Anti-alcohol campaigners should either put up or shut up

Thanks to brian_eggelston for one of my two simultaneous first debates on this site. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, I will present my own case, then move on to address my opponent's case. Since my opponent has defined no clear, debatable thesis, I will attempt to derive one from his statements so that the topic is as clear as possible. The thesis, as I understand it, is as follows: "Those who oppose alcohol consumption should either change their views or not speak of their views." My opponent is free to amend and clarify this thesis if he feels this one does not accurately reflect the issues in the debate. The following definitions may help clarify the round: "Alcohol" is any drink that contains ethyl alcohol, especially for the purpose of intoxication. "Should" is an auxiliary verb indicating that the verb is obligatory, especially morally obligatory. It is because I value liberty that I must stand in negation of the resolution. Liberty is the ability to do what one wishes as long as the wished action does not infringe upon the rights of others. What are these rights? I quote John Locke: "The state of nature hath a law of nature to govern it, and reason, which is that law, obliges all who will but consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, and property." As one may do as one wishes as long one does not harm another in any of the four conditions. I find specific fault with my opponent's case in that in would limit free speech. Free speech is the liberty to say whatever one wishes to say, be it flattering or offensive. While it may be extremely uncharitable to say certain things about certain people, these things are much better dealt with through reasonable refutation rather than oppression of liberty. There are certain exceptions, such as inciting a mob to immediate violence, but these are disallowed not because they cause offense but because they are a direct attempt to infringe upon the right to life and/or health of others, same as pointing a gun. George Orwell once said, "If liberty means anything at all, it is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear." It is one of the truest statements ever said. It is for this reason that I negate the resolution: "Those who oppose alcohol should either change their views or not speak of their views." This is nothing short of a flagrant violation of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. It would suppress liberty for no good reason at all. My opponent claims that advocates of prohibition by morally or even legally oppressed. Now, on to my opponent's arguments. First, I'd like to note that my opponent constantly uses extremely loaded language. Please look at the facts and not baseless rhetoric. Here are his points, as best as I can decipher them, with each point followed by my response: 1) Teetotalers actually have no public health concern, but are merely envious of the better social lives enjoyed by drinkers. My Response: Please give me one piece of evidence that this is true. I highly doubt that they would go to the lengths they do out of envy. Unlike you say, there is a legitimate public health concern. I've heard too many stories about fathers and mothers who get drunk and beat kids, spouses, etc. Do you support this? How about thousands of DUI accidents? Do you support keeping legal a substance that is toxic to the liver and kills thousands each year due to liver cirrhosis? 2) Prohibitionists want everyone to sew and make model airplanes rather than have fun. My Response: This is a completely baseless assertion. I highly doubt that most prohibitionists are against people having fun. Again, it probably has a lot more to do with the public health hazard presented by alcohol that sparks their interest. Instead, I would imagine that they oppose this for the same reason that so many people opposed the widespread use of morphine in the 1800s: it's detrimental to your health and doesn't improve you as a person. I have met very few people who are more fun drunk. Does the following sound fun to any of you? You go into a bar, sit down and drink foul-tasting beverages with people you've never met. You do this, laughing at increasingly absurd things, until said beverages make you sick. You stumble into the restroom, hopefully find an empty toilet bowl, and throw up whilst putting your face where... The best part? You don't remember any of it the day afterwards! This certainly doesn't sound very fun or very wholesome to me. 3) There are many laws that restrict alcohol consumption. My Response: Why is this bad? Considering the severe alcoholism that many suffered from (especially Alaskan Eskimo tribes), it's also not very surprising, and the laws are often meant to protect villages from the devastating previous episodes. Utah's population is mostly Latter-Day Saints. Would you prevent a legally elected state government (or any legally elected state government) from making laws in accordance with its constituency's beliefs? So now my opponent, in addition to free speech, apparently also opposes democracy. 4) Prohibition is a restriction of freedom of choice. My Response: I don't recall there being a freedom of "choice" listed in any part of the United States Constitution, or in the writings of any natural rights philosopher. So I ask my opponent: What is this freedom of choice? What limits does it have? Should one be able to decide whether to do drugs? How about whether or not to punch someone one doesn't like? This "freedom of choice" is a senseless phrase of rhetoric only used when one needs to justify an action that otherwise would be seen as completely groundless. 5) Anti-alcohol campaigners should move to societies where others agree with them. My Response: Why should they do this? I won't force you to move anywhere because of your beliefs. Moreover, what is wrong with trying to change the society one lives in, if there are genuine wrongs committed in it? This is simply an illogical jab, and an attempt to associate prohibitionists with terrorists. I hope my opponent will forgive me for not looking at any pictures of anyone giving or withholding sexual favors. Because I have much better things to do with my time than look at ethos appeals that hold absolutely no water whatsoever. In light of all these things, the ballot is clearly for the negative.