Should they raise beer prices
Debate Rounds (3)
Among other things, he fails to support his claim that "it causes more problems than any thing else".
Furthermore, he fails to explain how his claim - even if true - supports his resolution (which was rather vague to begin with, as well).
He thus fails to support his BOP.
Counter arguments (I don't think I really need them, but it can't hurt):
Why the prices should not be raised:
1)People will choose slightly more expensive but stronger/worse alternatives:
Beer is far less harmful than other similar activities such as hard alcohol & drugs.
If the price of beer goes up, people who would otherwise go for beer because it's so cheap, will now spend the smaller difference to "upgrade", to something stronger/worse.
People go for beer over other substances, because beer is so cheap, if the prices go up, there will be a shift.
2) Won't decrease consumption, & might actually increase it:
a) Companies will counter the increase in price which lowers consumption, with more advertising, to keep consumption levels stable.
b) If prices go up, the beer industry will potentially become a more lucrative business, if they can keep consumers.
More effort will be made to get people to buy beer, because the profit margin for sales has increased.
Basically since profit margin will rise, there will be much more effort to sell beer than there was when the profit margin was less. Thus companies will want to spend more money on getting a person to buy/drink beer.
So not only might drinking not go down, but it actually might go up, due to increased efforts to attract consumers.
c) Raising profit margin, would actually be encouraging & rewarding the sales of beer.
macaveli forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Yeesh. Pro did not make a real case beyond the vague and unsupported assertion in R2, that Con more than adequately addressed. All points for forfeit, but Pro would have lost each one individually anyway.
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.