The Instigator
Con (against)
11 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

[Short Debate]: This House Would Ban Alcohol

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 67497
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




I don't think that anyone is going to accept this, since it's nearly impossible with so many harms, but if you do then great! This is going to be a quick and simple debate. Only two rounds, with round one being only for constructive cases, and round two for only rebuts to constructive cases. Only 4000 characters. We're going to be debate on [RESOLVED: IT IS A MORALLY JUST, AS WELL AS SOCIETALLY JUST, IDEA TO BAN ALCOHOL FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC], with me in the negation side of things, and my opponent in the affirmative. The affirmative should prove that, not only is it morally just to ban alcohol, but it is societally just.
  • Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair
  • Societally Just: the idea that something is just in the name of promoting society
  • Morally Just: the idea that something is just because of morals that are held throughout society
  • General Public: ordinary people in society
  • Idea: a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action
  • Alcohol: a colorless volatile flammable liquid that is the intoxicating constituent of wine, beer, spirits, and other drinks


Contention One: Organised Crime
During the days of Prohibition within the United States, there was a necessity for organised crime. People just could not give up the alcohol that they needed, so they needed people to not only make it and get it, but people to protect the people that bought it. Mobs and gangs are often attributed to starting at about the time that states started making alcohol illegal within their jurisdiction, and as soon as an amendment to the federal constitution was added, it was needed more than ever. [1]
Contention Two: Legal Harms/Governmental Harms
After prohibition was passed, there had to be people that were arrested for the use and distribution of intoxicating liquors, and as such, convicts needed a place to go after being arrested. Homocides, assaults, battery, and kidnapping all increased around 13%, and is directly attributed to the passing of prohibition [2]. Total penal expidentures increased over 1000%, federal prison population went up 366%, and the amount of federal convicts increased over 561% [2]. And this is not even to start thinking about the amount of bribery that occured from Al Capone & Friends within the local governments [1]
Contention Three: Refutation of "Benefits Society"
I expect to hear something along the lines of "prohibition benefits society sooo much, bruh", however that's really not true. People that were pro-prohibition were saying the same things, however society did not improve at all. More people died, more people ended up going missing, more people ended up injured as a direct result, and if you can say that having more people dead in the streets is a benefit for society, then props to you, because you just broke logic.
Contention Four: Refutation of "Increased Health Due to Prohibition"
Health would not increase as a direct result of prohibition. More and more people would be looking towards illegal outlets for their addiction to intoxicating liquor, and more and more people would die because of liquor that was not made correctly. Saying "increased health" would be looking at a few people that would actually decide to follow the law, and not look at the real situation that is at hand.

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate, if anyone does. Good luck

[Good Background Reading]



I affirm the resolution that states Resolved: It is a morally just, as well as societally just, idea to ban alcohol from the general public.
I agree with my opponents definitions.
Contention 1: Banning alcohol creates more productivity.
Productivity is key for society as it helps achieves things and creates a better world. The lack of productivity in an alcohol ridden world is vast. For example, employers loose thousands of hours of work due to "hungover" employees coming in. However, problems like such are eliminated with the banning of alcohol. There will be more efficient workers, less car accidents (DWI eliminated), and such forth.
Contention 2: Banning alcohol increases general health.
Health is important for the well being of society. However, alcohol deteriorates the public's health with many binge drinking deaths, liver damage, and brain cell loss. These are all substantial problems which can be eliminated with there not being alcohol. There will be none of this if alcohol is banned, leading to a healthier society.
Contention 3: Banning alcohol creates a more obedient society, thus societally just.
As we all know, there are many problems under the influence of alcohol. Many people are "angry drunks" for example. With the consuption of alcohol, people become disrupt with bar fights, destruction of homes while drunk (house is "wrecked" after party), and more. Where alcohol is banned, none of this will occur, which will therefore create a more obedient society as there won't be any disruptions caused by drunks.
Contention 4: Banning alcohol advances society.
Instead of "coming down for a beer" there are so many things that can be done. For teens, they could be studying more for class, doing school work, exercising, and such forth. And for adults, people can do philosophy, research, attend college again, and more things, thus creating a better society.
For these reasons I affirm and will refute next round
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for agreeing to this debate and having such a quick response.


    • My Opponent says that banning alcohol creates more productivity, while I have a source that directly says that this is not the case [1], as well as saying that there are no shortages of abseneeism. By banning alcohol you are playing a game of "you want this, dontcha? too bad!" with the consumer, and because of that they would actually want that more. In fact, alcohol in moderation actually increases productivity within society [2].

