The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
60 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

The British Government should provide all adult males with free beer vouchers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,268 times Debate No: 10240
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (20)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Heart disease is by far the biggest killer of men in the UK (1) yet the latest research proves that "drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third." (2) Since heart disease in men costs the National Health Service (NHS) �15.5 billion a year (3) and there are approximately 24 million men in the UK (4) that means the Government spends �625 per year per man on treating heart disease.

Now, if heart disease were reduced by a third a year that would mean the NHS would save �188 per year per man which they could then pass on. I suggest this payment should be in the form of beer vouchers rather than cash to prevent any effeminate types wasting the money on clothes or toiletries.

This way, men would be happier and healthier and would live and work longer which means they would pay more tax.

Furthermore, the NHS would save a fortune and would be able to free up extra beds in the process.

Finally, new jobs would be created in breweries and pubs thus providing yet more income tax receipts to further swell the Government's coffers.

In short, under my scheme, everyone's a winner and I therefore urge you to vote Pro in favour of free beer vouchers for all British men.

Thank you.

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
(4) http://www.direct.gov.uk...
Danielle

Con

We meet again, Brian, and thanks for the debate!

I only have an hour to write this, so here we go...

1. Tax payers should not be responsible for keeping other people happy and healthy.

2. The resolution discriminates against women. While women don't benefit from alcohol consumption to the same degree as men, the reality is that women who drink in moderation still live longer lives and have a lower chance of heart disease, which is also the #1 killer of women [1]. As such, it's unfair and illegal even in Britain to discriminate based on gender when it comes to public funding.

3. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital has analyzed alcohol's
various risks and benefits over the years as a researcher in the Nurses' Health Study. She has said, "First of all, no one should begin drinking alcohol in order to reap health benefits, since it's very difficult to predict whether risks will outweigh benefits and vice versa" [2]. In other words, while there are some health benefits to drinking alcohol, there are some risks as well and you never know which will prevail: the good or the bad. Therefore this is a gamble with no guarantees that may even pose potential problems. Why make the government responsible for that? If England is anything like the US, there would be lawsuits left and right costing the government a whole bunch of money, even if the plaintiffs lose. It's best to let people make their own decisions when it comes to their health.

4. Speaking of which, is alcohol the only thing that's good for you? Nay. England's very own BBC reports that meditation alone decreases death and heart disease by 47% which is just about the same effects as alcohol that you provided. Does that mean the government should be responsible for giving everyone vouchers to the gym or yoga seminars as well? Or how about other food, even? Researchers have found that flavonoids found in apples, strawberries, bran and even chocolate can reduce cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease [4]. If these things all have the same effects, then it logically follows that the government would help buy people these things too. If you think that's unrealistic, non-sustainable or just silly in general, then you should reject the resolution too.

5. Pro brings up the point that people who live longer pay more in taxes. The government should not make their decisions solely on cost benefits alone. Further, there's a detriment that comes with a higher and longer living population as well. In addition to population issues, remember that more living people puts more demands on the community. Tax payers will actually be responsible for a lot of these individuals (health care, etc.) as opposed to the seniors giving back. In other words, they would be both physically and economically burdensome most likely overall.

6. Pro said that new jobs would emerge in breweies and pubs as a result of this legislation; however, that is an a claim without any merit. There's no proof that (a) Englishmen will utilize these vouchers or (b) that more employees would be needed. This is mostly because vouchers for just 1 or 2 beers - which is what is meant by moderation - might not excite people a whole lot or have such drastic and dramatic effects that all of these new people will suddenly be hired.

7. We can assume that a fair amount of people would be encouraged to drink by this who usually wouldn't. As such, you'll have a greater chance of there being people who are drunk and/or who can't handle their alcohol. This will increase things like the drunk driving death rate and the accidental pregnancy rate. These realities combined with other potential negatives such as an increased risk of liver disease, alcohol abuse, etc. are enough to at the very least combat Pro's ideology to the point of neutral, thereby negating the resolution. Keep in mind that the resolution also specifies ALL adult males, including those who are already sick and/or abuse alcohol.

8. While Pro specified that these vouchers can only be used for beer, that won't stop people from selling them illegally. Food stamps are only good for food and yet people sell them for cash. The same would happen here, this encouraging illegal activity among British citizens.

With that in mind, I'll end it here for now. Back to ye.

[1] http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com...
[2] http://health.usnews.com...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[4] http://www.naturalnews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

It is always an honour and a pleasure (as well as quite hard work) to debate theLwerd and I duly thank her for accepting this debate.

I should like to reply to her contributories as follows:

1 – "Tax payers should not be responsible for keeping other people happy and healthy."

Britain is a civilised country where health care is considered to be a universal right and is provided according to need rather than ability to pay. I mean, why should a man go without a potentially life-saving beer just because he doesn't have the price of a pint?

