Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

My opponent's counter-framework is that we must look towards the illegal uses of alcohol. This would be fine except for one big reason. If alcohol is made illegal, the illegal use of alcohol will stay at the same level, if not increase. Since the illegal use of alcohol is unaffected by the prohibition of alcohol, this argument cannot be looked to in today's debate. My opponent's argument should actually be put on my side of the debate because as I said, illegal use of alcohol will most likely increase, which will cause for an increase in alcohol related deaths, and bring about the very harms that my opponent has set out to stop. My opponent will come up in his next speech and recite his third contention, stating that illegal use will not increase, but my opponent's argument has one fatal flaw. My opponent admits in his case, "Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same". It is true that once alcohol is banned, the vast majority of Americans will stop using it, but as my opponent states, a small amount of Americans will still abuse the drug. This small amount that he speaks of is going to be at a similar level to the already small amount of Americans abusing the substance. As I stated in my case, there are a mere 26,000 alcohol related incidents per year which accounts of the actions of 0.000086% of the population. Clearly, my opponent has admitted to the fact that alcohol abuse will still occur. Also, my opponent says that the consumption of alcohol is the only issue that we must look to in today's debate. My opponent exhibits pure folly here because all the benefits that I state are results of drinking, or consuming, alcohol. Thus, all my arguments still stand. My opponent's first contention states that there must be a "legitimate" reason for consuming alcohol. My opponent is advocating that all the things we do for pleasure should be banned because we don't have a "reason" to do these things. If you agree that we should live in a world where no fun activities exist and there must be a valid reason to everything that we do, then yes, vote for the affirmative. If you believe in a world, like the present, where we are allowed to have fun, then a negative vote is manifest. My opponent's second contention talks about alcohol related deaths and how putting a ban on alcohol will stop them. (1) Our first response is that the positive benefits of alcohol far outweigh the negatives. By drinking moderate levels of alcohol, 600,000 people will be able to save themselves from heart attacks. My opponent foolishly asks why these people aren't saving themselves already. This is because the report by the USDA was done just recently, and society will start to move towards a world where alcohol is used as an ailment. By banning alcohol, my opponent is stopping any chance of this happening. (2) Our second response is that by putting a ban on alcohol, deaths will in no way decrease. The backlash that my opponent admits will occur will cause far more deaths than are currently occurring. Extend the argument I made against my opponent's framework and also consider that the ban will make big cities a fearful place to live in, as the cities will be overrun with criminal activity such as smuggling. Moving on to my opponent's third and fourth contention about how the effects of prohibition cannot be looked towards because society has changed and that the backlash of these events will die down. (1) First, my opponent contradicts himself because first he states that a prohibition-like era will not occur, but then goes on to say that the effects of a prohibition-like era will die down. Clearly, my opponent has just admitted to the fact that this era of backlash will occur. (2) But furthermore, my opponent has not given us a single aspect of America that has changed that will somehow mitigate the backlash from occurring. This is no mistake on my opponent's part because in truth, there is no change that has occurred that will mitigate the effects. (3) Lastly, my opponent makes the argument that the effects will die down. This is gravely mistaken, and history can prove it. In 1920, when alcohol was prohibited, the backlash was furious. People were madly smuggling in drugs, creating speakeasies (illegal alcohol bars), and killing rampantly. The illegal alcohol-related activity had a huge increase, as it will if we were to ban alcohol at this very moment. The backlash in 1920 continued for a full 13 years before finally, in 1933, congress realized that a ban on alcohol is not in the best interest of the United States, and made it legal once again. Clearly, history has revealed the flaws in my opponent's argument. My opponent tries to touch our hearts by saying that our neighbors will die if we drink alcohol. This is completely ridiculous as alcohol related deaths only affect 0.000086% of the population. For these reasons I urge a Negative