The Instigator
adealornodeal
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
TallIndianKid
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

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 9 votes the winner is...
adealornodeal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,778 times Debate No: 13297
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

adealornodeal

Pro

Contention 1: No legittimate need exists for the consumption for alcohol.

Much like how hard drugs such as crack or cocaine are illegal because of the harms they impose on the user, alcohol should also be prohibited. No medical use exists for the consumption of alcohol; the only thing alcohol can do is impair one's ability to make logical decisions.

Contention 2: Alcohol related deaths.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has prevented thousands of DUI-related deaths from occurring. Making it illegal is a much simpler solution. The only dangerous abusers of alcohol are those who inflict harm on others. After a new prohibition, if alcohol abusers inflict harm on others, it will be obvious.

Contention 3: Today's America is different than the America during the Prohibition

My opponents will likely use the Prohibition as their prime example of why alcohol should remain legal within the United States. However, today's scene in the United States is much different than that of the Prohibition era. Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same. It won't be a perfect system; people will get away with sneaking it into the US, producing it at home, and abusing it, but like drug-abusers, these incidents will be both rare and obvious. Unlike other drugs, alcohol cannot be snuck in small packages in clothing or hidden in other baggage, making it much harder to sneak through air travel.

Contention 4: Any Prohibition Era-like backlash will eventually dissipate

Even if Prohibition Era-like backlash occurs, it will eventually dissipate. Alcoholism is passed down from one generation to the next; children who are around parents or peers who abuse alcohol are more likely to drink in the future. By prohibition alcohol, the number of adults consuming alcohol will decrease. A black market will inevitably be created, and a few wealthy who can afford to purchase alcohol illegal may continue. However, the overwhelming majority of alcohol abusers tend to be from low-income areas, thus removing them from the picture. Holistically, few adults will continue to consume alcohol after a prohibition; consequently, the number of children growing up to consume alcohol illegally will decrease with every generation.
TallIndianKid

Con

We thank our opponent for his insight but we negate the resolution that Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

We offer the following framework:
The resolution asks where or not alcohol should be prohibited in the United States. We define the act of prohibiting alcohol as the act of eliminating all alcohol uses. We define the uses of alcohol as consumption, medical, and cleaning. In addition, our opponent may make claims that alcohol is harmful because after consuming alcohol, ill-advised adults perform illegal activity such as drunk driving. However, as the judge in today's debate, you cannot look to any effects of drunk driving as the actions of these individuals does not abide to the laws set out by the government, and thus these individuals cannot be controlled. There will always be an idiot that will abuse alcohol. The United States does not prohibit the production of cars because certain individuals decide to drive at 120 miles per hour. In the same way, prohibiting alcohol would be hurting the majority through the actions of individuals.

Contention 1: Benefits of Alcohol
At first thought, a bystander will see the word alcohol and immediately think of the abuse of alcohol. Never does one think of the innumerous benefits that are provided through the use of alcohol. Alcohol was considered so beneficiary that the Unites States Department of Agriculture finally took the first step to manifesting that alcohol is in fact a good thing. The USDA reports that "moderate drinking decreases the risk of heart attack by 20 to 40 percent and decreased stroke by 45 percent"[1]. On this point a lone, a vote for the negative is evident because cutting down the risk of a heart attack can be seen as a miracle seeing that more than 1.5 million Americans suffer for an almost always fatal heart attack. It is reported that there are total of 26,000 alcohol related deaths, which at first is a large number, but it is relatively small when compared to the number of lives that alcohol saves [2]. Alcohol can stop a phenomenal 600,000 heart attacks from happening and this far outweighs any negative impacts presented by the Affirmative. Furthermore, the USDA goes on to report that men that consume 5 to 10 drinks a week have a exceptionally less chance of developing Type 2 diabetes, a disease that plagues hundreds of thousands of Americans and leads to the deaths of many Americans. Finally, according to the New York Times, by consuming red wine, a form of alcohol, the drinker will be ingesting certain substances that will in fact extend his or her life[3].

Contention 2: Pleasure
When looking at today's debate, one must pose the question: Why is alcohol consumed? The clear answer is that alcohol is consumed for pleasure as 90% of alcohol is used in the form of drinking. You as the judge have consumed alcohol before, and if not now, then you will later. By voting affirmative, you will be taking away that ice cold beer that you have every Sunday while watching your favorite football team, or you may be taking away that enchanting red wine that you share with your spouse on Friday nights. Whatever the occasion may be, Alcohol is primarily used for pleasure, and by taking this pleasure away, the Affirmative team is taking up a fight with close to 100% of Americans above the age of 21. Alcohol is such a big part of American that almost every other commercial on TV is advertising for a beer or wine.

