Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water poses significant health risks. Many bottled water brands contain toxins, even if they've eliminated BPA. "Bottled water companies are increasingly using BPA-free plastic, but there are other chemicals present in plastic bottles that can seep out if the bottles are exposed to heat or left for a long time. Some of these chemicals are potential endocrine disruptors. No one can definitively say what the health outcomes are. Would you want your body to be the subject of such an experiment?" (1) I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case for this. Would you? Bottled water is a costly choice. "In 2009, Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water, paying up to 1,000 times the price of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) originated from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. An increasing proportion of bottled water is now sourced from tap water." (2) It doesn't make sense to me why someone would spend a few dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely water fountains at work. Spending money on something that you can get for free is foolish. Bottled water has a detrimental environmental impact. "Bottled water production in the United States consumed the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil in 2007, enough to power approximately 1.5 million cars for a year. Instead of being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in landfills, lakes, streams, and oceans, where they may never fully decompose." (2) "Water bottles are made of entirely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade; they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. These fragments absorb toxins that contaminate our waterways, soil, and animals (which we then consume)." (5) Every time you step outside, you'll likely see a water bottle on the ground. Knowing that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water someone bought and discarded on the ground makes me anxious. Bottled water is not necessarily safer. "Tap water in the United States is subject to stricter federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available

"I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable."You make it sound as if alcohol can be used as a form of medicine. My argument is not that alcohol can be used as a medicine, but that drinking it moderately can come with some small benefits. Simply, my stance is summed up in one word: moderation. If used in moderation, then alcohol can comes with some benefits."Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."People end up on the floor as a result of overuse of alcohol. I have stated quite clearly that I support the use of alcohol in moderation. Should we limit the rights of the responsible just because some abuse their rights to drink? No. "If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "A person can love beer, wine, liquor, etc. without becoming an alcoholic. A man or woman may love a drink, but drink in moderation. This is not to say that they will miss the drink - they may miss it very much. So your argument stating that those who drink alcohol in moderation will not miss it once it is banned is largely false. Second, my point about drunk drivers is a whole other argument. Under the current system, alcoholics are free to drink to at home or ask a manager in a restaurant to drive them home. Under a Prohibition system, however, alcoholics must go to illegal speakeasies and other such bars in search of a drink. They will become drunk, and must return home. My point is that, currently, alcoholics can drink in an area where they don't have to drive home. But, under Prohibition, alcoholics would have to go out, on the streets, in search of alcohol. There is no denying, that even in the best of systems, some alcohol would still remain or be smuggled in this nation. Marijuana is illegal but still is used by quite a few people. Meth is illegal but is still used by a quite a few people. Alcohol would be illegal, but quite a few people would still drink because of the formation of black markets. "Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alcohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares."This was just an example. I wanted to show how silly it is to limit the rights of of responsible citizens because a few abuse their rights. You say that knives have far more purposed than alcohol - true, but alcohol is a very lucrative industry. I am simply trying to point out that, while knives have more conventional purposes, the alcohol industry has a quite few purposes in the economy. "If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen."Even in the best of situations, agents could never completely banish alcohol. We spent millions, billions, on the War on Drugs, and people still smoked and drank and did whatever else. Our police force keeps a careful eye on the use of marijuana and other such drugs, yet it is still heavily prevalent in society. And, alcohol is much more used than drugs such as weed. It would impossible to completely banish it; and with this small amount, a black market would form, and the want would increase for alcohol. Folks would pay more for it - that it why weed is so expensive. It is a prediction, too - you cannot base your entire stance on it. No matter how many agents are in working and how many laws are put into place, alcohol cannot be banished. Making alcohol illegal would cause the opposite to occur - a black market would form, and the want and price for alcohol would increase. "You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol."I did not say little to no alcohol. I said a moderate amount or no alcohol. And just because I made this statement does not invalidate the fact that the alcohol industry generates "more than $65 billion a year in revenue and spends more than $1 billion a year on advertising." (http://www.health20-20.org...) Also, just to confirm this fact - "About a third of Americans choose not to drink at all, a third drink moderately, and about a third drink regularly. Ten percent of the drinking-age population consumes over 60 percent of the alcohol."Pulled from that website. You cannot deny that the alcohol industry makes lots of money, and its collapse could result in finical troubles. "Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source.""The tobacco industry consists of several different companies, all of which make different amounts of money. The highest ranking tobacco company in the Fortune 500, Philip Morris International, reports a yearly revenue of $27,208,000,000. The second-highest ranking tobacco company, Altria Group, makes $16,892,000,000 of revenue each year." Pulled from http://www.ask.com....... Both industries are important to our economy. Just because the tobacco industry makes more does not mean that the billions that the alcohol industry makes it worth nothing. Both are important to our economy, and provide jobs; their ruin could ruin the economy."If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweigh the cost involved."No, alcoholics frequented speakeasies. Just because it was illegal doesn't mean they couldn't get it. And that is what would occur today, if it were enforced. Alcohol cannot be banished entirely, and the option of smuggling it in still exists. A black market would form. That is what has happened to drugs such as marijuana and meth. And these drugs have been under heavy scrutiny by the government and the police, but still continue to be heavily prevalent in society."Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it."I agree - however, my argument was that alcohol is moderation is not bad for you, that it can offer some potential health benefits. "I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict."People handle things in different ways. While some can be responsible with alcohol, some can not. My argument proves this. We should protect the rights of those who handle them responsibly. Those who cannot hold them responsibly are the ones we should punish - not the ones who do no wrong. "Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero."Marijuana is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Meth is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Making alcohol illegal will not drop the number of alcoholics. It will simply set up a black market, where the price is determined by the want of the drug. Voters - vote for the debater which offered the more statistics. Vote for the debater which offered fact rather than opinion. Vote for the debater who's argument is not based on emotion but rather fact. Vote for the debater which offered the more logiical, and sensible, argument.Best of luck to my opponent. May the voters decide who ultimelty won.

