drunk driving

My opponet does not understand what it is to debate ideas... also my opponent has made it clear that he knows nothing about this subject with his argument that i do not cite basic understood facts of my point... if my opponent has no personal real life knowlege of this subjuct he should not have accepted to debate me. my opponent copy and pastes my points and then just says these are my points with out even commenting on them ****"I am totally against people driving drunk and hurting innocent people." Con has declared his position in this debate. "however I think that the drinking and driving laws today or horrible and the zero tolerance attitude in this country is run rampant and horrible for our society..." This is his opinion. "what say you?" There is a grammatical mistake in this sentence! "I should be allowed to go drink a nice scotch and smoke a cigar after work on Friday and not fear." No, you should not! You are smoking! Smoking is extremely dangerous and really uncool! "My point is this, the law of zero tolerance of drinking and driving has no positive effect on keeping drunks off the street yet takes away my freedom of enjoying a drink responsibly. DO not punish the masses for a small percentage of the populous. I do not believe in the mantra " if it saves one child its worth it" these are laws created in fear and make us feel good. they hold no real value." This is also his opinion. "My debate is that the strict drinking and driving laws are ineffective." **** My original point is clear and it is very clear my opponent does not uderstand my point... thus making this debate futile.. ****P1) If Good comes out of it, it's a good thing and ergo is effective P2) (from round 1) Good comes out of participating in "drunk driving". C1) (from p1, p2) W56;, Participating in "drunk driving" is effective P3) If there are laws governing an activity that is effective and those laws do not damage the effectiveness of said activity, then those laws are effective. P4) Participating in "drunk driving" still happens and has the same consequences with and without the law. C2) (from C1, P3, P4) W56;, the laws governing "drunk driving" are effective. Justification P1 - This is quite self-explanatory. A good thing is effective in achieving that good purpose. P2 - (Extend all arguments from round one) C1 - This follows logically from the first and second premises. P3 - This is self-explanatory also. If the laws do not affect the effectiveness in a negative way, then those laws are effective in not destroying the good purpose coming out of said activity. P4 - ". Any good coming out of people participating in "drunk driving" still exists with those laws in place. C2 - This follows logically from the first conclusion, third premise and fourth premise. **** the above is rambling and makes no sense... I stand by my opinion that our laws regarding drinking while driving need ratification. they do not serve the purpose intended. they only affect people negativly that do NOT want to drive drunk. My opponent seems to think that drinking one beer or having one sctoch out with friends is driving drunk... this type of thinking that is irrational just proves my point... Next time i hope this debater picks to debte a subject he has some knowlege on and actually debates my ideas and points rather then ramble on making zero reasonable logical sense... thanks guys next time I debate this subject i hope someone will debate me with class and character ...