It is clear that banning alcohol is diverting the will of the American people and that any vote for the affirmative will be negating all of the said benefits of drinking alcohol. Thus we strongly urge a negative vote on today's debate.
Remember, an apple a day keeps the doctor away, but a glass of wine every day keeps your deathbed away.

[1] http://www.canadafreepress.com...
[2] http://www.alcoholalert.com...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
adealornodeal

Pro

In response to my opponent's framework, I would like to offer a framework of my own. In evaluating today's round, we must weigh arguments against each other in order to decide which side wins the round. I agree with my opponents framework that the act of prohibiting alcohol is the act of eliminating all alcohol uses.

My opponent states in his framework that we cannot look to the effects of drunk driving because because the actions of drunk drivers does not abide to the laws set out by the government. However, I disagree. If today's resolution were to deal with marijuana rather than alcohol, the debate would surely include the effects of the illegal uses of marijuana. Much like the marijuana debate, the debate surrounding the prohibition of alcohol must include all effects of alcohol; whether it abives to the laws set out by the government or not. Thus, all effects of alcohol must be taken into consideration in today's round. However, I would like to point out that the effects of the consumption of alcohol has the most weight in today's round. As my opponent stated in his second contention, 90% of alcohol is used in the form of drinking. Cleaning products and medical remedies for heart attacks that don't require alcohol exist; thus, these uses hold negligible weight in today's round.

My opponent's first contention deals with the health benefits of alcohol. His contention evades logic twice; first of all, how many Americans drink alcohol as the solution to their heart problems? The reason we immediately assume alcohol with the abuse of alcohol is very evident; because the primary users of alcohol are also the primary abusers of alcohol. Secondly, my opponent also makes the na�ve assumption that alcohol will somehow stop 600,000 deaths from occurring. Until he finds a link between his claim and this supposed effect, we cannot consider this argument in the round. Also, I would like to ask my opponent -- alcohol is currently legal; why are these heart attacks still occurring?

My opponent's second contention holds no weight in today's round. Abusers of cocaine, meth, and other hard drugs feel pleasure as they abuse drugs. Should we legalize cocaine and meth? Rapists feel pleasure as they rape their victims; should we legalize rape? By voting for the neg, you vote for your cold glass of beer. By voting for the pro, you're preventing the 18 year old who lives down your street from dying in a alcohol-related accident; whether it be a car accident or a drunken fight.

Finally, my opponent states in his final paragraph that banning alcohol is diverting the will of the American people. However, like many times in the past, a majority doesn't decide right from wrong, and in today's debate, we must consider the impacts of the pro and con in evaluating the round. If this were a debate around the controversial ground zero mosque, it would not be right to oppose it simply because two-thirds of Americans oppose it. Likewise, we must consider and weigh all impacts in today's round.

Back to my own case, I would like to begin by offering a correction. In Contention 3, I stated the following; "Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same." The statement I had intended to say was: "Much like how drug abuse is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same.". This statement looks holistically at the United States, keeping in mind that the percentage of Americans who regularly abuse drugs, the percentage that would likely evade the law if alcohol were prohibited, is very minimal. It does not include all drug users.

Recently, in my hometown of Almaden, an 18-year-old graduate from the local high school was killed in a alcohol-related accident. The driver of the vehicle was drunk; the vehicle hit a light pole at an intersection and burst into flames. The driver somehow ran out of the vehicle, and in his drunken stupor was found by authorities hiding a few hundred yards away. The 18-year-old passenger was stuck in the car and burned to his death. Is this the price we must pay for everyday Americans to have their "cold glass of beer"? Must we resort to alcohol as a solution to heart problems when others exist? Are cleaning products a legitimate reason to legalize this dangerous drug?

My opponent has yet to directly respond to any of my contentions, and thus, when we weigh the arguments on each side of today's round, it's clear that the harms alcohol inflicts on tens of thousands of lives every year far outweighs it's minimal benefits as a cleaning product.
TallIndianKid

Con

I thank my opponent for his speech.

