The Instigator
1337Hal
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

There Should Exist a Licence System for Drinking Alcohol

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  
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: 3/13/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,074 times Debate No: 7380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

1337Hal

Pro

This is my first debate on this site, so I'm hoping I get a good argument from my opponent.

I am PRO for the resolution that there should exist a licence system for drinking alcohol. I will first describe the system I am proposing, then set forth a few reasons for my opponent to counter.

I am proposing in order to be legally eligible to drink alcohol, one should be made to get a licence proving they can handle it. Nobody would be stupid enough to suggest that the second someone turns 18 (say), they should be eligible to drive. One must first prove they are:
1. Capable of handling a vehicle
2. Devoted enough to the practice of driving that they strive to attain and keep a licence

But the laws for alcohol are far more lenient (and ludicrous). At 11:59pm, the day before one's 21st birthday, if they get caught drinking alcohol in a bar, both the drinker and the barman will be fined heavily. That 20-year-old should not be drinking, the Government says, and presumably this is for their own good. But once that clock ticks around to 12pm, that same girl is able to legally skoll a bottle of tequila in one hit. This is regardless of whether she has ever consumed alcohol before or shown that she is fit to do so.

Therefore, I propose that if someone wishes to do drugs (we'll stick with alcohol for this debate), legally then it should be irrespective of age, and they should have to prove they are:
1. Capable of handling alcohol
2. Devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol that they strive to attain and keep a licence

Just like driving. Under this system, if you were 16 years old and wished to drink, and could prove yourself worthy of drinking in bars without spewing everywhere or starting fights, then you should attain a licence and be able to drink. If you were one of those 32 year-olds who hang out at bars and start fights with strangers, you would have had your licence revoked years ago or else never attained one.

I'll leave my Round 1 here and I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for such an interesting topic.

To start, the basis of PRO's argument is that because someone must pass a test and hold a licence to drive, they must also pass a test and hold a licence to consume alcohol.

Licence for driving = Licence for Alcohol consumption.

What PRO fails to mention is that:
- Driving is an activity that requires spacial awareness, perfect vision, knowing road signs, etc, in short, intelligence of how it works and how to do it properly. This is why it requires a licence and a test. All that alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system, that everyone is born with.

Licence for driving =/= Licence for Alcohol consumption

==PRO:==
>>But the laws for alcohol are far more lenient (and ludicrous). At 11:59pm, the day before one's 21st birthday, if they get caught drinking alcohol in a bar, both the drinker and the barman will be fined heavily. That 20-year-old should not be drinking, the Government says, and presumably this is for their own good. But once that clock ticks around to 12pm, that same girl is able to legally skoll a bottle of tequila in one hit. This is regardless of whether she has ever consumed alcohol before or shown that she is fit to do so.<<

==REBUTTAL:==
I have found 2 problems with this quote from PRO:

1) PRO cites the government claims to have good intentions with the idea of age of consent. He then goes on to say the government should put in place a licensing system with this so called wisdom he claims they have.

2) PRO says that it is regardless whether or not they have shown they are capable of taking alcohol. How would such a test be performed? Would the applicants be forced to drink until drunk, and then the effects monitored? I would like PRO to explain the application system that would occur for such a license.

==PRO:==

>>Therefore, I propose that if someone wishes to do drugs (we'll stick with alcohol for this debate), legally then it should be irrespective of age, and they should have to prove they are:
1. Capable of handling alcohol
2. Devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol that they strive to attain and keep a licence<<

==REBUTTAL:==

1) PRO mentions this would be irrespective of age. Are you saying we will now allow 5 year olds to go around a pub with glasses of wine or a pint of whiskey? There would, like driving, have to be an age limit for this to apply successfully. Otherwise, a country that allows a 10 year old into a bar and denies a 44 year old fully grown man a pint in the local is surely outrageous.

2) If this is concerning that people should be able to handle something, why should we not give a licence for people who want to consume high calorie foods who are able to consume them responsibly without becoming overweight, and cigarette smokers be disallowed to smoke until such a time as they can prove they can smoke it without contracting lung cancer.

Licence for Alcohol consumption ---> Licence for High calorie Food consumption ---> Licence for cigarette smoking.

3) PRO says "devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol". Is this saying people have to have a certain amount of alcohol a week to keep their drinking license?

