The British Government should provide all adult males with free beer vouchers

Thanks, Brian, for the great debate as always. 1. "Britain is a civilized country where health care is considered to be a universal right and is provided according to need rather than ability to pay." First, drinking a beer isn't a "need" or providing care at all, but rather a whimsical attempt at preventative action. Perhaps if there was solid evidence that it was worth it to do this, then Pro might have an argument. However, since I cited an expert saying that partaking in this experience was not a guarantee or even a good bet, then this is irrelevant. Second, just because that is the current policy in Britain doesn't mean that it's the right one. Pro hasn't explained WHY this should be the case (and what SHOULD be is what's in question), therefore this point must go to the Con. 2. "Women don't deserve free beer." Women are born as second class citizens into an inherently sexist and patriarchal society (in the west - Britain included); are biologically inferior to men thus susceptible to assault, domestic abuse and rape more than men (also leading to what is considered sexual or mental terrorism); endure gender gaps in almost every powerful economical or political sphere in society; endure sexual harassment on a daily basis; are discriminated against; are challenged by the glass ceiling; unfairly judged and scrutinized in a variety of social situations; earn less wages as men for doing the same jobs; are torn between home and family (and often responsible for both paid and unpaid labor, as they both have careers outside of the home as well as taking care of the home); etc. When the family has 2 cars, it's the man riding the Jag and the woman sporting the mini van. The mom is expected to to take interest in boring things like doing laundry and the PTA. After the divorce is finalized, biological factors and population lead to the men scoring hot younger chicks while the woman becomes seen as an old maid and probably never gets laid again. Women are cursed with devastating hormonal effects throughout life (PMS, pregnancy, menopause, etc.) not to mention gain a ton of weight and pass an 8 lb. human being their through vaginas during child birth. I say **** YOU, BRIAN for saying women don't deserve a beer. Not to mention that Pro completely ignored the benefits society (men) will reap by having more drunk women around. This point goes to Con. 3. "Adults must be given the freedom to make their own decisions about what is good or bad for them... We can give warnings when serving beer about the consequences." Yes, adults should have the freedom to choose to allocate a portion of their money for a beer if they're so concerned about it being essential or excessively beneficial to their health. Additionally, if the product requires a warning such as the one Pro is suggesting, then the government probably has no business distributing it or promoting it among their citizens. This point leans toward the Con. 4. "The government helps people in other ways." First, Pro hasn't provided any proof that the government gives people free spa treatments or yoga sessions to people with low income. Second, the things that the government gives vouches for (such as fruit and milk) are able to be consumed by most people - not just limited to adults (or males for that matter). These vouchers exist to help families survive and afford the necessities, not the luxuries. Plus, they don't come with the risks and yet carry the benefits that beer does (if not more so). And what about things like liposuction? That could severely improve one's health (i.e. weight loss decreasing heart problems and diabetes, etc.) but the government is not expected to foot the bill for such endeavors. Also, once again the argument arises that just because the government currently does things (affords hand-outs) doesn't necessarily mean that they should. I'd say this point goes to the Con. 5. "Con values lower taxes over human lives... The scheme is self-financing." Obviously the idea that I value lower taxes over human lives is riddled with fallacies (straw man, slippery slope, etc.). However I'd like to point out that there's absolutely no guarantee that this scheme is self-financing; again the idea that this scheme would work for all people is not guaranteed. Most importantly, when people become elderly, they become the burden of the State (for things like social security, medicare, etc.) and don't pay INTO the state via taxes as Pro has implied, because they probably wouldn't be working after around aged 62. Point - Con. 6. "The British like their beer..." Eh, I concede this point to the Pro. 7. "Beer is relatively weak and you can easily drink two pints and still be under the legal limit..." This doesn't negate my points that people might start drinking more and become alcoholics, get into more trouble (including alcohol related trouble, which is plentiful) thus having detrimental or negative impacts on society, etc. Plus, how one can function after consuming alcohol regardless of the amount varies; even the link Pro provided warns not to use the 2 drink rule max as being a universal standard since people have a variety of tolerance levels. 8. "It may well be the case that vouchers will exchange hands for cash. Muslims, for example, may put their faith before their health, but there's nothing wrong with that. It is a free country." This seemingly contradicts Pro's very own assertion from the first round when he said: I suggest this payment should be in the form of beer vouchers rather than cash to prevent any effeminate types wasting the money on clothes or toiletries. So, right there it seems as if Pro has conceded this point to me. He acknowledged that this is possible, an agreed when I pointed out that it was probable. Yes, it's a free country, but just as I don't feel that tax payers should be required to buy one beer, I also don't feel they should be responsible in buying one marijuana or any other drug, accessory, piece of jewelery, etc. A truly free country would not force its citizens to buy other people things. This point = Con. In conclusion, more arguments in this debate should be awarded to the negative. Thanks again, Brian and cheers!