I was a little shocked that instead of denying Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke that your post actually affirms what I have been saying! Government over steps it's bounds way too often. This is supposed to be a country "for the people, by the people." I didn't vote for a ban on soda, less calories in schools or obamacare. I do believe there should be no junk food in schools but if a kid brings their own then let him/her enjoy it. As I noted in the comment section, there are students feeling like they are starving by the end of school and definitely by the end of after school activities. The school lunch program was to ensure ALL students receive some sort of sustenance and nutrition, not pay 25 cents more for less food!!! Thanks michelle! I believe the actual quote was "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like it requires a nail" I am not positive but it is a little easier to understand that way. I have worked on so many machines that I have no favorite tool. NDOT's TDM is a bunch of fools. They do not know how to build roads properly, how to have safe and effective egress and their lack of knowledge of how to synchronize traffic light is troubling. The biggest problem with the Las Vegas road system is that too many los angeles engineers moved here and they had warped conceptions on how to handle traffic. They think having to stop at every light prevents speeding but everyone here races to beat the light!?!?! I don't even want to get started on "global warming" and "climate change". It is a lie designed to create more money for the government in taxes and carbon credits PERIOD! Look at Italian/Roman art over the last 2000 years. From the 150 BC to 300 AD they were shown is summer type clothing. From 300 AD to 900 AD they are shown in longer togas and layered clothing. Again from 900 to 1200 hundred the clothing was lighter and shorter. From 1250 to 1400 the clothing was again longer and layered. This was the time of REAL climate change, they had very many floods and droughts. By the mid 1400's clothing became very heavy and rarely recorded weather of the time period, up to the mid 1800's, was almost never over 65 degrees Fahrenheit. In the late 1800's there were temperatures in the 90's and on occasion 100's in the summer. In the 1950's it cooled again and in 1988 a warming trend started. Times change and all things with it. The earth has warmed and cooled for a million years and will do so for about another million. The above dates are approximate and the clothing is not just fashion it shows the climate of the time. If you wish to view a 2,000 year old tree ring that shows the change in temperatures of Northern Europe go here http://www.dailymail.co.uk... As far as homosexuals and gambling I think that is individual right. I don't like anything gay around me but if a flamer comes in and sits next to me at the bar it is his/her right as long as they don't harass me. If someone wants to risk all their money I think it is their right but so that person's rights don't trample other's rights, they should HAVE to be logged in. If you lose everything from gambling and file bankruptcy or try to get welfare you should be denied. You have the right to bankruptcy if your business can no longer compete and welfare if you are down by no fault of your own but when it is out of your own ignorance the American people should not have to bail you out. I would expect a church or charity to help though. That is the great thing about Americans, when left to there own accord they always come through for their neighbors.

hell yeah it should be banned its murder simple!!!

Public schools should not exist. They are propped up inevitably by stolen money, i.e., taxes. Taxation is unacceptable. Now, clearly, the nonexistence of public schools precludes allowing mp3 players in public schools-- it is not possible to allow something "in" something that does not exist. And since the nonexistence of public schools is part of what should be the case, allowing the existence of public schools in them clearly is not part of what should be the case.

