The Instigator
Bob_Gneu
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Legalizing something effectively promotes it

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,428 times Debate No: 15571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

Bob_Gneu

Con

In class this evening I was asked why legalizing prostitution and or marijuana would be a good idea, explained my position and from across the room a group of people threw their opinions in the air, saying that they believe that legalizing them is promoting them, and I don't see the tie.

A parallel argument can be applied to the alcohol industry, where we had prohibition and times before and after to compare.

Before prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store or from a friend who would make moonshine.
During prohibition the problem was simply finding a corner store that would sell you the alcohol they had, and hopefully the moonshine wouldn't make you blind.
After prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store, taxed and regulated, or from a friend who would make moonshine.

Criminalizing the distribution and manufacturing of alcohol didn't stop people from getting it, it drove those people into the back rooms and basements to get it without being seen. It drove the crime syndicate nuts and there were a number of people who saw bad things occur afterwards. But in no way does the legalization of alcohol mean the government, or the authors of the changed legislation, promoted the consumption or manufacture of alcohol.

For the purposes of these discussions, Promote means one of the following:

1.Further the progress of; support or actively encourage.
2.Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness.
3.Advance or raise to a higher position or rank
BlackVoid

Pro

Thanks to Bob_Gneu for starting this debate. Legalization of various things is a hot topic on this site, but I hope to put some perspective on things.

While what is being legalized was not specified, I assume that we will not talk about the legalization of serious crimes such as murder.

I will use definition 2 of promote that my opponent offered; "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Therefore, I have to prove that legalizing something increases publicity, sales, or awareness to affirm.


1. Legalizing leads to publicity

Companies sell products and services to the public for money. They are limited by 2 things: What the people will buy, and what they can legally market.

So, as long as an action is illegal, companies cannot legally market it and display it to the general populace.

However, if they sell a legal product, there a few ways to increase its marketing. The main way, is through advertisements. Advertisements are run all the time during out favorite shows, meaning that we constantly are seeing the newest thing.

Now lets look at prostitution, since my opponent brought it up. Prostitution is something many people enjoy and pay for. But it is unmarketable by companies since it is illegal.
But by legalizing something such as prostitution, it will be marketed. There will be several people or corporations looking to collect women and offer them for sale.

"However, thats the status quo, right? Women are already collected and offered for sale, just illegally". Thats absolutely true. But there is one thing the black market will never have access to, and thats advertisements. Just as we dont see crack being offered on your average CNN commercial, we dont see prostitutes being offered either.

However, under a legalization system, it will be perfectly OK to advertise it. You will see women being publicized all the time on your nightly news station. Similar things would happen with marijuana. Somebody will find the newly legalized good as a huge business opportunity, market it, sell it on a massive scale, and then advertise the crap out of it. Imagine a world where meth is advertised in commercials, albeit in a subtle way (like Viagra), or where you see ads for AK-47's in the newspaper.

Advertisements are what promotes the object. Remember, we agree to define promote as "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Advertisements give publicity and increase awareness, as we see thr product advertised more often.

But this is only possible if the product is legal. If it is not, it cannot be legally marketed, and therefore not advertised in public media. If it is legal however, then it is promoted through anybody seeking to make a business opportunity out of it.

Whether promoting the once-illegal product is a good or bad thing is another discussion. However, I hope that I have shown my opponent how legalization of something does lead to its promototion.

Debate Round No. 1
Bob_Gneu

Con

It is plausible that legalization opens the door to promotion, the position being argued for is that legalization is what “promotes”. While my opponent made a great attempt, his examples indicate no causal connection between the two.

Just because a good or service is illegal does not mean that it cannot be advertised, marketed or promoted. Examples include prostitution and marijuana, which are promoted in many forms through today’s media. In California, Marijuana is illegal, but there are advertisements for the cannabis card membership in newspapers and magazines. We have magazines like High Times which popularize marijuana growth, culture and gives cultivation tips on how to grow without police interruption. Prostitution is likewise illegal in California, but being an “escort” is not. Telephone sex lines are another prime example of allowing people to skirt the issue. There are a number of websites that connect consenting adults together for sex that lead to the exchange of money, and even boasting hints and tips for the johns. See http://sex.perkel.com....