==============
CON ARGUMENT
==============

I would now like to address my argument on the topic

==#1 IT IS IMPRACTICAL==

The waiting list for a driving licence is quite long, but the line for people wanting to be able to have a drink in the pub would be extremely long. Not only would building have to be built to process applications and test for their ability to consume alcohol safely, but it would take years to allow someone a drink of alcohol again.

The result in this would be a huge loss for bars, alcohol companies, vineyards, in short, any company or shop associated with the alcohol industry. The huge time to allow patrons to resume drinking would result in the closure of many of these companies as they would be unable to sustain themselves without customers, especially in this economic climate.

==#2 IT INVADES PRIVACY==

My opponent has not addressed consumption of alcohol on personal property, however, I will take it as if a licence required for consumption of alcohol on personal property. Not only is this a breach of personal freedom, but it also undermines civilians in that they are being told what they cannot do on their own property all of a sudden.

This can also be a loss for the promotion of safe drinking. Parents can promote safe drinking by allowing teenagers to have 1 glass of wine with dinner, as opposed to drinking cans in a field. Now, if all of a sudden, this was disallowed, teenagers would end up in a field drinking cans of beer.

==#3 IT PROMOTES CRIME==

The aforementioned lack of access to alcohol and business' desperate for profit could lead to the set up of crime organisations dealing specially with alcohol. Like in the prohibition, "Bootleg" alcohol was sold by mobsters illegally. There is nothing to doubt this could happen again in the interval between processing applicants and regular drinking re-occurring.

I await my opponents response and wish him luck.
Debate Round No. 1
1337Hal

Pro

Thanks for a thorough and quick response.

My opponent has mistaken my position right off the bat. He has claimed that the basis of my position is "because someone must pass a test and hold a licence to drive, they must also pass a test and hold a licence to consume alcohol." This is not my position, and I merely used the driver's licence as something to provoke familiarality in my opponent and the voters. Let me state the basis of my position: "there should exist a licence system for drinking alcohol." This has nothing to do with the fact that there also exists a driver's licence; I just believe of all the ways to regulate alcohol consumption, licences are the most practical, and age limits are about the least practical.

CON:
"Driving is an activity that requires spacial awareness, perfect vision, knowing road signs, etc, in short, intelligence of how it works and how to do it properly. This is why it requires a licence and a test. All that alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system, that everyone is born with."
---
My opponent has really shown his age with this comment, voters. To claim that all alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system is like saying all tight-rope walking requires is a set of legs. Alcohol consumption (at least RESPONSIBLE alcohol consumption, the type society condones and therefore wants legal) requires maturity, the physical and mental capacity to handle a drunken state, self-respect, self-restraint, and so on.

CON:
" PRO cites the government claims to have good intentions with the idea of age of consent. He then goes on to say the government should put in place a licensing system with this so called wisdom he claims they have."
---
I don't understand your problem here. Everything the Government does (or at least wants to appear to be doing) is make decisions in the best interest of society. I never said the Government was wise, and indeed the fact that I'm suggesting an alternative to their alcohol laws indicates that I don't think they're particularly wise.

CON:
"PRO says that it is regardless whether or not they have shown they are capable of taking alcohol. How would such a test be performed? Would the applicants be forced to drink until drunk, and then the effects monitored? I would like PRO to explain the application system that would occur for such a license."
---
I would propose something like this:

- Nobody under 16 could apply.
- People 16-18 must be accompanied by a parent/guardian who is also licenced.
- Applicants would visit a Government-appointed doctor, who would administer throughly-planned doses of alcohol. Vital signs and blood-alcohol content readings would be recorded, and the applicant would be placed in a number of situations one might find themselves in while out on the grog.
- A number of factors would be taken into account to decide whether or not the applicant is successful, including how much they drank before asking to stop, how much they drank before they spew, get violent, pass out. The applicants could stop drinking at any time, but this may affect their chances of getting a licence.

Please note that this is a static plan and can change as soon as a better idea arises. Obviously the Government would spend a lot of time talking to a lot of experts before they came to a decision.

CON:
"PRO mentions this would be irrespective of age. Are you saying we will now allow 5 year olds to go around a pub with glasses of wine or a pint of whiskey? There would, like driving, have to be an age limit for this to apply successfully. Otherwise, a country that allows a 10 year old into a bar and denies a 44 year old fully grown man a pint in the local is surely outrageous."
---
Age-laws and licences are not mutually exclusive; why not have both! We still have to be sensible about this. When my friends and I were 16, we were outdrinking the old boys. Same amount of grog, them spewin' and fightin', us laughin' and smokin'. This is something you'll obviously have to take my word for, but you yourself are at an age where you will no doubt be drinking soon (or already are!), and you will notice that what I'm saying is true. Once you reach a certain tolerance for alcohol, you've got that tolerance, and it doesn't seem to matter whether you're 16 or 40.

