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

Should alcohol – the world's favourite drug, be banned?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,711 times Debate No: 21369
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




As Pro I shall be arguing that alcohol should be further restricted, or even banned

Con shall be arguing against the motion

I await an acceptance from anyone who is willing to take on this interesting challenge... :)


I accept the challenge and thank Pro for creating this, to quote him, "interesting debate".

I await Con's argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you CON for accepting this debate and i look forward to it so i'm going to begin my case:

Alcohol is just as potentially addictive as many illegal drugs. Those who do become addicted to alcohol often lose their marriages, jobs, families, even their lives. A large proportion of homeless people find themselves in that position as a result of their alcoholism. Any drug this addictive and destructive should be illegal.

Alcohol is a contributory factor to a huge proportion of crimes. Exact figures vary from country to country, but in many countries alcohol is a contributory factor in 60-70% of violent crimes, including child abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, and murder.

Alcohol is far and away the leading cause of public disorder, street fights, etc. In short, alcohol is one of the prime causes of violence and crime in modern society, and its banning would reduce the incidence of these crimes at a strike.

I invite CON to rebutt to these and suggest why alcohol should not be banned or further restricted.



I thank Pro for his timely response, and will now move on to addressing his arguments.

I will address them all with this: They are all hinging on the assumption that alcohol usage will go down if it's banned. But that is not the case. And thus I will move on to my own arguments.

Contention 1. Banning alcohol increases usage

The best example of how banning alcohol doesn't decrease usage is the prohibition act, or the volstead act, that accompanied the eighteenth amendment to the constitution. This prohibited alcohol, and was later repealed by the 21st amendment to the constitution because of the increase in illegal activity.

This act was passed in 1919, when there were about 15,000 legal saloons. By 1930, there were more than 32,000 illegal saloons! (1)

Obviously, banning alcohol did not decrease usage.

In fact, it became a pastime to illegally drink with friends just to mock the government!

Thus, all the negative effects that Pro stated would be worsened.

Contention 2. Health

The illegally distilled alcohol products contained more alcohol and were more dangerous to public health. So not only would there be more drinking of alcohol, it would also be more dangerous! (1)

Basically, forms of alcohol such as beer were much harder to get benefit from since they did not have much alcohol concentration. Thus, whiskey became more popular simply because it had more alcohol in less space, and thus was easier to hide. (3)

Contention 3. Crime

The prohibition act created a new form of crime called bootlegging, which was a form of smuggling. It also fueled organized crime like no other.

Contention 4. Economy

The lack of tax on alcohol also affected the US. Economy until during the great depression prohibition was finally halted. If alcohol was banned, it would hurt our economy.

Contention 5. Other drugs

Alcohol provided a gateway to other drugs, such as Marijuana or Cocaine, during the prohibition act. (2) Thus, banning alcohol would not only increase the usage, it would end up with more people taking illegal drugs because of the gateway effect of alcohol.


I could continue on and on, but I will stop here. I've given 5 strong reasons why alcohol should not be banned. Banning causes an increase, not a decrease.

Because Pro has not proved his side of the resolution and I have proven mine, the only way to vote is Con.



Debate Round No. 2


thank you for that CON, i should really rebutt to those outrageous points you made but as this debate need swiftly move on, i must proceed in presenting my case further.

We need consistency in our drug laws. If cannabis, which is not very addictive and which results in virtually no violent crime or public disorder, needs to be banned because of its mind-altering effects, then how much more so should alcohol be banned.

It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. However the fact that an immoral industry employs a lot of people is never a good argument to keep that immoral industry going (similar arguments apply to the cases of prostitution, arms dealing, fox hunting, battery farming, etc.) Instead, a gradual process would have to be implemented, which would include governments providing funding for training for alternative careers.

It is also true that tax revenues would be lost if alcohol were banned. However, again, this is not a principled reason to reject the proposition, simply a practical problem. It should be pointed out that governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending (through the reduction in crime and alcohol-related illness) which would go at least some of the way to offsetting the decreased tax revenues.


