To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

Pro has not lived up to the requirements I put forth in Round 1.Rebuttals 1. Irrelevant argumentationPro split up her arguments into two parts. Both speak of the health benefits of alcohol. There was no need for the split. If you analyze, all my opponent did was to affirm that moderate consumption of alcohol tends to come with certain health benefits to some individuals. However, the topic is not whether or not moderate drinking is beneficial in itself - it is whether or not the health benefits can occur without the use of alcohol. Are the health benefits unique to alcohol? No.Coronary Heart Disease [1]My opponent argued that alcohol reduces the risk of suffering from Coronary Heart Disease. It has been made clear that whether or not this is true has no impact on my position. The question is whether or not the reduction of the risk of suffering from Coronary Heart Disease is unique to alcohol, to which I clearly say no. According to a Coffee-Tea website, a large part of the British people consume Black Tea, which brings certain health benefits, including the reduction of risk of suffering from Coronary Heart Disease and cancer."Black tea is consumed by around three quarters of the British population. It is known to have many important influences upon health; these include positive ones such as reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease and cancers, and negative ones, which are mainly thought to be as a result of the caffeine content of the product." [2]Since such a large amount of people in a modern country drink black tea, which is likely to bring many health benefits, including the one my opponent connected to alcohol, there is no need to believe that only alcohol would protect people from this disease. The point is irrelevant, and the argument does not meet the burden I laid upon Pro.StrokesStrokes occur very often, and the issue of their effects is a severe one. My opponent argued that alcohol reduces the risk of certain strokes occurring. Fine, but so what? Is it unique to alcohol? Absolutely not. Fish oil and Vitamin E have been found to reduce the risk of strokes occurring. [3]"Vitamin E may have a protective effect against ischemic strokes, researchers reported on April 20 2000 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in Toronto, Canada. Their study showed that vitamin E supplements can reduce stroke risk by 53%.""A study released in the January 17, 2001 issue of the "Journal of the American Medical Association" suggests that fatty fish and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, such as that found in fish oil and flaxseed oil, may be as effective as aspirin therapy at reducing the risk of thrombotic stroke, but without the side effects of aspirin therapy."Fish oil can be consumed through fish oil pills or complete fish. The health benefits of eating fish are too many. Vitamin D, which functions like a hormone, is vital to us, and eating fish is equivalent to consuming good amounts of Vitamin D. [4] Though in America, fish is not eaten as much as recommended, but the amount is relatively high. "The average American ate 16.3 pounds of fish and shellfish in 2007, a slight decline from the 2006 consumption figures of 16.5 pounds, according to a NOAA’s Fisheries Service study." [5] Considering how many people abuse alcohol, one should not be too worried that Americans do not eat enough fish. It is better to eat fish about once a week than to create a habit for alcohol drinking, which often leads to alcoholism, accidents, violence, family problems, and much else. Fish hardly do that. Neither does any non-intoxicating food. That's not the case with alcohol.Vitamin E is also found in many types of foods, and a health website lists top 10 foods which contain the highest amounts of Vitamin E. Paprika and peanuts among many, and these two are consumed in relatively high amounts too, at least if you combine them. [6]2. Irrelevant sourcesNot only did my opponent argue pointlessly, but her sources did not help much for anything good either. She simply confirmed to us that certain sources back up her position. Good, but it doesn't matter. Do Pro's sources tell us how necessary alcohol is for prevention of diseases? Do they mention what would happen if nobody consumed alcohol? Not the least.3. ConclusionThere is too much evidence in my favor. Alcohol is not unique when it comes to certain health benefits and prevention of diseases. Sure, it can be a contributor, but it is often a fatal one, hence it is unnecessary in most cases. Drinking tea doesn't impair your mind. Eating fish boosts your brain. All of these are safe. They don't cause family problems, nor do they make you wonder why you woke up where you should've never been. Alcohol often does that. It's often fatal and unnecessary, hence the benefits do not matter at all, because one can argue for quite the opposite effects of alcohol, or one can simply do as I did: find safer alternatives.My arguments remain sound and valid.References[1] Coronary Heart Disease: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...[2] Black Tea and Coronary Heart Disease: http://www.coffee-tea.co.uk...[3] Stroke Prevention, Fish Oil and Vitamin E: http://www.healingdaily.com...[4] Vitamin D and Fish: http://www.nytimes.com...;[5] Americans and Fish Consumption: http://www.thefishsite.com...[6] Vitamin E in Foods: http://www.healthaliciousness.com...