Prohibition is a good social policy.

Well, since you never replied back and forfeited this round, then I will also. Maybe not, because there are some points that I missed that you could have used against me. I just want to make clear that I know that when you are referring to prohibition, you are referring to a ban on something to prevent citizens from reaping the negative effects that the government might think will result in using the items. You are not referring to alcohol prohibition or prohibition that prevents somebody from doing certain actions; rather, just like a ban, the government is preventing citizens from not only using the banned item(s), but also preventing the manufacturing, selling, and shipping of such prohibited items. If you assume that I never understood what it was, now here is a logical explanation to clear things up. Unlike a ban, however; that item cannot be manufactured, sold, or delivered (which I just repeated in the previous sentence). A ban is preventing citizens from using an item, but still allows the manufacturing, selling, and/or delivering of such banned items. For example, when China banned all video game consoles, hand-helds, and video games in 2000 due to them believing in the false stereotypes and myths of gaming, though they may have prevented people from using and buying them, factories were still allowed to manufacture and ship them to other countries, as long as they are not being sold to people living in China. However, because this ban wasn't extremely strict or prohibition, people were still able to buy them off of online stores, gaming stores, and through the black market and pawn shops. The law never attempted to arrest anybody who bought them as they weren't sold in China (except for the gaming stores), and even then, they never cared one bit because they banned it nation-wide. Therefore, prohibition is similar to a ban in terms of not allowing the use of such items, but still unlike it since they could still buy, deliver, and make video games. But since the video game ban has now been lifted in January 2014, this is no longer as relevant than before. I may have confused many people into believing that I did not know the difference between a ban, prohibition, and by-laws, but I certainly do and will explain the difference between a by-law and prohibition. Like I said before, prohibition can also prohibit people from breaking certain laws, but I said that because the instigator (con) was not that clear with the debate topic, so I falsely assumed it was that as he referred to as a social policy and not prohibitism - so apologies for that. A by-law is a law that only applies to the city, region, county, province, territory, and/or state that it was made in and, just like an actual law, is made to regulate or control people from doing certain things. It is similar to prohibition since it regulates people from using the item, but is not in some ways because it only controls people from committing crimes or breaking the law, and not banning the use, selling, manufacturing, or delivering of such banned item. Also wanted to explain this to make things more clear for the audience as con may have used it in their rebuttals. I understand that I have contradicted my self several times throughout my other arguments regarding the negative effects of prohibition such as crime, taxes, and illegal businesses: -Stating that prohibition is preventing people from using said item but then disregard it and now regard it again. -Apologizing for stating that I may be unclear with the definition but later certain of said definition. -Making arguments in this rebuttal that contradicts what i have said in my previous rebuttal against your argument. I sincerely apologize making such mistakes and know that con would have used them to their advantage. Sadly, since con refuses to argue back or simply forfeited the round, I will be explaining them to un-contradict myself and to rebuttal against con in a hypothetical argument (in which con uses contradictions to advantage as stated before). I know and understand the definition of prohibition very well, and know it is a ban on the item regarding the selling, production, owning, using, and delivery of banned item. I said that if prohibition did not mean ban and rather like a by-law, then those arguments regarding the negative effects are invalid. I later state that they are valid and then even further state that they aren't again. You may think that I clearly have no idea of what prohibition means, but I actually do and apologize for confusing both the audience and the opponent. Because I have already stated the definition multiple times before, I will not continue to re-define prohibition anymore, so please refer back with your memory to know more. I am sorry but con is extremely vague and only argues whether or not prohibition is a good social policy and does not take a stance. Since con never took a stance, I assumed that I could have chosen which side I wanted. However, since this is a formal debate and the opponent did choose to side with con, I had no choice to side with pro. But because you contradict yourself in which your stance is different than that of your debate focus question, I the opponent was unsure of whether or nor con was for or against. One could assume that con is against prohibition, but both the topic and the focus question is too vague, does not take a stance, and is not specific enough. Therefore, I am unable to make an effective argument against the instigator as the whole structure of this debate is flawed in itself. Like the old saying goes, without a basic foundation, (put any thing, person, place, or idea here) will have nothing to support itself and fall. In this case, the debate fails to be even a formal and effective debate, thus, the arguments, topic, focus question, and rebuttals are all flawed. If opponent forfeits next round, then so will I as the debate itself is flawed, so there is no point in arguing.