I was very surprised when Pro admitted he isn't going to rebut my "outrageous" points. He conceded that he's dropping points. Dropping a point, in debate, is considered concession. He's conceding to many of my points.

I will be using ">>>" to quote Pro.

>>> "We need consistency in our drug laws."

Consistency is extremely hard to reach. Consider that soda is as bad for you as beer is. (1)

Should soda be banned? I think not. Cigarette smoking is also bad for you, worse than several drugs. (2)

Should that be banned? Possibly.

There are many substances out there that are worse than alcohol for you, but they haven't been banned. It would be extremely hard to be consistent. Also, realize that alcohol usage goes up when it's banned, so this wouldn't help at all.

>>> Economic effects not good reason to keep alcohol

Well, if there are no benefits to banning alcohol, then economic benefits are a great reason to keep alcohol.

>>> "Governments would save a huge amount of money on police and health spending"

Since Pro never rebutted my contentions, and indeed conceded to them by not addressing them, then no money would not be saved because alcohol usage would go up, there would be more crime, and thus police and health spending would go up, not down.

Pro has dropped Contention 1, 2, 3, and 5. He briefly addressed Contention 4 of economy, but since he dropped all of my other analysis his argumentation is invalid.

Now it is common debate form that when you drop an argument, you are not allowed to bring it up again. So Pro is not allowed to address Contentions 1, 2, 3, and 5, and therefore has failed his burden of proof unless he can bring out an advantage to his side that outweighs all that I have said. (Doubtful).

I would also like to mention another point, since this debate round is yet young.

Contention 6. Medicinal use of alcohol

I will quote my next source:

"Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer strokes, diabetes, arthritis, enlarged prostate, dementia (including Alzheimer's disease), and several major cancers." (3)

This is only a summary of the rather large article that is contained at the source. Alcohol can be used for medicinal purposes, and banning alcohol would restrict that, decreasing health further.

Even the Bible, which opposes abuse of alcohol, endorses medical use of it!

I hope Pro at least addresses this contention, even though it would not be enough to prove his side.

Thank you once again for reading, and I urge you to vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3


CON has made some unfair assumptions about my points in order to feel only his case is worthy.

Con has also made a false accusation and infact a total lie by stating that my arguementation is (and i quote here from him) "invalid"

My opponent appears to be confused about what the purpose of a debate is and infact has been very unproffesional and completely informal with his attitude. I found Con's manner disrespectful and I will choose to ignore that and address the point he has asked for me to.

Con claimed that it states in the bible that it should be allowed for medical purposes. Con is so wrongly suggesting people drink alcohol to improve their health, which is infact incorrect. It is true that studies have shown a small/tiny improvement in people's health from drinking alcohol. However, what Con does not realise here is that those cases have only shown in people who have the right amount and no more. Most people do not realise the limit of alcohol and this has a severe effect on their health and behaviour. They can cause serious problems with their liver and brain. Over 15,000 people die every year as a result of alcohol. That is a very worrying figure and going back to the points I made earlier, it destroys people's lives from addiction. It is just like any other drug.

Short term effects of alcohol are reduced inhibitions, loss of muscle control, memory loss or blackouts, nausea, vomiting, headaches, hangovers, and stupor (which is acting seriously disoriented and confused). The longer a person abuses alcohol the closer they get to becoming an alcoholic, which is a person addicted to intoxicated drinks.

Long term effects of alcohol can include: liver cancer, women who drink increase their risk of breast cancer, memory loss, stroke, heart disease, changes in physical appearance, diabetes, and much more.

Drunken individuals are four times more likely to lose their temper and six times more likely to commit an act of violence. Alcohol is the major cause in thousands of suicides and murders each year. 27% of drivers under 21 reported that they drove drunk at least once last year. In 2001, there were 1482 alcohol related deaths of college students in the united states.
These numbers would go down if we banned alcohol.

40% of child maltreatment involves the parent abusing alcohol.