At some point she will ask you if you want to "get comfortable." This means "are you ready to have sex?" Your job now is to lead her to the bedroom and get naked. To protect herself legally, she will wait until the client is naked before she undresses. I suppose the legal idea here is that you've paid for a massage, but when she sees your irresistible naked body, she can no longer control herself and has to **** you.

As seen by these examples, illegality does not deter promotion.

More importantly, my opponent has failed to show that legalization is a catalyst to “promotion”. Rather, he stated that “advertisements are what promotes the object”; meaning there is a middle man between the law and the alleged promotion. To show a causal link between the two, one would need to show that legalization is a necessary component to the increased publicity, sales or public awareness of the illegal goods/services. If promotion does not require legalization, the argument breaks down. Legalization “allows” an activity; it does not necessarily promote it.

Here is another example of a court case which has legalized without promotion:

1967 – Loving v. Virginia – The Supreme Court legalized interracial marriages. There are no statistics showing a causal link between the legalization of interracial marriage and the increase thereof.

While my opponent is correct that advertisements and marketing are easier post legalization, his position fails the definition of “promote” because he has not shown a causal link that the law, in itself, is the catalyst that increases sales and/or public awareness to a particular issue.
BlackVoid

Pro

1. Illegality vs Advertising


Con: California has illegal marijuana, they still advertise it

California has legalized medical marijuana (1), so they can have ads. As such, your argument is actually supporting my side because you show how legal medical marijuana has lead to advertisements, which promotes use.

Con: High Times magazine popularizes marijuana

This is non-responsive to my argument, which is about advertisement of the good being sold, not mentioned in tabloids.

Con: Escort services bypass law and still promote

Even if prostitution can be promoted illegally, it doesnt mean legalizing doesn't do the same. As such, this is also non-repsonsive because it doesn't answer how legalizing can promote awareness. Secondly, even if it is promoted iillegally, legalization would give prostitution much greater access to the public than just these sites, namely with TV commercials. Under a legalization system, not only would prostitution be on the sites you give, it would also appear in newspaper ads and the ads section on Yahoo. Thats promoting the action by raising awareness.


2. Legality and promotion


Con: Legalization allows the activity, it does not promote it

Legalization does allow the activity, but it also causes it to be promoted through the links to marketing and advertisement I have given.

Con: Legalizing -> Promotion must be a direct link

Not necessarilly. For example, pressing "D" on my computer does not "directly" lead to the letter showing up on the screen. Technically, pressing D leads to a series of electric signals in the mainframe, which lead to the letter showing up. But it would be foolish to say that pressing the "D" key does not cause it to show up on the screen. In the same respect, if legalization leads to something that leads to promotion, the link is still strong enough to attribute it to promotion.

Con: Legalization must be necessary for increased promotion

I have proved that it is. My opponent has never denied that companies can't advertise illegal activities on the TV or newspaper. This is a huge point in the round. At that point I prove that legality is necessary for this type of promotion.

3. Conclusion

Con: Interracial marriage rates maintained after legalization

Invalidate this because 1. There is no source showing us this, and 2. This would be hard to measure anyway considering that interracial marriages were illegal, and thus would be harder to track.




At the end, my opponent concedes that advertisements and marketing are easier after legalization. I should win the debate right here for two reasons. 1. He has not denied that advertisements promote the action, so promotion increases after legalizing. He concedes to this. 2. Legalization leads to advertisements being inevitable, therefore I prove a correlation between legality and promotion.

I urge a pro vote.



1. http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Bob_Gneu

Con

Re: Legalization promotes by means of allowing advertisements

This is in no way the same as my initial argument. The question is not “Does legalization lead to promotion” or “Can legislation allow for more promotion,” rather it is “Does legalization promote,” asking for a corollary link between the two. Examples have been given of goods and services that are promoted in spite of their illegality, as well as legal activities which are not promoted – Prostitution, Marijuana use and Interracial Marriage respectively.

My opponent has argued that it is hard to measure and track interracial marriage statistics, however the purpose here is simply to show that there is no causal link between publicity and legalization. Since the goal of increasing sales is silly in this context, taking the social climate into mind it is just as silly to envision any sort of publicity for interracial relationships during or after those times. The point of this debate is not to show increases; only that publicity was made with the purpose of increasing public awareness, which has not been shown.