Thanks, Con. Re: A person can do what they choose with their own body. Con begins, "Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone." This is a contradictory statement. Con cannot say that a person should be able to do whatever they choose, but then say that they shouldn't be able to a second later. Further Con never explains how or why this is or the good of everyone. I also contend that it's not for the good of the willing buyer and seller. If I wish to sell a kidney for a million dollars, then Con cannot say "it's for my own good" that the government prohibits this transaction. The individual should be able to make personal decisions about their own body that do not inflict upon the rights of others. Con also says that most donors receive less than they deserve. Of course value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem and in fact view it as a positive. This is an option (for those who are willing) to make money and help save lives simultaneously. Personally, even though I definitely could us the money, I would not be willing to sell my organs unless for a substantial amount of money. If this could really help me, Con is only hurting me - and the recipient - by prohibiting this. So far, Con hasn't proven that a person should not be able to do what they please with their own person. Re: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs? Con writes, "Should something like blood [and a kidney] be treated the same? ... With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient's life forever." First, it doesn't matter if one process is more dangerous than another. Patients choose to have plastic surgery for shallow reasons despite the risks, even causing some to die [1]. If those risky procedures are still available, this type of surgery should be an option too. Second, Con completely ignored the most paramount aspect of this contention. In the last round I pointed out that people CREATE life for money (egg and sperm donation), though Con is suggesting we shouldn't be able to SAVE lives for money. Con must justify this hypocrisy. Re: Transplants are safe and effective. Con provides a statistic from the L.A. Times; however, upon searching the web I could not locate the source. I'd like Con to please provide a link or cited source proving his statistic. Nevertheless, his criticisms are as follows: First, that transplants are not too safe and fail 60% of the time. This general figure does not apply to all kinds of transplants. According to the Mayo Clinic, a liver transplants carries a risk to the donor's life of less than 1 percent, and it's just just 0.03 for a kidney [2]. Moreover, this procedure is just as risky as surrogate motherhood and yet that is legally available for purchase. Furthermore, this only suggests that organ donating is not successful -- not that it shouldn't be available for money. Once again, a buyer and consumer are responsible for understanding the risks of a particular trade. The potential danger only increases the value of the procedure. Second, Con mentions that 92% of families who chose not to donate their loved one's organs said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is completely and utterly irrelevant and in fact and in fact a contention in my favor. As I explained in the last round, those who are morally opposed to this procedure or who do not think it is worth the risk will simply not participate in these kinds of transactions. It's no different than saying those who are against abortions should not seek them, or those who don't like Cheese Doodles do not have to buy them. Re: Money will sway people from donating. Con provides a scenario in which one does not donate their kidney to a family member because they choose to sell it for money instead. I see no problem with this. In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful. Re: People can us the money to pay for funerals and other expenses. Here Con did not respond to the concept of funerals one iota. Instead he suggested that a market for organs would arise, to which I would completely agree and argue as a good thing. I'll use this opportunity to expand on why a market for organs would be helpful... In Takes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative, author James Taylor advocates using markets to increase the supply of organs available for transplantation [3]. In a 2004 journal article, economist Alex Tabarrok argues that allowing organ sales, and elimination of organ donor lists will increase supply, lower costs and diminish social anxiety towards organ markets [4]. The Economist argued that if 0.06% of Americans between 19 and 65 were to sell one kidney, the national waiting list would disappear - which is exactly what happened in Iran [5]. Again, why is saving lives a bad thing? Next, Con attempts to defend his own contentions. He begins by saying that financial incentives for donors would insult those who donated strictly out of humanitarian concern. I don't see why. I pointed out in the last round that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. While one's motives might be more selfish than another's, the original donor made the decision to give for free and that was good deed they should stand behind. They lose nothing from legalizing this policy. Con's next argument is that I have no evidence that incentives will increase the number of donors. However, Con himself completely contradicted his own argument a few paragraphs earlier. In point D, he wrote - and I quote - "Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to donate." Further there is indeed evidence that incentives will definitely drastically increase the number of available kidneys as evidenced by the Iranian example and the laws of supply and demand. Con writes, "You said that organ regeneration is not an option." I actually said it wasn't an option in all or many procedures, which is why we need to seriously consider financial incentives for people in need. If you were dying, and somebody wasn't willing to give you their kidney but agreed to sell it to you, wouldn't you want the option to establish this trade legally? Con's final point is at if assumed consent is applied, it will disregard the need for organ donation. This is completely false. First, many people will likely choose to take away consent for religious or moral reasons. Second, this completely disregards my point that this can benefit those who are willing and who wish to sell an organ while they are alive. In conclusion of this round, my opponent hasn't proven that organ donation is unethical or more dangerous than other legalized procedures (for money). Meanwhile, I've proven my proposal as both practical, effective and morally superior, as it respects an individual's personal freedoms. Thank you. [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.aynrand.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://econjwatch.org... [5] http://www.economist.com...

No, because another handle would create a large surface area and would thus use more plastic and consequently do more harm to the environment. [1] The benefits are negligible as someone could balance the bottle on their other hand while holding it steady with the handle if required. [1] - http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org...

Sorry to get back so late as i am a busy man these days with training. I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like?", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. 1. I never said the F.D.A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F.D.A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. 2. My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper."you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine." I know many people who have dipped both flavored and non flavored dip, and have never dipped again, although the nicotine was in their system. Also the guy who left the first comment on this debate can agree too. 3. My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. This is common sense. All about morality bub. 4. My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. He tried quoting me and failed at that, but, 10 out of 10 people i see dip. My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. 5. My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. Bub. First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip

I also enjoy debating this topic, sir. Thank you.You stated that your main stance is that banning alcohol will only increase drunk driving rates because people will have to go out in search for it, and also it should not be taken away from those that drink responsibly. You also mentioned that alcohol has health benefits, which I whole-heartedly agree with. I apologize, I should have defined alcohol at the beginning of the debate and what exceptions there might be, that is my fault. I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable.The CDC article you mentioned stated that 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men is considered moderate. I ask you, what is considered 1 drink? A tankard? A shot glass? Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."A majority of people consume an average amount of alcohol, or no alcohol at all." You did not attach a source to this, but if it is true it only supports my argument. If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "It is basically the same as banning knifes because some, but not all, abuse their rights to own knifes and hurt themselves or others."Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alchohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares. "What I am getting at is that making alcohol illegal will put more people on the streets, drunk, because they must go out of their home in search of it."This goes back to my argument for enforcement. If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen. The same laws that apply to drunk drivers today would still apply, if not be even more strict. That would discourage drunk driving considerably in my opinion. "Banning alcohol would be an economic disaster. The alcohol industry makes billions each year. The tobacco industry also makes a quite a bit as well: "You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol. This means that consumer taxing would not be that high to begin with. Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source. How many people do you see smoking on a day to day basis? And yet it kills many Americans. I won't quote the statistics, but we all know the numbers suffering and dying from lung cancer is far greater than we would care to know about. Why not raise the tax on tobacco and end the problem? If anything, this would drop the number of those with lung cancer and give hospitals the chance to treat others rather than those who abuse their bodies. If anything, I ask how tobacco companies can justify the production of tobacco to begin with since it holds zero health benefits."Now, how much exactly do you plan to tax this industry? Because if you take it too high, it will collapse as well - resulting in two huge industries falling."I'm not an economist, but in short taxing done in moderation and an increase in other sources would make up for the absence of alcohol."Yet, the policy of prohibition wasn't fully enforced in good times - how would we pay for it in times of a poor economy like the one today? If the riches of the 1920's couldn't afford to end the illegal sale of alcohol, how could we manage it now?"This goes back to those 3000 nationwide agents and enforcement. The riches of the 1920s had nothing to do with it. It was simply the number of those enforcers that weren't doing the job to begin with. If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweight the cost involved. Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it. The old saying goes, eat right, stay fit, die anyway. I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict. Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero.Prohibition did work. It simply wasn't put into effect in the right way.

My opponent has suggested that placing public safety and individual rights and liberties before the profit model of corporations is idealistic. I disagree with his perspective. As the world survived before the advent of plastic, oil, and fossil fuels, I suppose it would continue were these materials cease to be used. Also, other more ecologically friendly options are currently available. If not, others would be discovered. Necessity is the mother of invention. However, my argument stated that personal and societal rights should take precedent over products manufactured by corporations. I did not say that the products should be automatically trashed. It has beeen proven that corporations that produce toxic or harmful products disproportionately build their factories in underprivileged, disadvantaged and oppresses communities. Issues such as environmental racism are proven 'realities' for many disadvantaged people."Poor communities...tend to bear a disproportionate amount of pollution and toxic waste from factories and polluting industries that are located inside their neighbourhoods and territories, often because poor communities lack the political and financial resources to move these industries elsewhere. Although environmental problems disproportionately affect people in poor nations, they also disproportionately affect poor people in wealthy nations, especially where environmental pollution and toxic waste is concerned. For these reasons, we can understand that environmental problems are also problems of injustice and poverty. " [1] "The extensive use of fracking in the US, where it has revolutionised the energy industry, has prompted environmental concerns...The first is that fracking uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, at significant environmental cost. The second is the worry that potentially carcinogenic chemicals used may escape and contaminate groundwater around the fracking site. The industry suggests pollution incidents are the results of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique...environmental campaigners say that fracking is simply distracting energy firms and governments from investing in renewable sources of energy, and encouraging continued reliance on fossil fuels." [2]As stated, these toxic manufacturers are disproportionately found in underprivileged and/or racially casigated and marginalized communities. However, as global warming suggests, these practices have a negative environmenal impact on the entire planet.Toxins released by these manufacturers have been known to contain carcinogens and have a myriad of adverse ecological and physical impacts."What human rights?...right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are natural rights..."As quoted by my opponent, the people have the right to life, liberty, etc.. Thus, if a corporation in the U.S. engages in practices that endanger the lives of the people, those practices should not be allowed."...a company that asks for money in exchange for services or products is violating peoples' rights...have the right to those products without having to pay for it."My argument is not against the basic principles of barter or trade. However, when a company attempts to monopolize the market and hinder individuals from plying their trade it is clearly a violation. Mosanto and the gov't (TRIPS agreement) restricting farmers' ability to save seeds is a good example. While the courts have ruled to protect Monsanto when their seeds contaminate the cfrops of other farmers, this is clearly an intrusion on the part of Monsanto. The fact that the GMO created by Monsanto have been proven to cause cancer, yet, do not have to be labeled as such is a clear illustration of the collusion between gov't and corporations. A negative result of the corporatocracy."This is called Capitalism...Socialism"My argument does not mention any economic system in particular."...corporation should...consider peoples' safety. Your safety is your own problem. Of course you cannot work in unsafe conditions"While my argument does not refer to wworking conditions, my opponent is incorrect. - "Workers at the site on Lawrenceville Highway were doing stucco and brick work on an unsafe scaffolding system and were at risk of falls, the leading cause of death for construction workers. Hundreds of these workers die each year and thousands more suffer catastrophic, debilitating injuries...Our investigation found that several contractors were ignoring basic rules about fall protection and created unsafe working conditions...In this case, the project was behind schedule and the employers chose to put profits ahead of the safety of their workers." [3]- "LaWanda Williamson’s arm was burned by fryer oil at the McDonald’s where she says she works in Detroit, her manager was standing right next to her...And the manger was standing there like, ‘Oh snap, you ok?’ And it was burned she never even offered me the [burn] cream. I didn’t even know they had burn cream...We go to work and get treated like crap, but we have to go to work because we have to make a living. [This way] the workers will eventually get managers that care and provide a proper, safe environment for us.”[4]My argument refers to practices of corporations that negatively effect individuals and the communities in which they are located. Goods and services such as cell phone towers, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. have been known to cause deaths to individuals who are not employees."It is right that corporation cannot be physically injured, but the people running them can. Corporation have interests and property...Corporate person-hood is an American legal concept...same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual... The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people"... they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued..."My opponent admits to the crux of my argument. Corporations cannot be physically injured. Thus, when viewed from a different perspective, treating corporations as individuals is a way for the individuals and groups in these corporations to protect themselves from criminal (not civil) culpability for actions that carry the risk of death to uninvolved parties, (i.e. neighborhoods, communities, individuals, society, etc.) In short, while these corporations are legal fictions, they threaten and take the lives of real conscious beings and pollute the environment and water supply in the areas that they are located. These toxins even affect unborn children by causing miscarriages, birth defects and deformities.[5] The threat, risk, and actuality of death should prohibit the ability of a corporation to be formed or continue production.I have yet to mention pharmaceutical corporations which cause some of the greatest harm to society. It is known that their lobbyist are paid to urge governments and doctors to endorse pharmaceutical remedies over homeopathic or natural lifestyles and medicines.I would like to close this round with a quote from Adam Smith who is considered by many to be one of the founders of capitalism in the U.S.:"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their good both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." [6]I look forward to further examination of the issue.http://environmentaltranslation.org... [1]http://www.bbc.com... [2]https://www.osha.gov... [3]http://michiganradio.org... [4]http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org... [5]http://www.globalissues.org... [6]