2 – "The resolution discriminates against women."

When a man and a woman fall in love they may decide to get married. By convention, the man then buys the woman an engagement ring costing the equivalent to 20% of his annual salary. Then he provides her with a wedding ring, a house to live in and pays for the honeymoon. Then when they have children he works all the hours god sends to earn enough money to allow his wife to give up work to stay at home with the kids. Then she has an affair with the milkman / postman / window cleaner and files for a divorce. Then the court rules that she gets custody of the children and gets to keep the house and half their savings and although the man is chucked onto the streets and has to shell out for somewhere else to live, he still has to pay the mortgage on his old house and give his former wife enough money to enable her to live in the manner she is accustomed to.

Hardly just and equitable is it? No, but it is a typical scenario. Never mind that though, it's still not enough apparently. Now my opponent is demanding that women get FREE BEER on top of all that! And most women don't even drink beer. It's just pure spite and greed, that's all it is.

3 – "…while there are some health benefits to drinking alcohol, there are some risks as well…"

This is true but adults must be given the freedom to make their own decisions about what is good or bad for them. Nevertheless, most producers and purveyors of alcohol protect themselves from lawsuits display notices advising consumers to "drink responsibly" and no doubt something similar can be printed on the beer vouchers.

4 – "Does that mean the government should be responsible for giving everyone vouchers to the gym or yoga seminars as well?"

The Government does provide free gymnasium and yoga sessions to people on low incomes. Indeed, jobless women who are lone parents can even get free pamper sessions at private spas to help boost their self-esteem. (1) And yes, the government does give out vouchers for free milk, fruit and vegetables to young mothers to keep their babies healthy (2) so why shouldn't they give out beer vouchers to keep men healthy?

5 – "The government should not make their decisions solely on cost benefits alone."

Putting to one side the fact that my opponent values lower taxes over human lives, people who work longer pay for their own retirement through their National Insurance contributions – the scheme is self-financing. (3)

6 – "There's no proof that (a) Englishmen will utilize these vouchers or (b) that more employees would be needed."

The British like their beer, make no mistake about that. In fact, the British drink almost 100 litres (210 US pints) of beer each per year - compared with around 80 litres per capita per annum in the US, 50 litres in Japan and 20 in China so the vouchers will definitely be used. (3) Indeed, since a lot of British men who previously didn't drink or drank very little (Muslims, ladyboys / Tottenham Hotspur fans, etc.) will take up drinking beer when they realise what health benefits can accrue from its consumption it stands to reason that the breweries and pubs will be busier than ever and crying out for new staff.

7 – "…you'll have a greater chance of there being people who are drunk and/or who can't handle their alcohol."

It is true that there are problems associated with misuse of alcohol, but they are normally associated with strong yet cheap drinks like cider and vodka. Beer is relatively weak and you can easily drink two pints and still be under the legal limit allowed to drive a car. (4)

8 – It may well be the case that vouchers will exchange hands for cash. Muslims, for example, may put their faith before their health, but there's nothing wrong with that. It is a free country.

So, in conclusion we can see that there are no legitimate reasons why free beer vouchers shouldn't be given to all adult males in Britain in order to protect their health and I would urge you to vote Pro for in support of this very worthwhile scheme.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

(2) http://www.healthystart.nhs.uk...

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(4) http://www.80mg.org.uk...
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Brian, for the great debate as always.

1. "Britain is a civilized country where health care is considered to be a universal right and is provided according to need rather than ability to pay."

First, drinking a beer isn't a "need" or providing care at all, but rather a whimsical attempt at preventative action. Perhaps if there was solid evidence that it was worth it to do this, then Pro might have an argument. However, since I cited an expert saying that partaking in this experience was not a guarantee or even a good bet, then this is irrelevant. Second, just because that is the current policy in Britain doesn't mean that it's the right one. Pro hasn't explained WHY this should be the case (and what SHOULD be is what's in question), therefore this point must go to the Con.

2. "Women don't deserve free beer."

Women are born as second class citizens into an inherently sexist and patriarchal society (in the west - Britain included); are biologically inferior to men thus susceptible to assault, domestic abuse and rape more than men (also leading to what is considered sexual or mental terrorism); endure gender gaps in almost every powerful economical or political sphere in society; endure sexual harassment on a daily basis; are discriminated against; are challenged by the glass ceiling; unfairly judged and scrutinized in a variety of social situations; earn less wages as men for doing the same jobs; are torn between home and family (and often responsible for both paid and unpaid labor, as they both have careers outside of the home as well as taking care of the home); etc.