My opponent's counter-framework is that we must look towards the illegal uses of alcohol. This would be fine except for one big reason. If alcohol is made illegal, the illegal use of alcohol will stay at the same level, if not increase. Since the illegal use of alcohol is unaffected by the prohibition of alcohol, this argument cannot be looked to in today's debate. My opponent's argument should actually be put on my side of the debate because as I said, illegal use of alcohol will most likely increase, which will cause for an increase in alcohol related deaths, and bring about the very harms that my opponent has set out to stop. My opponent will come up in his next speech and recite his third contention, stating that illegal use will not increase, but my opponent's argument has one fatal flaw. My opponent admits in his case, "Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same". It is true that once alcohol is banned, the vast majority of Americans will stop using it, but as my opponent states, a small amount of Americans will still abuse the drug. This small amount that he speaks of is going to be at a similar level to the already small amount of Americans abusing the substance. As I stated in my case, there are a mere 26,000 alcohol related incidents per year which accounts of the actions of 0.000086% of the population. Clearly, my opponent has admitted to the fact that alcohol abuse will still occur. Also, my opponent says that the consumption of alcohol is the only issue that we must look to in today's debate. My opponent exhibits pure folly here because all the benefits that I state are results of drinking, or consuming, alcohol. Thus, all my arguments still stand.

My opponent's first contention states that there must be a "legitimate" reason for consuming alcohol. My opponent is advocating that all the things we do for pleasure should be banned because we don't have a "reason" to do these things. If you agree that we should live in a world where no fun activities exist and there must be a valid reason to everything that we do, then yes, vote for the affirmative. If you believe in a world, like the present, where we are allowed to have fun, then a negative vote is manifest.

My opponent's second contention talks about alcohol related deaths and how putting a ban on alcohol will stop them. (1) Our first response is that the positive benefits of alcohol far outweigh the negatives. By drinking moderate levels of alcohol, 600,000 people will be able to save themselves from heart attacks. My opponent foolishly asks why these people aren't saving themselves already. This is because the report by the USDA was done just recently, and society will start to move towards a world where alcohol is used as an ailment. By banning alcohol, my opponent is stopping any chance of this happening. (2) Our second response is that by putting a ban on alcohol, deaths will in no way decrease. The backlash that my opponent admits will occur will cause far more deaths than are currently occurring. Extend the argument I made against my opponent's framework and also consider that the ban will make big cities a fearful place to live in, as the cities will be overrun with criminal activity such as smuggling.

Moving on to my opponent's third and fourth contention about how the effects of prohibition cannot be looked towards because society has changed and that the backlash of these events will die down. (1) First, my opponent contradicts himself because first he states that a prohibition-like era will not occur, but then goes on to say that the effects of a prohibition-like era will die down. Clearly, my opponent has just admitted to the fact that this era of backlash will occur. (2) But furthermore, my opponent has not given us a single aspect of America that has changed that will somehow mitigate the backlash from occurring. This is no mistake on my opponent's part because in truth, there is no change that has occurred that will mitigate the effects. (3) Lastly, my opponent makes the argument that the effects will die down. This is gravely mistaken, and history can prove it. In 1920, when alcohol was prohibited, the backlash was furious. People were madly smuggling in drugs, creating speakeasies (illegal alcohol bars), and killing rampantly. The illegal alcohol-related activity had a huge increase, as it will if we were to ban alcohol at this very moment. The backlash in 1920 continued for a full 13 years before finally, in 1933, congress realized that a ban on alcohol is not in the best interest of the United States, and made it legal once again. Clearly, history has revealed the flaws in my opponent's argument.

My opponent tries to touch our hearts by saying that our neighbors will die if we drink alcohol. This is completely ridiculous as alcohol related deaths only affect 0.000086% of the population. For these reasons I urge a Negative
Debate Round No. 2
adealornodeal

Pro

My opponent begins his case with a funny statement. He tells us that there are a "mere" 26,000 alcohol-related accidents per year. That statement refutes itself; 26,000 alcohol-related accidents is an enormous, horrific statistic – a number that will be significantly reduced by a new Prohibition. Next, he quotes a statement I made in my first speech, where I mistakenly stated that illegal use of drugs is minimal. I made this correction in my second speech, stating that the ABUSE of illegal drugs is minimal, and as we will see later in this case, the number is decreasing.

