The Instigator
johnjohn12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Shrek_sDrecKid
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Prohibition is a good social policy.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Shrek_sDrecKid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 415 times Debate No: 63744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

johnjohn12

Con

Prohibition is a good social policy.

agree or disagree and why?
Shrek_sDrecKid

Pro

You are technically supposed to be pro because you are for this topic and not against it. If you renamed this debate to something you would disagree or go against, then you should be con. But nonetheless, I will begin the debate and determine whether or not prohibition is good or bad. Well, since you think that it is good for society, then I will state why it is a bad social policy.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
johnjohn12

Con

johnjohn12 forfeited this round.
Shrek_sDrecKid

Pro

Well, since you never replied back and forfeited this round, then I will also. Maybe not, because there are some points that I missed that you could have used against me. I just want to make clear that I know that when you are referring to prohibition, you are referring to a ban on something to prevent citizens from reaping the negative effects that the government might think will result in using the items. You are not referring to alcohol prohibition or prohibition that prevents somebody from doing certain actions; rather, just like a ban, the government is preventing citizens from not only using the banned item(s), but also preventing the manufacturing, selling, and shipping of such prohibited items. If you assume that I never understood what it was, now here is a logical explanation to clear things up. Unlike a ban, however; that item cannot be manufactured, sold, or delivered (which I just repeated in the previous sentence). A ban is preventing citizens from using an item, but still allows the manufacturing, selling, and/or delivering of such banned items.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
johnjohn12

Con

johnjohn12 forfeited this round.
Shrek_sDrecKid

Pro

I forfeit this round
Debate Round No. 3
johnjohn12

Con

johnjohn12 forfeited this round.
Shrek_sDrecKid

Pro

Before I forfeit this round, let me explain to you why I should be voted instead of con. I know that johnjohn12 is actually online right now and is just chickening out simply because he/she cannot argue back. Perhaps if you were prepared and knew that your opponent was this intelligent, perhaps you would not have backed out and not debated with me. Like I said before, you have the following errors preventing you from winning this debate even if you made rebuttals:

-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.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ShikenNuggets 2 years ago
ShikenNuggets
This guy posted a few debates at the same time and forfeited every one of them (as far as I'm aware). I'm pretty sure he does not understand that you actually have to participate in a debate.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
I am going to win for sure; vote for me!
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
Shrek_sDrecKid
Pathetic how opponent is too chicken to debate with me
Posted by ShikenNuggets 2 years ago
ShikenNuggets
Just to clarify, if I accepted this I would be arguing why prohibition is not a good social policy, correct?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
johnjohn12Shrek_sDrecKidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, Pro's points were never refuted.