The Prohibition should not return.1) Alcohol has numerous health benefits includingLowering the chance of Cardiovascular DiseaseLowering the chance of Diabetes http://www.medicaldaily.com...Lowering chances of caridovascular disease is important because deaths from heart attacks and other caridovascular disease outnumber those from accidents (Includng car accidents) about 4.6:1http://www.cdc.gov...Thus we need to prioritize preventing heart attack deaths, and banning alcohol will do the opposite.2) The Alcohol Industry is an important part of our economyThe alcohol industry in the US accounts for $400 billion in economic activity in 2010, generating nearly $90 billion in wages and over 3.9 million jobs for U.S. workers. It also is one of the most heavily taxed industries thus providing the Federal government another soure of income.http://www.discus.org...We cannot ban alcohol because the country is currently coming out of an economic slump, decreasing economic activity and losing jobs would only hurt the people.My opponent has stressed how driving is becoming more dangerous and important, and that we need to regualte it more. This is simply not topical as I have already stated why we need to look at other issues before we look to the driving industry in relation to alcohol, e.g. Cardiovascular disease.


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Access to clean drinking water should be recognized as a fundamental human right rather than a commodity. The perception of water as a right varies across societies, and while some may view it as an entitlement, others might consider it a privilege. This dichotomy is evident when we examine the global water crisis. Despite the efforts of organizations like The Water Project, which aim to provide clean water to underserved communities, the reality is that many countries struggle with water scarcity due to economic constraints and environmental degradation.

The historical impact of pollution on water sources has left a lasting legacy, with the consequences being felt by current generations. This issue is not isolated to water; it is symptomatic of a larger problem that affects all aspects of our environment. Efforts to rectify past mistakes are ongoing, but the process is slow and requires significant resources.

In countries like the United States, access to drinking water is generally considered a right, with public water fountains and free tap water in restaurants being commonplace. However, this accessibility is a result of the country's ability to purify water, which is a luxury not afforded to all. James Rachels' perspective on societal moral codes highlights the subjectivity of viewing water as a right or an accommodation. He argues that it is presumptuous to impose our values on others, suggesting that if one believes water should be a right, they should seek out communities where it is freely available.

The debate over bottled water consumption reflects broader issues of personal choice and societal impact. While some individuals opt for bottled water under the assumption that it is cleaner, the reality is often different, and this choice should not be condemned. The overpopulation of the world adds another layer to this discussion, with some arguing that water as an accommodation could help regulate population growth. However, this argument raises ethical concerns about access to basic resources and the right to life.

In conclusion, the question of whether water should be a human right or an accommodation is multifaceted, involving historical, environmental, economic, and ethical considerations. While the provision of clean water is a global challenge, it is crucial to recognize and address the disparities in access that exist between different societies.

I see your point but if we could bring in our own snacks, which wouldn't then get caught, then no trespassing which would result our problem or even at least sign a petition and lower the prices.