CON:
"If this is concerning that people should be able to handle something, why should we not give a licence for people who want to consume high calorie foods who are able to consume them responsibly without becoming overweight, and cigarette smokers be disallowed to smoke until such a time as they can prove they can smoke it without contracting lung cancer.

Licence for Alcohol consumption ---> Licence for High calorie Food consumption ---> Licence for cigarette smoking."
---
Haha, of course not. The difference is that the damage done by the consumption of fatty foods and cigarettes is done to the consumer, and the consumer alone. You may say healthcare and second-hand smoke, but come on; the damage done to society by idiots who can't handle their alcohol is ridiculous. The ones who are beaten, raped, robbed, killed, spewed on, sworn at, or in any other way abused by people who, 3 hours ago, would have shaken your hand and said "how do you do?" Alcohol turns a certain type of people into animals, and these are not the sorts of people the Government should sell drugs like alcohol to.

CON:
"PRO says "devoted enough to the practice of drinking alcohol". Is this saying people have to have a certain amount of alcohol a week to keep their drinking license?"
---
No, what I meant was that you would start your licence with a certain amount of demerit points, say 12, and if you wished to continue consuming your drug in public, legally, then you would have to hang on to those points. Say you get drunk, start a fight and urinate on a barmaid, you would lose 3 points. And so on.

CON:
"==#1 IT IS IMPRACTICAL==........etc."
---
I don't see why the line for drinker's licences would be any longer than the line for driver's licences. In fact, I'd say a larger percentage of society drives than those who drink publicly. If not, it'd be a close tie. And it may be a huge loss for alcohol companies, but it'd be a big win for society.

CON:
"==#2 IT INVADES PRIVACY==........etc."
---
It would not include consumption on personal property.

CON:
"==#3 IT PROMOTES CRIME==........etc."
---
I don't think this follows at all. If you lost your licence, you'd do what every 16 year old kid does; you'd go to the bottleshop and ask a bunch of strangers to buy your sixer. If they said no, then that'd be your drag, but either way you're not gonna see mobsters on the corner selling Bacardi. Alcohol would still be equally accessible and legal, and my opponent's argument here would be better suited to a debate about prohibition.

PRO ARGUMENTS

1. I've noticed my opponent is from Ireland, where the legal drinking age is 18 in public, with no age limit for private use. In Italy it's 16 and here in the States is a ridiculous 21 [1]. Doesn't this show you the subjectivity of these laws, when we have to ask ourselves who has it right? And how can you answer such a question? The answer is, of course, none of them. They all have it wrong, because they are relying on something which has nothing to do with someone's ability to drink alcohol responsibly in public, their age.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank PRO for his speedy response.

What I have firstly noticed is a huge flaw in his argument. PRO says:

>>It would not include consumption on personal property.<<

Therefore, if this did not apply to private establishments, then it means a license is required to drink in public. Private (personal) property is excluded from this system, therefore people are still allowed to consume alcohol in bars. Reading PRO's argument reveals he intends for this to apply in bars, pubs, clubs, etc., therefore it is a contradiction.

=======
REBUTTAL
=======

==PRO:==
>>My opponent has really shown his age with this comment, voters. To claim that all alcohol consumption requires is a digestive system is like saying all tight-rope walking requires is a set of legs. Alcohol consumption (at least RESPONSIBLE alcohol consumption, the type society condones and therefore wants legal) requires maturity, the physical and mental capacity to handle a drunken state, self-respect, self-restraint, and so on.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

A comparison of tight rope walking to alcohol consumption is inaccurate. Whereas tight rope walking requires a set of legs as minimum standard, it requires hefty training to do it successfully. Alcohol consumption requires a digestive system as a bare minimum, but learning responsible drinking is not required to do it successfully.

Tight rope walking =/= Alcohol consumption.

My opponent's has also shown his age of intelligence with his comment. He clearly underestimates me.