My opponent also does his math wrong. He states that 26,000 alcohol-related accidents amounts to 0.000086% of the population. However, his statistic does NOT tell you the number of people affected by the alcohol-related accidents, and thus his conclusion that 0.000086% of the population is affected by such accidents is false. With this argument, my opponent disrespects those who were affected in those accidents by demeaning their suffering and insults those who have lost their lives to drunk drivers. Thus, my opponents response to my framework should be disregarded, and my framework that we must include all uses of alcohol, both legal and illegal, and that we must weigh impacts against each other, should be extended throughout the round.

Next, my opponent claims that I am advocating all things we do for pleasure should be prohibited. However, this statement is both false and misleading. Alcohol, unlike other pleasurable things, has terrifying side effects that harm both the abuser and those around him. Meth abusers and cocaine addicts feel pleasure from their drug use; is my opponent advocating that we should legalize those drugs too?

My opponent's response to my second contention is merely a re-iteration of his first contention. However, I have refuted that contention by providing my framework, stating that deaths occurring from drunk driving, drunken fights, and the abuse and violence that occurs from alcohol use outweighs the "600,000 people who will save themselves". There are alternative methods to prevent heart attacks which are much more effective than alcohol.

My opponent then claims that cities will be a frightening place to live in due to violence. This is an allusion to the Prohibition. However, Prohibition-era violence will never occur again due to an increase in national security. A major contributor to Prohibition era violence was corrupt law enforcement; a critical factor to the catastrophe of the 20s which no longer exists. Without corrupt law enforcement and with the power of American national security, the conditions of the Prohibition of the 20s will never occur again.

Ultimately, my opponent's case has been thrown out the window. The health benefits to alcohol are not unique, and can be found from actual medication. Secondly, his argument about pleasure has been both refuted and he has dropped it. On the other hand, the impacts given by the pro are very clear; no legitimate need exists for alcohol, meaning it isn't a necessity. Alcohol related deaths occur 26,000 times every year, killing one person every 15 minutes from DUIs alone. Thousands more are indirectly affected by such accidents. Thirdly, Prohibition-era corruption and fear will not occur in today's United States; the law enforcement scene and national security scene have drastically changed, and security is at it's highest in decades. Finally, the number of drug users have drastically dropped with every subsequent generation. Likewise, the number of illicit alcohol users will also drop after Prohibition with every subsequent generation.

Finally, I would like to respond to my opponent's final statement. He states that I try "to touch our hearts by saying that our neighbors will die if we drink alcohol. This is completely ridiculous." I used to live next to a friend named Jonathan; his mother died in a car accident when a drunk driver slammed into her vehicle. He was seven years old. These incidents aren't rare; they occur all the time and affect thousands of people. 26,000 accidents per year is no small number. As the judge in today's round, if you can face a mother who lost her son in an alcohol-related accident or a son who lost a mother in such an accident and tell them they're part of an "insignificant" statistic, and that the "pleasure" and "health benefits" of alcohol are more important than their loss, then I urge you to vote for my opponent. But if you understand the humanity behind an affirmative vote, and if you understand that even a slightly imperfect system under a Prohibition is better than today's system, and if you think 26,000 alcohol-related accidents and one death every fifteen minutes is too much, then you must affirm the resolution.

References:

[1] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...
[2] http://www.a1b2c3.com...
TallIndianKid

Con

Today's debate comes down to three main arguments: the positive and negative effects of alcohol, and what would happen if we banned alcohol.

1. First lets look at the one negative effect of alcohol that my opponent champions. He states that 26,000 accidents occur and that this affects "thousands of people". It is true; alcohol affects 26,000 people in America, which is, in truth, not a small number. My opponent's vital blunder is that he fails to realize that 26,000 deaths are relatively small amount in comparison to the amount of death caused by other harmful practices. Sure, we may be losing this many deaths from alcohol, but a devastating 440,000 lives are lost annually from cigarettes. If my opponent truly wanted to help the lives of "a mother who lost her son or a son who lost a mother" then it is clear that there are other harmful activities out there, such as smoking, that should be prohibited instead of alcohol. By banning alcohol, the United States is shifting its attention from matters that are far more important that prohibiting alcohol. Also, my opponent acts as if every person to consume alcohol is an abuser, which is not true. Of the 200,000,000 Americans that are above the age of 21, only 26,000 abuse the substance. As you can see, it doesn't take Tiger Woods to find the holes in my opponent's argument.

