Prohibition is a good social policy.
Debate Rounds (4)
agree or disagree and why?
I agree that prohibition is a bad social policy. It prohibits or prevents people from using, accessing, or witnessing something that they want or desire. Similar to a ban, if they do attempt to do it, it is considered illegal and they have to pay the consequences. Most of the time, it is basically a meaner way of saying to not break certain laws that many break without realizing or caring about. But other times, it is just a ban but not as serious but is still the law. And what happens if something is prohibited? People will most likely find ways to do it even though it is against the law simply because the government is denying them of doing it even though it may seem normal to them. Basically, when a prohibition is put into effect, people will do their best to illegally do what the prohibition tells them not to do, because humans are wired to be defiant at times.
Other problems that prohibition causes is the increase of crime. Since it is now considered illegal to do it, more and more people will try to break the law in order to get or do what they are prohibited from doing. They are now considered criminals for doing it. But usually that is not the case unless it is like a ban and prevents people from using or accessing something such as alcohol and drugs. As it becomes "viral", many gangs and other criminal organizations will try to find ways to start illegal businesses to sell such prohibited items to the regular citizen at ridiculous prices. Since it is banned, it is better to pay for it at a high price than not having it at all, and criminal organizations know this. Many criminals will earn bug bucks from them and will most likely result in conflicts with other illegal businesses leading to other crimes.
Finally, the government will also most likely not make as much of a profit as people will be trying to purchase said illegal items. (If the prohibition is preventing laws from being broken and not item bans, then this doesn't apply for it.) Since it is now illegal, the government cannot tax it, and will not make direct profit out of it. Sure, they can tax citizens for it, but what's better for them and the people: higher taxes or taxes for the banned items? Also, stores and businesses cannot sell or manufacture and will not be able to make profit as well. Eventually, it will disrupt the economy, and in rare occasions, it will force the government to lift the ban. (But if the prohibition is banning on something that cannot be made any profit off of, then this will be invalid as well for this debate.)
Before I finish my rebuttal, there are some mistakes that you made throughout your opening introduction. I will be listing them down below so you can pay attention and improve on your next rebuttal:
-It is too short and too vague to be even understood or interpreted by the average person.
-You are con when you should be pro as you agree with the topic.
-Because you are vague, I am not sure if you mean like a ban or as a crime prevention law.
-Social policy is too general; either put as morals and ethics or as law.
johnjohn12 forfeited this round.
For example, when China banned all video game consoles, hand-helds, and video games in 2000 due to them believing in the false stereotypes and myths of gaming, though they may have prevented people from using and buying them, factories were still allowed to manufacture and ship them to other countries, as long as they are not being sold to people living in China. However, because this ban wasn't extremely strict or prohibition, people were still able to buy them off of online stores, gaming stores, and through the black market and pawn shops. The law never attempted to arrest anybody who bought them as they weren't sold in China (except for the gaming stores), and even then, they never cared one bit because they banned it nation-wide. Therefore, prohibition is similar to a ban in terms of not allowing the use of such items, but still unlike it since they could still buy, deliver, and make video games. But since the video game ban has now been lifted in January 2014, this is no longer as relevant than before.
I may have confused many people into believing that I did not know the difference between a ban, prohibition, and by-laws, but I certainly do and will explain the difference between a by-law and prohibition. Like I said before, prohibition can also prohibit people from breaking certain laws, but I said that because the instigator (con) was not that clear with the debate topic, so I falsely assumed it was that as he referred to as a social policy and not prohibitism - so apologies for that. A by-law is a law that only applies to the city, region, county, province, territory, and/or state that it was made in and, just like an actual law, is made to regulate or control people from doing certain things. It is similar to prohibition since it regulates people from using the item, but is not in some ways because it only controls people from committing crimes or breaking the law, and not banning the use, selling, manufacturing, or delivering of such banned item. Also wanted to explain this to make things more clear for the audience as con may have used it in their rebuttals.
I understand that I have contradicted my self several times throughout my other arguments regarding the negative effects of prohibition such as crime, taxes, and illegal businesses:
-Stating that prohibition is preventing people from using said item but then disregard it and now regard it again.
-Apologizing for stating that I may be unclear with the definition but later certain of said definition.
-Making arguments in this rebuttal that contradicts what i have said in my previous rebuttal against your argument.
I sincerely apologize making such mistakes and know that con would have used them to their advantage. Sadly, since con refuses to argue back or simply forfeited the round, I will be explaining them to un-contradict myself and to rebuttal against con in a hypothetical argument (in which con uses contradictions to advantage as stated before).
I know and understand the definition of prohibition very well, and know it is a ban on the item regarding the selling, production, owning, using, and delivery of banned item. I said that if prohibition did not mean ban and rather like a by-law, then those arguments regarding the negative effects are invalid. I later state that they are valid and then even further state that they aren't again. You may think that I clearly have no idea of what prohibition means, but I actually do and apologize for confusing both the audience and the opponent. Because I have already stated the definition multiple times before, I will not continue to re-define prohibition anymore, so please refer back with your memory to know more.
I am sorry but con is extremely vague and only argues whether or not prohibition is a good social policy and does not take a stance. Since con never took a stance, I assumed that I could have chosen which side I wanted. However, since this is a formal debate and the opponent did choose to side with con, I had no choice to side with pro. But because you contradict yourself in which your stance is different than that of your debate focus question, I the opponent was unsure of whether or nor con was for or against. One could assume that con is against prohibition, but both the topic and the focus question is too vague, does not take a stance, and is not specific enough.
Therefore, I am unable to make an effective argument against the instigator as the whole structure of this debate is flawed in itself. Like the old saying goes, without a basic foundation, (put any thing, person, place, or idea here) will have nothing to support itself and fall. In this case, the debate fails to be even a formal and effective debate, thus, the arguments, topic, focus question, and rebuttals are all flawed. If opponent forfeits next round, then so will I as the debate itself is flawed, so there is no point in arguing.
johnjohn12 forfeited this round.
johnjohn12 forfeited this round.
-Too short of an argument that is also too vague
-Does not take a stance or any position; simply remains neutral
-Lacks thesis, arguments, introduction, etc.
-Topic is too general and pro is unclear of what to say
-Policy was not specified as a ban or prevention law
With that said, should you have fixed or prevented these errors, you would have won. But because you have made these errors and forfeited each round after that due to fear of loss of debate, you are going to lose this debate whether you like it or not. You have a 0% chance of winning, while I have a 100% chance of winning, even if I am offending you and pointing out your debating flaws. A least I have provided a thesis, stance, arguments, rebuttals, logic and reasoning, conduct, and good spelling/grammar, while opponent failed to provide any of that. Audiences, please vote for pro and do not vote for con at all, even if it is to make him/her feel better.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, Pro's points were never refuted.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.