The Instigator
flamingbutter05
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Craighawley215
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Drinking beer should not be allowed in public places

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Craighawley215
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 60171
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

flamingbutter05

Pro

Round 1 is accpetance

Hmm lets hear what you think
Craighawley215

Con

Greetings!

I accept the challenge and wish my opponent good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
flamingbutter05

Pro

Peopel should not drink because if there drunk the people around them wont like them also it can lead to sleep driving which causes big accidents also if the people arojnd dont like it everyone will hate that person leading to that personsndespair and hate 4o other people. Also when some people get drunk they hit and rape people so yeah.
Craighawley215

Con

As my opponent suggests, drinking in public can potentially lead to many different problems, especially when individuals are allowed to overindulge. However, if a person does not over-drink, and can handle themselves in a responsible manner, then there is no reason why drinking need be prohibited. For that matter, Pro's concerns seem to be more exclusively based on the topic of over-drinking, and less based on the issue of drinking in public.

The main issues that surround the concept of public drinking are those involving children. Specifically, drinking in public increases the chances of illegal drinking by persons under the age of 21. This is one reason why there are drinking restrictions in some locations, but the reason why this is not universal is that public areas are, generally speaking, publicly owned, meaning that the public has the right to drink, if they so choose.

One example is the beach. People have the right to drink on the beach, and the prevention of underage drinking becomes the responsibility of both the adults providing alcohol. The police will occasionally get involved if there is disturbing of the peace, and they will also penalize the providers and underage drinkers if they discover any illegal activity.

At the end of the day, underage exposure to drinking is a calculated risk, shared by the public as a whole. Enforcement is an appropriate legal response. Pro's biggest concern is with overindulging and the potential dangers of alcohol, and these dangers are equally present no matter where the individual chooses to drink.

I look forward to rebuttal and conclusion!
Debate Round No. 2
flamingbutter05

Pro

flamingbutter05 forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Con

Craighawley215 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
love cons fallacies, biggest one - Nirvana fallacy
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
noob sniped!
Posted by flamingbutter05 2 years ago
flamingbutter05
Beaches, public transporation etc
Posted by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
Define Public Places. Are you referring to the beach, parks, or movie theaters, or are you referring to bars and other social events?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
flamingbutter05Craighawley215Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources, so no source point. Otherwise, Pro was terrible in his argumentation, even if spelled correctly and lacking internet lingo, and chose not to follow up or write a formal forfeit. All non-source points to Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
flamingbutter05Craighawley215Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Pro forfeited first--at that point, in the final round, Con's forfeit was understandable. S&G for what should be obvious reasons. Arguments because Pro's case wasn't particularly strong, Con presented a coherent case, and Pro chose not to rebut it whatsoever. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
flamingbutter05Craighawley215Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con didn't really put up much of an argument other than the first paragraph. However, that was enough to destroy Pro's argument.