2. Next, lets look at the benefits of alcohol that my opponent overlooks. First, as I states before, alcohol can help stop heart attacks by 20 to 40 percent. My opponent says that there are better means of stopping a heart attack, but this is irrelevant. If there are more ways in which a person can prevent a heart attack, then it is less likely that the person will actually have a heart attack. Secondly, my opponent has no refutation to my argument that red wine can be used to extend the life of humans. Currently doctors are trying to capture the substance that is found only in red wine, and turn it into a pill that can be used to extend the lives of all human beings. If we were to go through with a ban on alcohol, any hopes of finding a pill of life would be dashed.

3. Lastly, what would actually happen if we banned alcohol? First, hundreds of thousands of people would be outraged at the government's rash decision, resulting in mobs and violence going rampant. Second, the illegal use of alcohol will increase, as people that were once peaceful users of alcohol will be enticed to buy the substance in the black market, giving money to the criminals that my opponent intends to stop. Third, this prohibition would take a devastating hit on the economy of the United States. The alcohol industry supplies nearly $400 billion dollars in economic activity to the U.S. GDP, and provides over 3.9 million jobs for United States workers.[1] By putting a ban on alcohol, my opponent is effectively cutting off 400 billion dollars of America's GDP, and putting 3.9 million lives into a state of turmoil.

You as the judge must weigh the positive and negatives in today's debate. The only argument that the affirmative team brings up is that 26,000 people will have better lives, but at that we both agree that there will still be many cases of abuse after the prohibition. I have clearly defeated this point by showing you the benefits of keeping alcohol and by showing that prohibiting alcohol is a waste of time for the government as it will side-track them from other policies that are actually important. I, as the negative, have proven to you that hundreds of thousands of lives can be saved through the consumption of alcohol, that alcohol can be used to extend our lives, and that alcohol provides jobs for millions of Americans and contributes $400 billion to the economy. If you believe that we must take 3.9 million people out of their jobs so that not even 26,000 people can feel better than, by all means, vote for the affirmative. But if you believe, as do I, that the positive effects of having alcohol, such as ailment, pleasure, and jobs, are too great to look past then you must vote Negative on today's debate.

[1]http://www.discus.org...
Debate Round No. 3
adealornodeal

Pro

Let's start by looking at what's left of my opponent's case.

My opponent argues that there are "benefits of alcohol", such as helping reduce heart attacks. Time and time again I have refuted this contention. Other methods to reduce heart attacks exist; the fact that alcohol kills over 50,000 Americans every year outweighs any "health benefit" my opponent tries to make. He claims that alcohol will prevent 600,000 heart attacks. However, anyone with any logic can tell this isn't true. First, Alcohol is currently legal, and these deaths are still occurring. Second, Alcohol is only said to REDUCE the threat of heart attack, not eliminate it. And finally, alcohol will never replace actual medication. We haven't seen the "benefits" of alcohol in preventing heart attacks in the past 50 years, and we won't ever see such benefits in the future. Thus you can wipe this contention off your flow.

As stated previously, my opponent's second contention regarding "pleasure" has been refuted and dropped.

My opponent claims that 3.9 million jobs will be lost by a prohibition. However, if a prohibition were to occur, it wouldn't be an overnight change; although some job losses would occur, the alcohol industry would turn to other beverage industries to stay afloat. The claim that these jobs would disappear overnight is both outlandish and false.

As of this point in today's round, my opponent no longer has a case, and thus he loses by default. I will continue by extending my arguments to show why the pro clearly wins the debate.

My first contention remains unrefuted at the end of today's round. No legitimate need exists for alcohol, and my opponent concedes this point.

Let's look at my second contention by doing some math. There are 26,000 alcohol-related accidents every year; this means 26,000 incidents related to alcohol, not 26,000 deaths. The actual death toll is much more massive; in 2009 alone, alcoholic liver disease killed 14,406 Americans. Other alcohol-related deaths, EXCLUDING accidents and homicides, was 23,199 [1]. The number of deaths due to alcohol related car accidents in 2008 was 13,846 out of a total 37,271 car-accident related deaths that year. That means alcohol-related car accidents amount to a whopping 37% of car accidents every year [2]. With a new Prohibition, the number of Americans dying each year from car accidents will be reduced by a massive 40% - almost reduced by half. Furthermore, alcohol is involved in the deaths of 75% of all homicide victims, 40% of rape victims, 50% of those who commit sex crimes, 80% of suicides, 70% of family violence, 45-55% of all fire fatalities, 25% of boating deaths, and 30% of drowning deaths. In juvenile delinquency, 82% of delinquent adolescents had at least one alcoholic parent. [3] These numbers are out of control – and they're all because of alcohol.