Since the validity of the prior legalization is not being accepted by my opponent, hopefully a second more prominent one will – Roe V. Wade (1). The ruling was that anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional. In no way did this ruling publicize abortions for the purpose of increasing sales or public awareness; it was simply saying that it is a matter of personal fundamental right of choice, and no law could be passed to countermand them.

No matter how you spin it, Correlation does not equal Causation. You can surely show that there is a relationship between advertisement and legalization, but you have not shown a link that connects legalization to the publicity, let alone showing that the act of legalization gives publicity and has the goal of increasing sales or public awareness. Just because two things happen in proximity does not mean that they are related, nor does it mean one caused the other.

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

BlackVoid

Pro

First I'll go over the arguments he made, then go over the ones he didn't respond to.

Con: Pro has to prove legalization promotes, with a corollary link

I answered this argument in round 2 and he drops the response. Please extend my "D" key argument, which shows how the link does not have to be direct. This was not responded to, so count it as true. Therefore, I do uphold the burden to show that legalization promotes the object.

Con: Goods can be promoted despite illegality

I answered all four of his examples of this, and he drops my responses to three of them. He only responded to the interracial marriage example, saying that the purpose is only to show that there isn't a link between its legalization and its promotion. However I showed how this example does not prove his point because tracking an illegal activity like that is difficult, so he cant draw any conclusions from this. Secondly, he still hasn't given a source for this statistic.

Con: The point of his debate is to show publicity, not increases in use

When he first argued about the legalization of interracial marriage, he argued that its rate of occurrence didn't increase. So he has been arguing about occurrence increases; don't let him change his advocacy in the very last round.

Con: Legalizing abortion didn't promote it

With abortion legal you can see it publicized in ads, unlike before (1). He agrees that advertisements promote the action, so I prove that legalization has promoted it.

Con: Correlation =/= causation, need link

I gave the link showing how legalization leads to publicity. Business men find the newly legal product as a business opportunity, market it, and advertise/promote it. Its surprisingly simple.


Now lets go over what wasn't responded to.


Obviously, my "D" key argument is, well, key. Its lack of response to means that I don't have to prove that legalization directly leads to promotion. If I prove that legalization leads to advertisement which leads to promotion, I win the round.

He gave examples of promotion still happening in the California, High Times Magazine, and Prostitution examples. After responding to all of these, he drops all of them.

Perhaps most important are my arguments made in the Conclusion section of my last round. In it, I gave two reasons showing why I win automatically. Neither of them were responded to. So at the point where my arguments about why I win were dropped, I don't see any incentive to vote con.

I'll repeat those conceded arguments to remind us of why I urge a pro vote.

1. I argue that advertisements cause promotion, and he directly agreed to this in the second round.

2. Advertisements are only possible because of legalization. Therefore, legalization is a direct catalyst to promotion. Please count these conceded arguments as true.

For all of these reasons, I urge a con vote.

Thanks to my opponent for the good debate, and finishing.







1. http://tinypic.com...


Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheFreeThinker 6 years ago
TheFreeThinker
Has anybody ever seen a cigarette commercial on TV?
Nope. BEcause they are illegal, even though cigarettes themselves are legal.
Legalizing something does not automatically allow for it to be advertised.
On the other hand though, we get to hear a lot from marjuana for example, basically because its illegal status causes thousands of arrests, deaths, and millions of dollars wasted in the war on drugs.

Not too sure Bob is wrong on this one...
If you had worded the debate "Legalizing something doesn't necessarily promote it" I'd have voted for you.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
"The "D" key argument is not the same, because pressing the D key does not allow the D letter to show up in anyones word processor, it is a trigger that causes the output"

This should have been said in the debate, not comments. But anyway, legalization is the trigger causing promotion. Shown throughout round. While your parent example is interesting, its not applicable because the daughter will not always go out late if given the opportunity. If something is made legal, it *will* be publicized almost 100% of the time, whether it be through marketing, or being shown in the daily news.

Example: Crack just got legalized. It is publicized in 2 ways. 1. CNN will report the crap out of it. 2. Walgreens will stock up on crack, sell it, then advertise. This was only possible because crack was made legal.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Bob, Legalizing something effectively promotes it by allowing publicity that increases sales or public awareness. Legalization has that effect; it is a consequence rather than doing it directly. I simply don't buy the argument that advertising has no effect on sales of a product. Examples were given, but it is also apparent from everyone's experience. Saying it doesn't is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary proof. The advertising would only have to increase awareness to "promote" -- even if it didn't sell.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 6 years ago
Bob_Gneu
@DuckieJen23
Yes, you are interpreting that correctly.

