This House would ban alcohol
Debate Rounds (3)
Democracy is based on the principle that the majority of people are to elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the well being of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time which they have to use, to get well equipped to make more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. One of the principles in society therefore is that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the government trusted the people; they would make responsible decisions regarding alcohol. However, each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol related diseases or accidents. Thus the citizens proved not to be responsible; even though they had information available they did not make the choice that would keep them alive.
The government has a duty to protect those irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will not be able to contribute to society to the extent they could without alcohol. And because the government does not know who is the one that will make a stupid decision that will engender their lives in the long run, for the sake of few individuals", alcohol has to be banned for all.
Therefore, because the government has been trusted with the duty to make informed decisions instead of the individuals and to protect the individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol if they believe it is very harmful.
Well, seems that this "argument" is over. :P
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.