My opponent tries to respond to these facts by saying "that there are other harmful activities out there". Take notw that this isn't an actual response to the argument; my opponent is merely trying to side-step having to actual respond to these facts. Furthermore, the fact that America should be working to prohibition "other harmful activities" such as smoking is non-topical, and should not be considered in today's debate. Banning alcohol would prevent over 50,000 deaths from occurring every year, would significantly reduce the number of homicides, rape victims, and juvenile delinquents. Thus, you can extend my second contention, noting that it has the greatest impact in today's round.

My third contention, that states that Prohibition-era conditions no longer exist, also remains unrefuted. Corrupt law enforcement and bad national security lead to a catastrophe during the Prohibition of the 1920s. However, with national security at it's highest in American history and with the absence of large-scale corrupt law enforcement, such a catastrophe will never happen again. The impact of this argument is massive considering security after a new Prohibition, and thus you can extend this at the end of the round.

My fourth contention stated that the use of alcohol will eventually dissipate after a Prohibition, much like the use of marijuana has dropped from nearly 40% to a mere 11% in thirty years. Data from the Office of National Drug Policy supports this argument, which remains unrefuted by my opponent at the end of the round.

Thus, because no legitimate need for alcohol exists, because the toll alcohol takes on American lives is immense, because current security conditions make a 1920s-Prohibition-like catastrophe impossible, and because drug use will inevitably decrease in forthcoming generations, I strongly urge an affirmative vote on today's resolution.

References:

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
[2] http://www.alcoholalert.com...
[3] http://www.extension.umn.edu...
TallIndianKid

Con

-Refutations-

1. My opponent's first contention talks about how there is no need for alcohol. Yes this may be true, but it is not unique, as there is no need for most of the harmful commodities that we as humans indulge in. If the United States were to prohibit all things that were unnecessary and potentially harmful then the first thing to be banned would be junk food. But similarly to the case of alcohol, junk foods are wildly enjoyed by all and so they are never going to be prohibited, despite its possibly negative effects.

2. My opponent's second contention is about alcohol related deaths. He listed a number of impressive looking numbers which, when further analyzed, only go to work against him. He first states that alcohol causes 37% of all car accidents per year. If you look at his evidence, the amount of alcohol related incidents have been on a decline going from a high 60% in 1982, to a low 37% in 2008. The number is declining, and goes to show that America is becoming a safer place for alcohol. He also goes on to list percentages that are all completely irrelevant. The study in which he got the numbers from was conducted in the state of Minnesota and is not a clear representation of what is actually happening in the United States as a whole. Clearly alcohol is not as dangerous as my opponent makes it out to be.
3+4. To disprove these, we have to look to the condition of America before, and in the present. The reason that prohibition in the 1920's was so widely contested was because 7 out of every 10 Americans drank alcohol. Currently, according to CBS, the number still stands that 7 out of every 10 Americans drink alcohol. Clearly, the conditions are still the same as before and prohibiting alcohol will lead to much backlash and violence.

Two main issues: The benefits of alcohol, and what will happen if alcohol is prohibited.

1. The main benefit of alcohol that my opponent fails to refute is the crucial argument that alcohol research is leading to the finding of a pill that will extend the lives of humans. Doctors are trying to capture the substance that is found only in red wine, and turn it into a pill that can be used to extend the lives of all human beings. If we were to go through with a ban on alcohol, any hopes of finding a pill of life would be dashed. Also, Alcohol is an antidote that saves lives. The USDA reports: "moderate drinking decreases the risk of heart attack by 20 to 40 percent and decreased stroke by 45 percent". My opponent's refutation to this is flawed because he asks why the 600,000 lives aren't being saved right now. I do not that it is saving 600,000 lives. I am arguing that by banning alcohol, there will be a large amount of people, an estimated 600,000, since a heart attack will be 20 to 40 percent more likely. My opponent also says that there are other means of stopping heart attacks. This may be true, but there are also many ways heal a sickness, and this does not mean that every person in the world uses the same method. My opponent's last refutation is that alcohol "is only said to REDUCE the threat of heart attack, not eliminate it". Had my opponent informed us of a miracle cure that actually does completely eliminate the risk of heart attack then I would have urged an affirmative vote. But he has given no better alternative and this argument is simply na�ve. Clearly I have won this point and you must vote negative on today's debate.