@RoyLatham
I supplied the chosen definition which narrows the focus to include intent. "publicity so as to increase sales or public awareness." The "so as to" portion of this definition is key to the definition, and was never shown. In fact, the problem is more that no causal link was shown. The "D" key argument is not the same, because pressing the D key does not allow the D letter to show up in anyones word processor, it is a trigger that causes the output. To argue that allowing something causes it is not only a horrible place to argue from it is untrue. a child's mother allows her to go out with friends at night, she does not cause her to, and that was the entire point of this discussion - find a causal link. Not only is "leads to" not causal, but it was never shown that the "leads to" relationship was necessarily.

@DarkVoid
Well i will chalk this up to initiation i suppose. I would have had a different argument structure were i to know that you would accept things as fact if they were not acknowledged and refuted. I think that there is something to what you say about a lack of response being support, but it is not entirely the case here. I hope that if our paths cross again ill have enough room to respond to all of your arguments, in spite of the Gish type shotgun argument style.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The resolution is "Legalizing something effectively promotes it." One effect of legalization that promotes it is that advertising is allowed. Con could have narrowed the resolution to avoid that argument, or he could have tried to narrow the definition, but he didn't. Pro successfully argued that advertising works, no surprise.

As an aside, Pro could also have used definition 3, "raise the status" but didn't. I read that consumption of alcohol dropped by two-thirds during prohibition. Legalization "raises the status" by not prohibiting it.
Posted by duckiejen23 6 years ago
duckiejen23
I disagree. I feel that his response in round two stated just this point: "...legalization is a catalyst to "promotion". .."To show a causal link between the two, one would need to show that legalization is a necessary component to the increased publicity, sales or public awareness of the illegal goods/services." However, it is entirely plausible that I understood him differently than he intended. Bob_gneu, would you please clarify if I understood this passage correctly?
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
OK, now I understand your point more clearly. I must point out however, that the D argument also showed how promotion can be directly attbuted to legalization despite having two links, just as pressing "D" does. Of course the more important thing is that this argument was never responded to, so I dont understand how you can vote con on that.
Posted by duckiejen23 6 years ago
duckiejen23
BlackVoid, while you made a good attempt, I still feel you missed the call of the question. Implicit in the definition of "promote" that you agreed to was the intention of the government/legal body to increase awareness. "Give publicity to so as to increase.. public awareness" Instead, you focused on middle-men having the "ability" to advertise rather than the legalization being a necessary catalyst to promotion. Your "D" comment implies that you understood the definition to mean that any number of events sufficed as "leading" to promotion. Unfortunately, that was not a component of the original definition that you agreed to. Due to that fact, my vote will have go with Con. Better luck next time :)
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I'm not a fan of continuing debates in comments, but I guess I have to.

"I showed that advertisements exist without legality"

I refuted your examples of that. For instance, you said California advertises marijuana despite it being illegal. But I explained that medical marijuana in CA actually *is* legal.

I showed how legalization is a catalyst because it encourages the act to be marketed, leading to promotion. And even if increasing awareness is not the purpose of legalization, we are merely debating whether legalization actually does increase it, not whether that is the purpose.

Dropping means they weren't responded to. Typically on this site, its an unwritten rule that if something isnt responded to, its accepted as true.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 6 years ago
Bob_Gneu
1. I argue that advertisements cause promotion, and he directly agreed to this in the second round.
2. Advertisements are only possible because of legalization. Therefore, legalization is a direct catalyst to promotion. Please count these conceded arguments as true.

I showed that advertisements exist without legality, so your second point does not hold. Nor have you shown that legalization is a catalyst to any promotion, let alone promotion with the purpose of increasing sales or public awareness.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
Bob_GneuBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Wait roy beat me to it nvm
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Bob_GneuBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments. I changed my vote from just arguments to all categories solely to counter vote bombing for Con.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Bob_GneuBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Mainly a semantic argument over effectively, not potentially but actual promotion. 2/3 to Con.
Vote Placed by duckiejen23 6 years ago
duckiejen23
Bob_GneuBlackVoidTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: see my comments
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Bob_GneuBlackVoidTied
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 had a much better argument.