverage alcohol industry contributed over $21 billion directly to state and local revenues during 2010. Of that amount, distilled spirits accounted for over $8.8 billion or 41% of this direct revenue.In 2010, beverage alcohol's total contribution to state and local revenues was over $41 billion. Of that amount, $20.1 billion came from indirect revenues such as corporate, personal income, property and other taxes generated by the beverage alcohol industry. Total revenues from distilled spirits (direct and indirect) were $15.5 billion in 2010, or 37% of total beverage alcohol revenue" [5].




=Sources=

[1] - http://history1900s.about.com...;
[2] - http://www.umich.edu...
[3] - http://utahliberty.org...
[4] - http://www.webmd.com...
[5] - http://www.discus.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
wolf24

Pro

wolf24 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
wolf24

Pro

wolf24 forfeited this round.
MonetaryOffset

Con

Extend. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Lol, <3.

Space, did you freestyle those (out of curiosity)?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
*Plays super cool rap-beat with music in the background

One debater, the one I didn't choose, didn't do absolutely anythin'
He got slayed by such laser, like a poor moose--he obviously tried everythin'
The winner is such obvious here, easily spotted as a donkey's rear
It's like the loser drank a gallon of beer, he's got a twisted unrealistic sneer

These people don't know how to respect or even wisely manage 'er time
It's always conduct point lost, the winner may taste victory but I taste lemon lime
This is happenin' so often it should be treated by the mod's as a grave crime
The commit-tors should be "rewarded" like in Brain Sludge--painted with slime

You may think your "arguments" are 100-percent unbeatable
Your "impressive hand of cards" an' "grand poker-face" unreadable
In reality you have such shame, even your friends think this incident unspeakable
Your tragic-horror story's so sad an' yet already set, it's un-completable

You forfeit-er, so darn blind, you wander around with a blank mind,
You can't do anything at all, an invisible mountain did you climb
If you had eyes they'd be completely raked--by you, my "great mate"
Your cookie dough of arguments is unbaked, judges gonna give you bad ranks

Please don't go and ask me for any advice, I can't be bo'ered with such li'l lice
I'd rather go eat a bowl of poisonous rice; you forfeiter can't be even be saved by Jesus Christ
You really don't fit the description "intelligent mind", compared to it you're really like a tiny mice
You may think your short rounds are "concise", oh sure they are, and you're just being nice

I shake my head at such incompetence, I really want to print this debate out and crumble it
Don't take any more debates from now on hence, you'll just be killed again, smashed like a poor kid
Your forfeitin' is such terrible I feel like vomitin', stompin' my feet on your rude red word carpet
So just don't do it--it belongs in the Town of Wrongitin, I'll just sell your
Posted by RomanCatholic 2 years ago
RomanCatholic
Con comes up huge in part 1, pro is going to need a big comeback
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
Whooh! Yeah! Prohibition 2.0! Now we're talking. This would be awesome but sadly it would never get passed. Too many people are drinkers or think that they shouldn't tell people what they can/can't do.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wolf24MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: ff. Extra in comments
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
wolf24MonetaryOffsetTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
QTAY21
wolf24MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has listed only a few reasons for his point, while con gave plenty. Because of a lack of arguments and forfeiting, the vote goes to con.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
wolf24MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Unrefuted arguments & forfeiture