1.You said people sign up for but look at it in all ways you need to care for your citizens health. If they retire they will have a lot of side effects after. So let's not spent money into that when easily avoiding that just banning boxing because your hit intentionally someone to hurt them 2.Boxing is a combat sport in which two people engage in a contest of strength, speed, reflexes, endurance, and will by throwing punches with gloved hands against each other. This simply means we are advancing our natural violence level which we already have. Even if wear gloves they work at all because people get cuts when fight. So said we were born violent but don't tell me a baby can do boxing according to how your saying it .So in conclusion am still standing that boxing should be banned

Unfortunately my opponent has been on but has not posted an argument. I will post a simple argument against this resolution (it will technically be a strawman, since my opponent did not make an argument, it is my only chance at making this debate something). 1) Fast food does not cause obesity or disease (or death for that matter), too much of it does. Despite what many may want you to believe, your body needs fat, and carbs, and salt, and most everything else (there are actually very few things that you actually shouldn't have ANY of). The important thing is having the proper balance and amount of all those things (and that balance depends entirely upon the activity of your life style). 2) Fast food does not need to be unhealthy. There is no requirement that fast food must be "unhealthy" in the traditional sense. In fact, McDonald's sells apple slices, scrambled eggs, milk, and a number of other "healthy" options [1][2]. 3) Regulation is better than outright banning, if any action is needed at all. Flat out bans on minor thing (and even medium level things) have a history of not working out so well. Sure Prohibition did lower alcohol consumption in the US [3], but we know that other side effects sprouted up that we at least on par with the problem, if not significantly worse (I assume no source is needed for this?). Regulation allows for a narrow scalpel, rather than a wide hatchet to deal with an issue. It allows to restrict just enough to correct or less an issue without completely removing the option for people that still want it. Such regulations can be the posting of nutrition amounts (which has been done, though they can be made more readily available), limiting portion sizes per meal, requiring "healthy" options without restricting the "unhealthy," or even subsidizing places that specialize on only healthy options. I hope my opponent comes back for the last round. Thank you, [1] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [2] http://pbdietitian.hubpages.com... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'll be presenting an argument "For" the resolution "American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply." As per the comments, Wylted and I have agreed to share the BoP.I'll be presenting arguments in a punctuated form, hitting on the main idea. Later in the debate, I will expand upon these as needed. Argumentation1. Fluoridation is unethical.It is a generally understood American ideal that people should not be forced to do things they do not want to do. This is especially relevant in areas where some unnecessary and unhelpful action is being forced upon us.While it may be easy to think about water as a "service" that one does not have to use, one cannot forget that Americans are required to pay taxes for their water. That means this service is not free, but instead a product that is being purchased from the local government by the people. This purchase is in no way a choice on the part of the citizen. As such, municipalities are abridging the people's freedom of choice by forcing them to imbibe a substance that they do not want. Fluoridation is not a reflection of the will of the people, but instead an arbitrary choice by the government of the United States. The situation would be no different if instead of fluoride, the government introduced opiates or some truth agent into the water system. In that scenario, the people would still a) pay for it and b) have no choice in the matter. Not flouridating the water is the natural solution to this ethical dilemma. 2. Water fluoridation is unnecessary. When water fluoridation was introduced in the 1940's, there was not adequate access to fluoride in the United States. It was used by dentists, but no "over the counter" fluoride products were made. Today, the opposite is the case. It is commonplace for toothpastes, mouthwashes and other teeth cleaning agents to have fluoride included in the product. As such, it is no longer necessary to fluoridate water, as ethical and cheap alternatives exist. It cannot be said that "poor people don't have access to fluoride", as these teeth cleaning agents are inexpensive and massively available. Those who do not use toothpaste and similar products are actively making a choice that could result in tooth decay. This choice is their fundamental right as Americans and it should not be taken away. Bad dental heigene is in no way a communicable disease. A person with bad teeth in no way poses a risk to others. Therefore, there is no justification for forcing "dental health" upon people, since their choice to have poor dental health only negatively impacts themselves. Furthermore, it cannot be said that poor dental health negatively affects others through economic mechanisms. One cannot go to the emergency room for lost or decaying teeth nor can they use other publically funded medical services for that issue. As such, the economic cost of choosing to have poor dental health is not transferred to other parties. 3. Water fluoridation may not even be medically beneficial. There have not been any controlled tests of water fluoridation, which sets it apart from every other legal drug offered to the public. [1] Some studies (mainly those performed by government agencies) find that water fluoridation increases dental health. Others find no link between fluoridation and dental health, while others still find that fluoridation has negative health benefits that go far outside dental health. Given the apparent lack of consensus on the effectiveness of water fluoridation, the claim that water should be fluoridated becomes even more dubious. Not only is it unethical, not only is it unnecessary, but it may be flat out ineffective at accomplishing its stated goal. Recognizing this, my previous two points stand even stronger, as one cannot claim that there are demonstrative health benefits that exist to outweigh unethical and unnecessary water fluoridation. ConclusionThis has been a cursory introduction of my arguments. I will likely not present any arguments that are unrelated to the ones presented here. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1 - http://www.livescience.com...;

