Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

-Refutations- 1. My opponent's first contention talks about how there is no need for alcohol. Yes this may be true, but it is not unique, as there is no need for most of the harmful commodities that we as humans indulge in. If the United States were to prohibit all things that were unnecessary and potentially harmful then the first thing to be banned would be junk food. But similarly to the case of alcohol, junk foods are wildly enjoyed by all and so they are never going to be prohibited, despite its possibly negative effects. 2. My opponent's second contention is about alcohol related deaths. He listed a number of impressive looking numbers which, when further analyzed, only go to work against him. He first states that alcohol causes 37% of all car accidents per year. If you look at his evidence, the amount of alcohol related incidents have been on a decline going from a high 60% in 1982, to a low 37% in 2008. The number is declining, and goes to show that America is becoming a safer place for alcohol. He also goes on to list percentages that are all completely irrelevant. The study in which he got the numbers from was conducted in the state of Minnesota and is not a clear representation of what is actually happening in the United States as a whole. Clearly alcohol is not as dangerous as my opponent makes it out to be. 3+4. To disprove these, we have to look to the condition of America before, and in the present. The reason that prohibition in the 1920's was so widely contested was because 7 out of every 10 Americans drank alcohol. Currently, according to CBS, the number still stands that 7 out of every 10 Americans drink alcohol. Clearly, the conditions are still the same as before and prohibiting alcohol will lead to much backlash and violence. Two main issues: The benefits of alcohol, and what will happen if alcohol is prohibited. 1. The main benefit of alcohol that my opponent fails to refute is the crucial argument that alcohol research is leading to the finding of a pill that will extend the lives of humans. Doctors are trying to capture the substance that is found only in red wine, and turn it into a pill that can be used to extend the lives of all human beings. If we were to go through with a ban on alcohol, any hopes of finding a pill of life would be dashed. Also, Alcohol is an antidote that saves lives. The USDA reports: "moderate drinking decreases the risk of heart attack by 20 to 40 percent and decreased stroke by 45 percent". My opponent's refutation to this is flawed because he asks why the 600,000 lives aren't being saved right now. I do not that it is saving 600,000 lives. I am arguing that by banning alcohol, there will be a large amount of people, an estimated 600,000, since a heart attack will be 20 to 40 percent more likely. My opponent also says that there are other means of stopping heart attacks. This may be true, but there are also many ways heal a sickness, and this does not mean that every person in the world uses the same method. My opponent's last refutation is that alcohol "is only said to REDUCE the threat of heart attack, not eliminate it". Had my opponent informed us of a miracle cure that actually does completely eliminate the risk of heart attack then I would have urged an affirmative vote. But he has given no better alternative and this argument is simply naï¿½ve. Clearly I have won this point and you must vote negative on today's debate. 2. What will happen if you vote for the affirmative in today's debate? Alcohol will be banned and hundreds of millions of Americans, or the vast majority of Americans, will not be able to enjoy this relaxing pleasure. Because of this, large mobs will arouse around the country in protest and there will be a huge spike in violence and crime. The biggest impact that banning alcohol will have is its economic impact. The alcohol industry supplies nearly $400 billion dollars in economic activity to the U.S. GDP, and provides over 3.9 million jobs for United States workers. Voting affirmative eliminates 3.9 million jobs, which tremendously outweighs the 20,000 that are affected by alcohol. My opponents tries to downplay the loss of 3.9 million jobs and $400 billion of America's GDP by saying that not all these jobs would be lost, and not immediately. This is incorrect because if the government made it law to stop all alcohol related activity, then these jobs would immediately have to be eliminated by law. My opponent states that the alcohol industry will "turn to other beverage industries to stay afloat". What other alcoholic beverages could this industry turn to when all alcoholic beverages are prohibited? At the end of today's debate, you as the judge must vote negative in order to maintain the search for a "Pill of Life", to keep 3.9 million jobs in existence, and to keep $400 billion circulating in the economy. My points outweigh any arguments my opponent has, and thus, I see no other option but to vote Negative.