2. What will happen if you vote for the affirmative in today's debate? Alcohol will be banned and hundreds of millions of Americans, or the vast majority of Americans, will not be able to enjoy this relaxing pleasure. Because of this, large mobs will arouse around the country in protest and there will be a huge spike in violence and crime. The biggest impact that banning alcohol will have is its economic impact. The alcohol industry supplies nearly $400 billion dollars in economic activity to the U.S. GDP, and provides over 3.9 million jobs for United States workers. Voting affirmative eliminates 3.9 million jobs, which tremendously outweighs the 20,000 that are affected by alcohol. My opponents tries to downplay the loss of 3.9 million jobs and $400 billion of America's GDP by saying that not all these jobs would be lost, and not immediately. This is incorrect because if the government made it law to stop all alcohol related activity, then these jobs would immediately have to be eliminated by law. My opponent states that the alcohol industry will "turn to other beverage industries to stay afloat". What other alcoholic beverages could this industry turn to when all alcoholic beverages are prohibited?

At the end of today's debate, you as the judge must vote negative in order to maintain the search for a "Pill of Life", to keep 3.9 million jobs in existence, and to keep $400 billion circulating in the economy. My points outweigh any arguments my opponent has, and thus, I see no other option but to vote Negative.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TallIndianKid 7 years ago
TallIndianKid
wow i got vote bombed by leland people great lol
Posted by starvard 7 years ago
starvard
RFD:
Overall, a close debate, but I thought that Con provided better reasons as to why alcohol was necessary, and what would happen if alcohol would be prohibited.
Pro's winning arguments:
Prohibition contentions (Con doesn't exactly say why people are going to react the same way they did so many years ago)

Con's winning arguments:
Banning alcohol will hurt the economy (Pro doesn't refute this contention enough to convince me that it won't hurt the economy)
Medical reasons for alcohol usage
Again, this was definitely a close debate, but I felt that Con won.
Posted by adealornodeal 7 years ago
adealornodeal
Dashdustrider and anyone vote-bombing this debate, please post an RFD to make it clear why you are vote-bombing the debate.
Posted by xStyles 7 years ago
xStyles
I try my best to judge based solely on what is presented in the rounds.

RFD:
Pro's Winning Arguments:
In my view, Pro proves that a new Prohibition would not cause mass-panic and rebellion as Con claims. Con effectively shoots himself in the foot when he says "It is true that once alcohol is banned, the vast majority of Americans will stop using it." Prohibition does not factor into my decision that much because Con does not effectively prove why people would react the same way as they would 80 years ago.

From this, Pro wins the 26,000 DUI incidents, 14,406 liver failures, 23,199 alcohol deaths and the other host of alcohol-influenced crime.

Con's Arguments:
Before anything, I found some of the statistics as well as word phrasing to be eerily similar to my own. Just a note.

The "miracle pill" and alcohol preventing 600,000 heart attacks is HIGHLY skeptical. If this were true, why wouldn't doctors prescribe a moderate dose of alcohol to prevent heart attacks? In fact, I remember an article stating that a small sip of red wine once a week could give the benefits Con claims, but no one just takes a small sip of red wine once a week. It is unlikely alcohol will be the breakthrough medicine preventing heart attacks.

The economy point goes to Con. But when I weigh lives versus money it's hard to choose money over lives. Although 3.9 million jobs could be gone as well as $390 billion of the GDP, these probably will be replaced sometime in the future. The economic cycle has ups and downs, so eventually the economy would be able to absorb the losses. Lives, however, cannot be replaced.

Any questions could be clarified through private messages or replies.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 7 years ago
C-Mach
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 
Vote Placed by ashwathc 7 years ago
ashwathc
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 
Vote Placed by morekellbell 7 years ago
morekellbell
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 
Vote Placed by joannejso 7 years ago
joannejso
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by starvard 7 years ago
starvard
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by dashdustrider 7 years ago
dashdustrider
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cerealx59 7 years ago
Cerealx59
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by austinyb 7 years ago
austinyb
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by xStyles 7 years ago
xStyles
adealornodealTallIndianKidTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30