The problem with the prohibition of marijuana is that it is a double standard. When you measure the danger of substances available on the market you are basically drawing a line in the sand saying this one is good and this one is bad. The problem is that the people who decide this do it with an agenda that has nothing to do with the "danger" of using marijuana. Why else would so many terrible things cross the line and be considered "safe". What it comes down to is that typically pot smokers are your average people who live normal lives. Other than children smoking it, I really don't see what everyone is so afraid of. Dogma perhaps? I'm an idealist that can envision a world free of red bull, McDonald, and "happy hour"! It is free of religion, government, racism, sexism, homophobia, class systems, money, apathy, malice, Terrorism, war, cancer... etc! What I am proposing is that if you can give me a solution to the horrific monster under the bed, then I will lobby to stop people from smoking! You see where I am going. The problem with idealism is that it is personal. It will be opposed by many. Heck I think the NFL, and Nascar is the biggest waste of resources on the planet and would love to see Justin Beiber live in a 600 a month apartment. But I'm not trying to stand in the way of the fans. There are so many contradictions involved it has to be something other than its affect on people. Do you have any information in regards to why so many terrible things become mainstream and something as harmless as marijuana. (Moderation is key to almost everything in life: too much water and you will drown) Your argument about marijuana affecting students in an interesting point. My solution is let the schools handle it. Let the Universities regulate and educate about moderation. The main issue is that most of the people who want marijuana to be legal already smoke it regardless... bringing up the financial aspect. Do I even need to go into this. A gazillion U.S. Dollars have went to the black market fueling larger more dangerous enterprises. Instead of going back into the schools and law enforcement! Instead A Gazillion dollars is being siphoned into making sure people can drink themselves to death while bullying the lives of innocent people! Alcohol is addictive in ever sense of the word. Smoke weed everyday for 30 years and quit. It will probably suck but in short time you will wonder what the big deal was. Now try drinking everyday for 30 years and quit.. You should probably go to the hospital so you don't die! That is something that will haunt you the rest of your life. I'm going to say something extremely bold. I actually believe this statement. There are a lot of people that need to smoke that do not, Now I will counter that statement with there are a lot of people that shouldn't smoke but do. (The world is crazy like that) I guarantee you if a suicide bomber lit up a joint there is no way he would go through with it. That is not my strongest argument I will admit but you can see how everything is distorted and doesn't really add up? You are absolutely right many people can smoke and do great things. Some just shut down and become introverted. Which is still better than drunk and obnoxious! I agree that in your perfect world where all drugs and alcohol including cigarettes are illegal, marijuana should follow. But like I said until I see that I have a hard time telling people what to do. Especially If I have no idea what I'm talking about. In closing, I will need a little more from you to keep this going. So do some research and find out the REAL reason why marijuana is illegal, and convince me that it should be!

It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's "common sense," what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say "There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking." Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying "smoking hurts you." You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one. An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it. "Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them." It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban. "Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope." Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER. "Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them." Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly. "So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad." You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad! "Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold." You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2] This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit. In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong. "The smoking ban removes freedom of choice." In some cases, that's a good thing. I am not exactly democratic or libertarian. Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies. SOURCES [1] http://ash.org... [2] http://www.minyanville.com...

I am Con, I believe smoking should be banned, I will state my reasons later. But I must point out how the very fact that this debate is in the health section is in my favor immensely because, obviously, smoking is not good for your health at all therefore there is not much to prove health-wise. Thus my arguments will mostly be rebuttals but I will give reasons why smoking should be banned later, too.

Thank you for your response. Smoking and Health Con said, "Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful." But they are not as dangerous as smoking. Smoking should be banned because it can cause more negative things than the activities you mentioned. "Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too." "To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too." You just contradicted yourself. When I said that smoking should be illegal, you said that there are other things that also give negative impact on your money, health, beauty, and the environment, so should be banned to. But then you said this. So considering your previous argument, you didn't give a good reason why smoking should not be banned, and you also pointed why surfing or motorcycling shouldn't be banned if smoking is banned. And to add that, smoking is more dangerous than the things you mentioned earlier. (1) The things you mentioned are less dangerous than smoking. And most of it have some positive impact on us. (2) I agree on freedom of choice. But the government should care for the people's welfare. Sometimes the government have to give boundaries. And this also contradicts your previous argument. Freedom of choice means the government shouldn't ban everything you mentioned. But smoking is bad for many aspects in your life. Smoking and Beauty I said in R2 that smoking should be banned because it causes negative impacts on the smoker, non smoker, and the environment. Coffee just costs you beauty. And I clearly didn't say that anything that causes only one of those negative impacts should be banned too. Smoking and Money Buying a cigarette smoke is a waste of money because it's like buying poison. Other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. Smoking and IQ The things you mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects. Smoking is bad in many aspects. The government should only ban something that have many negative impacts for us. There have been numerous studies which proved that smoking is bad for your IQ. Besides that, smoking often causes anxiety, irritability, and depression on a person.[1] Smoking and Fires Other things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. And smoking do have a few positive impacts I see. Smoking can prevent us from having a few diseases, like Parkinson's. Who wants to increase his/her risks of heart attack and lung cancer so he/she could prevent having some minor disease? Those positive impacts are not great. Smoking and Babies Women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. And Con said that men shouldn't smoke near pregnant women, not banning smoking. But people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. Smoking and Children "Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well." Smoking doesn't just influence children, it can cost numerous other things that is bad. And those things you said is less dangerous than smoking. Smoking and Death Those positive impacts are not so great. It is true smoking can prevent Parkinson's. But it increases the risks of heart attack and lung cancer too. Despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. So they should not be banned, as everything you mentioned. Smoking and Environment Paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. Even Con know it himself. It gives us knowledge, write out our feelings, and much more. And I know crime is a side effect, but the punishment shouldn't be to tough, such as fines. And banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. Smoking and Economy What you just said about that is probably true, but there are hundreds of dollars lost every year because of smoking if we don't count the non smokers. Nobody knows exactly how much money do non smokers take from the government, so it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy. Conclusion Con was trying to refute my argument with other examples. But those examples should not be banned if smoking is banned because of my reasons above. And smoking is not bad because it just costs you money or health. It's because smoking costs you your health, beauty, money, environment, and more. Thank you, Con, for participating in this debate. Because this is my very first debate (online and real life), I hope you can forgive me if I make some mistakes. 1. http://www.chantixsite.net...