==PRO:==
>>I don't understand your problem here. Everything the Government does (or at least wants to appear to be doing) is make decisions in the best interest of society. I never said the Government was wise, and indeed the fact that I'm suggesting an alternative to their alcohol laws indicates that I don't think they're particularly wise.<<

==REBUTTAL==

My opponent has misinterpreted my comment. I was questioning that if he feels the government are not component in their current handling of the situation with alcohol, what is to ensure their handling with a new system will be more adequate.

==PRO:==
>>I would propose something like this:

- Nobody under 16 could apply.
- People 16-18 must be accompanied by a parent/guardian who is also licenced.
- Applicants would visit a Government-appointed doctor, who would administer throughly-planned doses of alcohol. Vital signs and blood-alcohol content readings would be recorded, and the applicant would be placed in a number of situations one might find themselves in while out on the grog.
- A number of factors would be taken into account to decide whether or not the applicant is successful, including how much they drank before asking to stop, how much they drank before they spew, get violent, pass out. The applicants could stop drinking at any time, but this may affect their chances of getting a licence.

Please note that this is a static plan and can change as soon as a better idea arises. Obviously the Government would spend a lot of time talking to a lot of experts before they came to a decision.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

I find numerous problems with this system of applications:

1) It requires applicants to vomit, faint, and in short, become ill. I fail to see how this should effect someone's chance of getting a licence for alcohol drinking. Almost everyone vomits from drinking too much alcohol, including: soft drinks, juice, and anything that can be digested. I fail to see how measuring how many drinks it takes for someone to vomit affects the decision on whether or not they should be able to consume it. Not to mention the variables that are involved such as what has been previously consumed by the drinker.

2) It requires the person to be put in a situation(s) of violence under the effects of alcohol, which could easily bring harm to the doctor, nurse and patient involved.

==PRO:==
>>Haha, of course not. The difference is that the damage done by the consumption of fatty foods and cigarettes is done to the consumer, and the consumer alone. You may say healthcare and second-hand smoke, but come on; the damage done to society by idiots who can't handle their alcohol is ridiculous. The ones who are beaten, raped, robbed, killed, spewed on, sworn at, or in any other way abused by people who, 3 hours ago, would have shaken your hand and said "how do you do?" Alcohol turns a certain type of people into animals, and these are not the sorts of people the Government should sell drugs like alcohol to.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

My opponent claims that the amount of people harmed by other through alcohol consumption is greater than through second hand smoke.

Deaths by other through alcohol > Deaths through second hand smoke.

However, second hand smoke causes approx. 50,000 deaths a year in the U.S. (http://www.lungusa.org...). I so far fail to find a similar links for deaths fuelled by alcohol consumption of others. I feel this is somewhat proof the lack of such deaths.

==PRO:==
>>I don't see why the line for drinker's licences would be any longer than the line for driver's licences. In fact, I'd say a larger percentage of society drives than those who drink publicly. If not, it'd be a close tie. And it may be a huge loss for alcohol companies, but it'd be a big win for society.<<

I fail to see how this would be a huge win for society. It would benefit people who do not drink alcohol. It would however:
- Affect the jobs of any industry involved with alcohol, including:
(i). Breweries
(ii.) Farming
(iii.) Bars
(iv.) Restaurants

I fail to see how the loss of jobs, which my opponent concedes, is positive for society.

==PRO:==
>>I don't think this follows at all. If you lost your licence, you'd do what every 16 year old kid does; you'd go to the bottleshop and ask a bunch of strangers to buy your sixer. If they said no, then that'd be your drag, but either way you're not gonna see mobsters on the corner selling Bacardi. Alcohol would still be equally accessible and legal, and my opponent's argument here would be better suited to a debate about prohibition.<<

My opponent basically concedes a huge flaw in his system (which already exists), which is that people still have access to alcohol illegally by asking someone else, and them passing it on. This is the basic idea of the bootleg alcohol I mentioned.

==PRO:==

>>1. I've noticed my opponent is from Ireland, where the legal drinking age is 18 in public, with no age limit for private use. In Italy it's 16 and here in the States is a ridiculous 21 [1]. Doesn't this show you the subjectivity of these laws, when we have to ask ourselves who has it right? And how can you answer such a question? The answer is, of course, none of them. They all have it wrong, because they are relying on something which has nothing to do with someone's ability to drink alcohol responsibly in public, their age.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

My opponent has claimed age has no merit in whether or not someone should be allowed consume alcohol. And t oan extent I agree. However, I disagree with my opponents idea of how it should be handled. Forcing someone to endure physically to have a beverage is unjustified.