When the family has 2 cars, it's the man riding the Jag and the woman sporting the mini van. The mom is expected to to take interest in boring things like doing laundry and the PTA. After the divorce is finalized, biological factors and population lead to the men scoring hot younger chicks while the woman becomes seen as an old maid and probably never gets laid again. Women are cursed with devastating hormonal effects throughout life (PMS, pregnancy, menopause, etc.) not to mention gain a ton of weight and pass an 8 lb. human being their through vaginas during child birth. I say **** YOU, BRIAN for saying women don't deserve a beer. Not to mention that Pro completely ignored the benefits society (men) will reap by having more drunk women around. This point goes to Con.

3. "Adults must be given the freedom to make their own decisions about what is good or bad for them... We can give warnings when serving beer about the consequences."

Yes, adults should have the freedom to choose to allocate a portion of their money for a beer if they're so concerned about it being essential or excessively beneficial to their health. Additionally, if the product requires a warning such as the one Pro is suggesting, then the government probably has no business distributing it or promoting it among their citizens. This point leans toward the Con.

4. "The government helps people in other ways."

First, Pro hasn't provided any proof that the government gives people free spa treatments or yoga sessions to people with low income. Second, the things that the government gives vouches for (such as fruit and milk) are able to be consumed by most people - not just limited to adults (or males for that matter). These vouchers exist to help families survive and afford the necessities, not the luxuries. Plus, they don't come with the risks and yet carry the benefits that beer does (if not more so). And what about things like liposuction? That could severely improve one's health (i.e. weight loss decreasing heart problems and diabetes, etc.) but the government is not expected to foot the bill for such endeavors. Also, once again the argument arises that just because the government currently does things (affords hand-outs) doesn't necessarily mean that they should. I'd say this point goes to the Con.

5. "Con values lower taxes over human lives... The scheme is self-financing."

Obviously the idea that I value lower taxes over human lives is riddled with fallacies (straw man, slippery slope, etc.). However I'd like to point out that there's absolutely no guarantee that this scheme is self-financing; again the idea that this scheme would work for all people is not guaranteed. Most importantly, when people become elderly, they become the burden of the State (for things like social security, medicare, etc.) and don't pay INTO the state via taxes as Pro has implied, because they probably wouldn't be working after around aged 62. Point - Con.

6. "The British like their beer..."

Eh, I concede this point to the Pro.

7. "Beer is relatively weak and you can easily drink two pints and still be under the legal limit..."

This doesn't negate my points that people might start drinking more and become alcoholics, get into more trouble (including alcohol related trouble, which is plentiful) thus having detrimental or negative impacts on society, etc. Plus, how one can function after consuming alcohol regardless of the amount varies; even the link Pro provided warns not to use the 2 drink rule max as being a universal standard since people have a variety of tolerance levels.

8. "It may well be the case that vouchers will exchange hands for cash. Muslims, for example, may put their faith before their health, but there's nothing wrong with that. It is a free country."

This seemingly contradicts Pro's very own assertion from the first round when he said: I suggest this payment should be in the form of beer vouchers rather than cash to prevent any effeminate types wasting the money on clothes or toiletries. So, right there it seems as if Pro has conceded this point to me. He acknowledged that this is possible, an agreed when I pointed out that it was probable. Yes, it's a free country, but just as I don't feel that tax payers should be required to buy one beer, I also don't feel they should be responsible in buying one marijuana or any other drug, accessory, piece of jewelery, etc. A truly free country would not force its citizens to buy other people things. This point = Con.

In conclusion, more arguments in this debate should be awarded to the negative. Thanks again, Brian and cheers!
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
theLwerd is stone cold.. Not cool.. "Tax payers should not be responsible for keeping other people happy and healthy." Spoken like Glenn Beck..
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Did you read the debate? Guess not :)
Posted by Chuckles 7 years ago
Chuckles
free beer? hell yeah.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
If us British males were eligible to vote on the site would this result be different?

Great arguments L but I still want my free beer!
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
I think the health benefit vs. health risk argument was the most powerful part of this argument and one that Con won handedly. For the rest, I voted tie down the line.

(I hope I'm not taking this argument too seriously. :-)
Posted by gravyhadaname 7 years ago
gravyhadaname
ahhahhhahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
ha ha, this is hilarious... Not to mention the large debt that the Government would work itself into. Such socialist programs as that could foresee the fall of a country.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Before: Con
After: Con
Conduct: Tie
Spelling/Grammar: Tie
Convincing arguments: Con
Sources: Tie
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by THEVIRUS 4 years ago
THEVIRUS
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: both were good, but con had more arguments
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Why are people blowing this in Pro's favor? They both did a great job but I think Danielle's arguments rang a little more true. I'm a little surprised nobody brought up wine vs beer. Or the negligible amounts of alcohol in beer. I love beer (and all alcohol) but I'd have to say Danielle took this debate. I don't think that 'most women don't even drink beer' is a reasonable argument for not including women in your already socialist program. :P
Vote Placed by Spartan 5 years ago
Spartan
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a very good argument, and I agree with him.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't vote 5 points for himself.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Pote 7 years ago
Pote
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
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