Okay. So books should be banned because deforestation used to make paper products has been linked to global warming. How's that?

"I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable."You make it sound as if alcohol can be used as a form of medicine. My argument is not that alcohol can be used as a medicine, but that drinking it moderately can come with some small benefits. Simply, my stance is summed up in one word: moderation. If used in moderation, then alcohol can comes with some benefits."Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."People end up on the floor as a result of overuse of alcohol. I have stated quite clearly that I support the use of alcohol in moderation. Should we limit the rights of the responsible just because some abuse their rights to drink? No. "If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "A person can love beer, wine, liquor, etc. without becoming an alcoholic. A man or woman may love a drink, but drink in moderation. This is not to say that they will miss the drink - they may miss it very much. So your argument stating that those who drink alcohol in moderation will not miss it once it is banned is largely false. Second, my point about drunk drivers is a whole other argument. Under the current system, alcoholics are free to drink to at home or ask a manager in a restaurant to drive them home. Under a Prohibition system, however, alcoholics must go to illegal speakeasies and other such bars in search of a drink. They will become drunk, and must return home. My point is that, currently, alcoholics can drink in an area where they don't have to drive home. But, under Prohibition, alcoholics would have to go out, on the streets, in search of alcohol. There is no denying, that even in the best of systems, some alcohol would still remain or be smuggled in this nation. Marijuana is illegal but still is used by quite a few people. Meth is illegal but is still used by a quite a few people. Alcohol would be illegal, but quite a few people would still drink because of the formation of black markets. "Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alcohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares."This was just an example. I wanted to show how silly it is to limit the rights of of responsible citizens because a few abuse their rights. You say that knives have far more purposed than alcohol - true, but alcohol is a very lucrative industry. I am simply trying to point out that, while knives have more conventional purposes, the alcohol industry has a quite few purposes in the economy. "If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen."Even in the best of situations, agents could never completely banish alcohol. We spent millions, billions, on the War on Drugs, and people still smoked and drank and did whatever else. Our police force keeps a careful eye on the use of marijuana and other such drugs, yet it is still heavily prevalent in society. And, alcohol is much more used than drugs such as weed. It would impossible to completely banish it; and with this small amount, a black market would form, and the want would increase for alcohol. Folks would pay more for it - that it why weed is so expensive. It is a prediction, too - you cannot base your entire stance on it. No matter how many agents are in working and how many laws are put into place, alcohol cannot be banished. Making alcohol illegal would cause the opposite to occur - a black market would form, and the want and price for alcohol would increase. "You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol."I did not say little to no alcohol. I said a moderate amount or no alcohol. And just because I made this statement does not invalidate the fact that the alcohol industry generates "more than $65 billion a year in revenue and spends more than $1 billion a year on advertising." (http://www.health20-20.org...) Also, just to confirm this fact - "About a third of Americans choose not to drink at all, a third drink moderately, and about a third drink regularly. Ten percent of the drinking-age population consumes over 60 percent of the alcohol."Pulled from that website. You cannot deny that the alcohol industry makes lots of money, and its collapse could result in finical troubles. "Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source.""The tobacco industry consists of several different companies, all of which make different amounts of money. The highest ranking tobacco company in the Fortune 500, Philip Morris International, reports a yearly revenue of $27,208,000,000. The second-highest ranking tobacco company, Altria Group, makes $16,892,000,000 of revenue each year." Pulled from http://www.ask.com....... Both industries are important to our economy. Just because the tobacco industry makes more does not mean that the billions that the alcohol industry makes it worth nothing. Both are important to our economy, and provide jobs; their ruin could ruin the economy."If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweigh the cost involved."No, alcoholics frequented speakeasies. Just because it was illegal doesn't mean they couldn't get it. And that is what would occur today, if it were enforced. Alcohol cannot be banished entirely, and the option of smuggling it in still exists. A black market would form. That is what has happened to drugs such as marijuana and meth. And these drugs have been under heavy scrutiny by the government and the police, but still continue to be heavily prevalent in society."Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it."I agree - however, my argument was that alcohol is moderation is not bad for you, that it can offer some potential health benefits. "I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict."People handle things in different ways. While some can be responsible with alcohol, some can not. My argument proves this. We should protect the rights of those who handle them responsibly. Those who cannot hold them responsibly are the ones we should punish - not the ones who do no wrong. "Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero."Marijuana is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Meth is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Making alcohol illegal will not drop the number of alcoholics. It will simply set up a black market, where the price is determined by the want of the drug. Voters - vote for the debater which offered the more statistics. Vote for the debater which offered fact rather than opinion. Vote for the debater who's argument is not based on emotion but rather fact. Vote for the debater which offered the more logiical, and sensible, argument.Best of luck to my opponent. May the voters decide who ultimelty won.