Fin.
Debate Round No. 2
1337Hal

Pro

Thanks again to my opponent for a thorough rebuttal.

CON:
"Therefore, if this did not apply to private establishments, then it means a license is required to drink in public. Private (personal) property is excluded from this system, therefore people are still allowed to consume alcohol in bars. Reading PRO's argument reveals he intends for this to apply in bars, pubs, clubs, etc., therefore it is a contradiction."

REBUTTAL:
I don't know how my opponent got confused here, as Ireland has a similar system, but perhaps I should have worded it better. What I meant was if you wish to drink in public (bars, clubs, sporting events, etc.) you would need a licence. If you wish to drink in the privacy of your own home, you would NOT need a licence. This would be impossible to police and an invasion of privacy.

CON:
"A comparison of tight rope walking to alcohol consumption is inaccurate. Whereas tight rope walking requires a set of legs as minimum standard, it requires hefty training to do it successfully. Alcohol consumption requires a digestive system as a bare minimum, but learning responsible drinking is not required to do it successfully.

Tight rope walking =/= Alcohol consumption.

My opponent's has also shown his age of intelligence with his comment. He clearly underestimates me."

REBUTTAL:
My opponent has essentially said "learning to drink responsibly is not required in order to drink responsibly." This is a clear contradiction. The tight-rope was an analogy, and a good one at that. Drinking responsibly takes FAR more than a digestive system, just as walking a tight-rope takes FAR more than a pair of legs. My opponent has tried to turn this analogy to make it not follow, but it does.

PRO:
"My opponent has misinterpreted my comment. I was questioning that if he feels the government are not component in their current handling of the situation with alcohol, what is to ensure their handling with a new system will be more adequate."

REBUTTAL:
Haha, now my opponent has misinterpreted MY comment. I haven't said the Government's handling of the current system is flawed, I'm saying the system ITSELF is flawed. That's the part I would like to change.

PRO:
"1) It requires applicants to vomit, faint, and in short, become ill. I fail to see how this should effect someone's chance of getting a licence for alcohol drinking. Almost everyone vomits from drinking too much alcohol, including: soft drinks, juice, and anything that can be digested. I fail to see how measuring how many drinks it takes for someone to vomit affects the decision on whether or not they should be able to consume it. Not to mention the variables that are involved such as what has been previously consumed by the drinker."

REBUTTAL:
It doesn't require the applicant to do ANYTHING they don't want to do. But if you wish to consume your favourite drug alcohol in a public place, you need to be able to prove you can handle it. Perhaps even a system whereby if the applicant refuses alcohol in the test when his/her BAC reading is 0.1, then this person would only be licenced to drink until 0.1 in public. Doing drugs legally is a privilege that the Government grants us (with alcohol at least), and as a great man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

CON:
"It requires the person to be put in a situation(s) of violence under the effects of alcohol, which could easily bring harm to the doctor, nurse and patient involved."

REBUTTAL:
CON has unwittingly helped my point here. If you drink alcohol and get violent, you SHOULD NOT be allowed to do it in public. These drug and alcohol laws are there to promote responsible drinking and to protect the public. If somebody has 4 rums and goes out searching for someone's head to stomp, they should not be granted the privilege of drinking in public.

CON:
"However, second hand smoke causes approx. 50,000 deaths a year in the U.S. (http://www.lungusa.org......). I so far fail to find a similar links for deaths fuelled by alcohol consumption of others. I feel this is somewhat proof the lack of such deaths."

REBUTTAL:
Who mentioned deaths? I mentioned harm to society, which alcohol wins hands-down.

CON:
"I fail to see how this would be a huge win for society. It would benefit people who do not drink alcohol. It would however:
- Affect the jobs of any industry involved with alcohol, including:
(i). Breweries
(ii.) Farming
(iii.) Bars
(iv.) Restaurants

I fail to see how the loss of jobs, which my opponent concedes, is positive for society."

REBUTTAL:
Once again, my opponent has made an argument against the PROHIBITION of alcohol, not against my plan. I don't see why my plan should cause the loss of any jobs, but that is up to the people who wish to consume drugs legally and in public to do so responsibly. My plan allows for several mishaps and mistakes (which happen to all of us), but if you constantly and consistantly make a nuisance of yourself, you will have your licence taken away. If the result of weeding violent drunks from bars is a few (it wouldn't be as many as my opponent will try to tell you) jobs lost, I'm still all for it.

