The Instigator
zharkynay
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
tregitsdown
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
zharkynay
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 728 times Debate No: 34201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

zharkynay

Con

currently, the producing of alcohol is increasing year by year and this means the health population is in danger. therefore, the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol. there are several reasons to support this statement. first of all, everyone knows that because of this product we are losing our precious thing-HEALTH. the second argument is that because if it, the crime rate in society is growing. after the usage of alcohol people lose their mind and they commit terrified crimes.
tregitsdown

Pro

Hello, I want to debate this topic, but would like you to clarify what position you take on this. Since I am supposed to say the government should regulate alcohol, I will just say that I take my stance based on the argument you just made. If you meant to be pro in this argument, please just state so and we can switch, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
zharkynay

Con

I am against to the producing of the alcohol.
tregitsdown

Pro

Alchool should continue to be produced because it is a matter of freedom. Once you ban alchool, why not ban chips, or French fries? Once you ban those, why not ban Soda, or coffee? It is a question of freedom, and it is clearly a slippery slope, so I have no doubt that alchool must continue to be produced. As well, when people commit crimes under alchool, they are usually drunk, and it is their choice to end up committing whatever crime they do, and once they become drunk, they are not drinking responsibly.
Debate Round No. 2
zharkynay

Con

But, what about the terrifying harms of this product to the health of people. Each country which has a constitutional rights of human must save their citizens from the negative things,like alcohol. In this case, a very precious thing is the health of people. I think that you know about that even the less drinking the alcohol has an influence on your brain, nerve system, heart beating and other important limbs. If the government bans the usage of alcohol, there will be less diseases, like pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, high blood pressure and different types of cancers including mouth, liver, larynx, throat and esophagus. Moreover, the affect of this product has a significant and negative role to the family members. Because of it, there are a great number of families who are divorcing with each other. There is no doubt that this situation will influence to the children, to their psychology. Also, the studies show that the children who come with the families who always use the alcohol always feel the loneliness, guilt, helplessness and so on. The government must look and do some actions which are related to the banning, if it wants to has a healthy population.
tregitsdown

Pro

The issue is simply not that black and white. It's a matter of freedom, and the only people who get the symptoms your talking about are alcoholics, not people who use moderation. That is why we have organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous, to help such people. There should be restrictions on alcohol, but not banning it outright. There are more people who use moderation than there are alcoholics, and that is what should be taught, moderation. And a constitutional right to save its people's health by stealing its freedom? That is tyranny, what the constitution is supposed to protect against! Heart disease kills more people in America, but are you campaigning to ban McDonalds? You have made good points, but the issue just isn't black and white.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Welcome to the site, and good luck on your first debate. The other two are right, what you've presented is Pro for the resolution, whereas con would be against it (thus in favor of alcohol).
Posted by THElittleRISK 3 years ago
THElittleRISK
You're arguing for prohibition but then you put your position as against it...?
Posted by amey 3 years ago
amey
u have taken the wrong position
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THElittleRISK 3 years ago
THElittleRISK
zharkynaytregitsdownTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: While I wholeheartedly agree with Pro, Con used more evidence in his arguments and had more diverse arguments (crime, health, divorce) whereas pro stuck to his argument of rights rather than refuting Con's arguments thoroughly. Not saying that Pro did a bad job or I disagree with him, but Con made better arguments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
zharkynaytregitsdownTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with con that it is not black and white, and would rebel against a renewed prohibition... Pro gave a clean argument for the ill effects of it; which was only countered by a slippery slope fallacy (aptly labeled such), and an appeal to tradition fallacy (because we have "freedom"). I do wholly agree with his counter to the crime problem, that it is people choosing to not be in control of themselves.