    • My Opponent says that banning alcohol creates a more obedient society, but how is this the case when people are fighting each other, kidnapping others, and killing each other over a few drinks? He cites no sources for this massive claim of advancing society, so we must automatically negate this conention.

    • Part of the BoP for my opponent is stating that it is both societally and morally just to ban alcohol, while he only makes points that benefits society, not morality, so we must automatically negate his case.

    • In my Opponent's case, he spells out the example of teenagers studying more, doing school work, and excersizing, and for adults "doing philosphy", attending college, and researching, yet he has no proof that people would do this in place of drinking alcohol. People often use alcohol to escape these kinds of activities, so we must negate this contention.

    • My Opponent says that if we ban alcohol, then teenagers would stop drinking as a direct result. In a country where drinking is illegal for teens, we cannot say that they will stop, because it is already illegal and they are breaking the law by doing it anyways, so we must automatically negate this example.

[1];[control+f productivity]

In summary, we must negate my Opponent's entire case, and only logically vote CON.


Ok, first let's address my opponents case:

His 1st Contention talks about how banning alcohol will lead to organized crime, however, he compares this to 1900s Prohibition Era. We can't go back 100 years to look for an answer. Times have changed and so has our social infrastructure Also, this argument doesn't prove why the resolution should be negated; it simply shows a disadvantage to affirming. But this issue will be very minimal as there will be law enforcement obviously to ensure this is minimalized. Even then, the ipact of this crime is very marginal and the benefits I show in my contentions greatly outweigh.

My opponent's second contention mentions legal/government harms. However, all my opponent states is an increase in crime. We can't say these numbers are directly correlated with Prohibition. Even then, were looking 100 years back, in a much more alcohol dependent society. There are a plethora of other factors which could've led to the increase in crime such as immigration and the economy. And in the status quo, there is a ton of alcohol related crime such as DWI and distributing alcohol to minors.

My opponent's third contention is a refutation to the benefits to society. My opponent simply says "that's really not true". But that makes NEGATIVE LOGIC as my contentions show the benefits reaped by affirming, so cross-apply my four contentions to this argument. My opponents goes on to say some disadvantages such as more people dying and missing. However, such exists greatly in the status quo as there is a lot of alcohol related deaths and injuries. My benefits shown in my contentions outweigh because I use logic (unbroken) to show how it benefits society while my opponent simply says affirming causes more deaths and injuries without and reason/warrant.

My opponent mentions how banning alcohol wouldn't really increase health, but my contention directly clashes with that. I provide empirical logic on how it does but my opponent says how some may do other drugs and only a minority follows the law. However, that statement is saying a majority of society isn't law-abiding which makes NEGATIVE LOGIC Most people would follow the law and not look to illegal drugs instead of alcohol.

Thus, my opponent's contention's fall. I will now defend my case.

To my opponents attack of my first contention. He tries to turn it, however, he simply says that a source p[roves otherwise without actually stating it. Thus, we can't look to that source as it wasn't actually quoted. He also says we "are playing a game of "you want this, dontcha? too bad!" with the consumer", and that would make people want it more. Yet, we actually aren't teasing alcohol users, simply ceasing production, manufacturing, and distribution. He also says how alcohol in moderation would increase productivity but doesn't actually state the facts, so for this debate, that point falls.

To my opponent's attack of my second contention he says that crime exists over the want of drinks. But we can turn this point as since the want (drinks) is eliminated, that crime will be eliminated. My opponent continues to say it should be auto negated since I have no sources, however, we can't auto-negate just because I didn't cite a source. I used a fascinating thing called LOGIC and DEDUCTIVE REASONING, which my opponent clearly lacks. Therefore,that attack falls.

My opponent also says I don't fully prove the resolution, but I actually do. He concede that I prove it benefits society. And anything that benefits society is moral, thus, I show it is morally just also.

In an attack on my fourth contention, my opponent says I don't have proof people would do positive things instead of alcohol, however, my opponent doesn't prove otherwise with empirical evidence, so this point stands.

Thus, my contentions stand and I urge you to affirm. Do it for logic!
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con wins with more standing arguments. Some of pro's rebuttals didn't really manage to talk about the full implications of the positive effects of banning alcohol.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry but Pro's logic is a bit faulty. Sources were pretty important and Pro had none. In order for logic to be persuasive it must have facts to back it up, Pro's assertions could not be shown to be anymore than assertions.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Huh. This is sort of tough, considering the issue really came down to defending from non attacks, but at the same time not demonstrating the point as stated. I am going to vote con, by virtue of demonstration through researched points, I would have liked to have seen some documentation from Pro beyond implication of current crimes and actions.