CON:
"My opponent basically concedes a huge flaw in his system (which already exists), which is that people still have access to alcohol illegally by asking someone else, and them passing it on. This is the basic idea of the bootleg alcohol I mentioned."

REBUTTAL:
No, my opponent tried to insinuate that the Mafia would come in and start selling six-packs on the street corner to those who have lost their licence. His argument here was that my plan would increase crime. This would clearly not happen in any way, due to the reasons I gave. If that person has lost his licence, he will only be able to drink alcohol in the privacy of his own home. How he attains that alcohol is none of our or the Government's business, but at least we know he won't be out beating people up.

CON:
"My opponent has claimed age has no merit in whether or not someone should be allowed consume alcohol. And t oan extent I agree. However, I disagree with my opponents idea of how it should be handled. Forcing someone to endure physically to have a beverage is unjustified."

REBUTTAL:
I thank my opponent for conceding the point that age (at least to an extent) has little to do with someone's capacity to drink alcohol in public and remain responsible. And nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. You wish to consume drugs in public, you prove to society that you won't harm it by doing so. It really is as simple as that.

Cheers!
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a worthy debate.

==PRO:==
>>I don't know how my opponent got confused here, as Ireland has a similar system, but perhaps I should have worded it better. What I meant was if you wish to drink in public (bars, clubs, sporting events, etc.) you would need a licence. If you wish to drink in the privacy of your own home, you would NOT need a licence. This would be impossible to police and an invasion of privacy.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

Private property is owned by a person, so it is personal property. If someone wishes to allow people into their home for a few beers, then it is allowed. I fail to see the difference of intrusion on personal property and intrusion on private property. If the state does not own a bar, then it is private property, and the state cannot interfere. Therefore, the plan is null on private property, ergo, all bars, clubs, pubs, etc.

==PRO:==
>>My opponent has essentially said "learning to drink responsibly is not required in order to drink responsibly." This is a clear contradiction. The tight-rope was an analogy, and a good one at that. Drinking responsibly takes FAR more than a digestive system, just as walking a tight-rope takes FAR more than a pair of legs. My opponent has tried to turn this analogy to make it not follow, but it does.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

1) Drinking and drinking responsibly are two very different things. Drinking requires you to have a digestive system. Drinking responsibly requires you to know your limit and when to stop (which is admittedly hard whilst intoxicated).

2) Tight rope walking is not a comparable analogy. You can tight rope walk with a pair of legs, but it can only be done successfully with training. This is not the case for alcohol consumption. It is far from it. You do not need training for alcohol consumption.

==PRO:==
>>It doesn't require the applicant to do ANYTHING they don't want to do. But if you wish to consume your favourite drug alcohol in a public place, you need to be able to prove you can handle it. Perhaps even a system whereby if the applicant refuses alcohol in the test when his/her BAC reading is 0.1, then this person would only be licenced to drink until 0.1 in public. Doing drugs legally is a privilege that the Government grants us (with alcohol at least), and as a great man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility."<<

==REBUTTAL:==

1) It does, however, require someone to do something they don't want to do for something they do want to do.

2) Part of a Doctor's ethos is to not harm a patient. This is however contradictory if he must administer alcohol to a person to the point of illness.

3) It variates with what the user has previously consumed. Different foods can produce different results, both before and after alcohol consumption, like taking Mentos with Diet Coke.

4) Consumption of too much of any food makes you ill. I do not know why alcohol should be singled out in this.

==PRO:==
>>Who mentioned deaths? I mentioned harm to society, which alcohol wins hands-down<<

==REBUTTAL:==

My opponent has not proven how alcohol is bad for society apart from the odd fight every now and again. However, this does not compare to 50,000 deaths a year.

==PRO:==
>>Once again, my opponent has made an argument against the PROHIBITION of alcohol, not against my plan. I don't see why my plan should cause the loss of any jobs, but that is up to the people who wish to consume drugs legally and in public to do so responsibly. My plan allows for several mishaps and mistakes (which happen to all of us), but if you constantly and consistantly make a nuisance of yourself, you will have your licence taken away. If the result of weeding violent drunks from bars is a few (it wouldn't be as many as my opponent will try to tell you) jobs lost, I'm still all for it.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

My opponent has previously conceded that "it would be a huge loss for alcohol companies". If it was, then it obviously leads to the loss of jobs. With this comment PRO is obviously contradicting himself.