People who drink just one beer are more likely to keep drinking, thus making them drunk. When "drunkards" go out places with their family, it is embarrassing for the family, because the drunk person is stumbling everywhere, they don't understand what they are talking about, they yell, they cause trouble and may pick fights, and they do embarrassing things. Why do family members need to suffer for the drunk person's stupidity?

Drinking wastes your money. It ranges place to place, but for the majority, it cost around £8 to £12 just for a twelve pack of beer. *in some cases, it may be higher, I was just giving an estimate based on my research.* Let's say you drink about two beers every Saturday, just for a "good 'ol time". If you drink two beers a week every week for a year, your total that you have spent on beer is: £312. That doesn't seem like that much, but what about the people who get drunk once a week? That is a total of: £624. Talk about a waste of money! And people who really want a beer will go far measures to get one, including stealing from family members and strangers, stealing from the store, begging people for money, and stealing expensive stuff.

Drinking and driving. If beer was illegal, it would be less likely to happen, especially in teenagers. In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year. 16,005 people were killed in the United States in alcohol-related motor vehicle traffic crashes. Innocent people die in a car crash that wasnt their fault because someone decided to get drunk. Thats incredibly sad.

I invite Con to continue this debate but please can you do it in a nice manner this time


I thank Pro for his timely response once again.

I am rather confused on his allegations about being unprofessional, informal, and rude. But let's move on, the purpose of the debate is not to throw around ad hominems but rather to argue the facts of the resolution.

Contention 6. Medical alcohol

I agree with Pro that the medicinal use of alcohol is only true for those that use alcohol with temperance. That is my whole point. There are people that use alcohol correctly, and they get a huge benefit.

It's similar to the argument for legalizing marijuana: there are medicinal benefits and some people aren't just there to abuse it. But marijuana is a different topic altogether.

Pro continued to list many negative benefits of alcohol abuse, and I agree that those are negative effects of alcohol abuse. But I was talking about temperate usage.

Also, he continues to back up my point because alcohol usage will go up, and thus the negative effects of alcohol will be worsened by the amount of abuse.

Furthermore, there will be no more medicinal use of alcohol if it was banned. The people that use alcohol for the right purposes tend to be more ethical and would follow the law. If alcohol was banned, there would be no more medicinal use and it would all be abuse. Thus, the ratio of abuse to temperance would be increased.

>>> "Drinking wastes your money"

It wastes your money if you are using it to get drunk, not if you're using it for medicinal purposes.

Also, although it may cost money to the individual, the government gains money. Pro did not respond to my argument about economic loss in this last round (this argument has to do with individuals not government), and thus the argument is conceded. He has conceded contentions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

>>> "Drinking and driving"

I agree that drinking and driving is a terrible thing, but once again usage of alcohol goes up by banning it, as my source stated in the first round and Pro has conceded.


Because Pro has conceded the main point of the debate: alcohol will go up ^ by banning it, and he can not bring it up since it's conceded, (well he can mention it but not argue it), Pro has not fulfilled his burden to prove his side.

Once again almost all of his arguments hinge on whether or not alcohol abuse goes up by banning it, and I have proven it does.

Thank you, and I urge you to vote Con.

Note: I hope I was less "rude" this time?
Debate Round No. 4


jawyer forfeited this round.


Pro forfeited, I therefore extend all my arguments and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zealous1 4 years ago
I sense a forfeit coming...
Posted by Zealous1 4 years ago
Yup. I was hoping for at least a fighter.
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Easy win for Con, Pro is giving no substantial arguments. Someone has some homework to do in regards of medical benefits, what the bible has to say, and that refusing to refute arguments does not add weight to your case.
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
even in regards of medicinal purposes?

If so I will inquire.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: con had superior arguments and even the pro said that alcohol is healthy in moderation. pro was very hostile towards the con during the debate and also forfeited the last round which gave conduct to the con, con actually used sources as well.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
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 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: Conduct for FF. Con refuted all of Pro's claims and made a convincing case in favor of alcohol. Pro couldn't overcome the increased usage argument.