[Short Debate]: This House Would Ban Alcohol

Ok, first let's address my opponents case: His 1st Contention talks about how banning alcohol will lead to organized crime, however, he compares this to 1900s Prohibition Era. We can't go back 100 years to look for an answer. Times have changed and so has our social infrastructure Also, this argument doesn't prove why the resolution should be negated; it simply shows a disadvantage to affirming. But this issue will be very minimal as there will be law enforcement obviously to ensure this is minimalized. Even then, the ipact of this crime is very marginal and the benefits I show in my contentions greatly outweigh. My opponent's second contention mentions legal/government harms. However, all my opponent states is an increase in crime. We can't say these numbers are directly correlated with Prohibition. Even then, were looking 100 years back, in a much more alcohol dependent society. There are a plethora of other factors which could've led to the increase in crime such as immigration and the economy. And in the status quo, there is a ton of alcohol related crime such as DWI and distributing alcohol to minors. My opponent's third contention is a refutation to the benefits to society. My opponent simply says "that's really not true". But that makes NEGATIVE LOGIC as my contentions show the benefits reaped by affirming, so cross-apply my four contentions to this argument. My opponents goes on to say some disadvantages such as more people dying and missing. However, such exists greatly in the status quo as there is a lot of alcohol related deaths and injuries. My benefits shown in my contentions outweigh because I use logic (unbroken) to show how it benefits society while my opponent simply says affirming causes more deaths and injuries without and reason/warrant. My opponent mentions how banning alcohol wouldn't really increase health, but my contention directly clashes with that. I provide empirical logic on how it does but my opponent says how some may do other drugs and only a minority follows the law. However, that statement is saying a majority of society isn't law-abiding which makes NEGATIVE LOGIC Most people would follow the law and not look to illegal drugs instead of alcohol. Thus, my opponent's contention's fall. I will now defend my case. To my opponents attack of my first contention. He tries to turn it, however, he simply says that a source p[roves otherwise without actually stating it. Thus, we can't look to that source as it wasn't actually quoted. He also says we "are playing a game of "you want this, dontcha? too bad!" with the consumer", and that would make people want it more. Yet, we actually aren't teasing alcohol users, simply ceasing production, manufacturing, and distribution. He also says how alcohol in moderation would increase productivity but doesn't actually state the facts, so for this debate, that point falls. To my opponent's attack of my second contention he says that crime exists over the want of drinks. But we can turn this point as since the want (drinks) is eliminated, that crime will be eliminated. My opponent continues to say it should be auto negated since I have no sources, however, we can't auto-negate just because I didn't cite a source. I used a fascinating thing called LOGIC and DEDUCTIVE REASONING, which my opponent clearly lacks. Therefore,that attack falls. My opponent also says I don't fully prove the resolution, but I actually do. He concede that I prove it benefits society. And anything that benefits society is moral, thus, I show it is morally just also. In an attack on my fourth contention, my opponent says I don't have proof people would do positive things instead of alcohol, however, my opponent doesn't prove otherwise with empirical evidence, so this point stands. Thus, my contentions stand and I urge you to affirm. Do it for logic!