==PRO:==
>>No, my opponent tried to insinuate that the Mafia would come in and start selling six-packs on the street corner to those who have lost their licence. His argument here was that my plan would increase crime. This would clearly not happen in any way, due to the reasons I gave. If that person has lost his licence, he will only be able to drink alcohol in the privacy of his own home. How he attains that alcohol is none of our or the Government's business, but at least we know he won't be out beating people up.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

I feel this point has been made null due to the fact I have proven alcohol is still available in bars, club, pubs, etc. under this system.

==CONCLUSION:==
1) The system only allows people who can handle alcohol to drink legally in public. It still allows for the consumption of alcohol on private property, which i bars, restaurants, in short, anywhere that isn't state owned.

2) It makes people go through physical illness to be allowed consume a reasonable amount of alcohol.

3) It would be ultimately a loss for society through the loss of jobs.

I would again like to thank my opponent for this enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by euphorio 7 years ago
euphorio
@I-am-a-panda: Actually, death is something we regulate for all the time. In fact, the whole point of the government is to protect the people: their liberties, their pursuits of happiness, and their LIVES. We regulate nearly everything. Walking isn't banned, or illegal but to protect life and prevent death, certain actions are, such as jaywalking. Why? Because it's reckless endangerment of one's self and of others: just like allowing everyone to drink. It's simply irresponsible to let someone irresponsible be irresponsible. This is in the stead of making the object of the matter illegal, which, as history has proven, never works. In this case, this is alcohol. The government will sacrifice aspects of people's freedom, so that they can enjoy the pursuit of happiness, their LIVES and their liberties.
Posted by michellular091 7 years ago
michellular091
I would vote for Pro if I had a phone...
good debate.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Euphorio--->Death is simply not a reason to regulate something. Many people are killed walking on the street in America yearly, though I have no statistic it match. Should we only allow a system for people to walk outside there own home in fear others have a gun or knife (which in alot of cases is for protection).
Posted by euphorio 7 years ago
euphorio
Drinking is the leading cause of mental retardation, and alcohol causes a whopping 100, 000 deaths a year. Not to mention all the other unpleasant things it does to society. It should be regulated on a licence system, where the testing is on the psychological temerity and fortitude of the individual before and after the consumption of alcohol. (http://www.come-over.to...)
Posted by 1337Hal 7 years ago
1337Hal
"I wouldn't revoke his debate license for that."

LOL! Very nice Roy, and thanks for reviewing the debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I give the edge to Pro, but a close debate. I view this debate in the context of legalizing other drugs like marijuana and heroin. The advantage of licensing is that the license can be revoked upon conviction for abuse affecting public safety. There is a good parallel to drivers licenses; you don't need a drivers license to drive on your own property. (Think ranches in Texas.) Utah, until a month ago, required bar patrons to have a "club membership." It really didn't hold up service; the ID was flashed upon entry to the bar or to the server upon first service.

Pro shouldn't reference age, but that's a minor infraction. I wouldn't revoke his debate license for that. If points were awarded for age, I'd win every debate here.

A very interesting debate.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
It is being resolved ,however he wants to put in place a paid subscription system. We are fighting tooth and nail against this.
Posted by 1337Hal 7 years ago
1337Hal
Also, just found out I can't vote because I don't have a compatible phone. Great idea, webmaster dude!
Posted by 1337Hal 7 years ago
1337Hal
"Conduct: Con - Pro should not try to attack his opponent's characteristics"

If you're talking about the light sledging I did with my opponent's age, Jesus man, it's a debate site. Nothing personal was meant by it, and in fact CON responded by attacking my "age of intelligence." No biggie.

"Sources: Con - Only one who used sources, and Pro made up some facts."

We both used 1 source! Check my Round 1. And please tell me which facts I made up, because I'm dying to know. :)
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
Conduct: Con - Pro should not try to attack his opponent's characteristics
S&G: Tie - Nothing memorable
Arguments: Con - More or less a tie, but what tipped the balance was that Pro was changing his argument throughout the debate, which indicates that Pro's argument was unsuccessful, even in Pro's eyes
Sources: Con - Only one who used sources, and Pro made up some facts.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by The_Booner 7 years ago
The_Booner
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Zeratul 7 years ago
Zeratul
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 euphorio 7 years ago
euphorio
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 zach12 7 years ago
zach12
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
1337HalI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06