Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

To end this debate, I will first go through my opponent's final rebuttals, and then give a list of voters as to why the Pro has won this debate. First, my opponent says in her argument against my statement: "Everything does not effect everyone in some way. A kid eating a peach in China would not necessarily affect me or you in any manner. It may, but because there is a possibility of this not happening you cannot state absolutely that everything affects you in some way. Unless you can prove that every little thing and happenstance can affect every person in any manner, your statement is false." A person is affected in some way by some sort of occurrence. They then affect the people around them, thus a community is affected. As a result, that community affects other communities, thus a society is affected. Because of this, that society affects other societies, thus a nation is affected. A nation then affects other nations as a result, and the whole world is affected. Thus, everything technically affects everyone in some way, even if it seems minuscule (which is probably why you're having a hard time accepting this fact). Second, "Also, the subconscious is a part of the human mind that science knows very little about and unless you can give proof that instinct or subconscious makes you make a judgement or moral decision about everything that affects you then I fail to see how your statement about the subconscious making moral decisions is true. I can also give a counterexample. A stick falling in front of me as I walk affects me but I do not make any moral judgement about it. Even if I did so subconsciously, there is no way to prove that I did. A theory made by Freud is hardly evidence unless other scientists have backed it up with experiments especially because Freud faked most of his data regarding his patients, he also only published information on 8 patients (little known fact found in the book "100 things your teachers don't want you to know")." Fair enough, but in many hospitals around the world, there is something known as electroencephalography. That is where they are able to test the brain for thought, both conscious and subconscious, and they test this by doing a plethora of different actions upon the patient. So, even if you claim that Freudian theory is flawed at the time that Freud was around (which it may or may not be), current studies made today highly support many of Freud's claims, thus I can justifiably say that the subconscious is affected, and creates a moral assignment for everything that affects it (which is everything). Third: "Secondly, 'what I'm basically arguing is the idea of the Butterfly Effect in regards to our current actions affecting future actions (Multiple researches explain this). If I do one action now, even if it is indirect, it will have SOME sort of impact on the future, no matter how small.' If researches explain this I would like you to cite them in your arguments. Also, I fail to see how this can be proved seeing as we cannot know the future until it happens and I doubt everything that a person ever did was recorded so yeah." If you want evidence, the researches are named: Dr John Bryden, Dr Sebastian Funk (now at the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London) and Professor Vincent Jansen from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London and Dr Nic Geard and Dr Seth Bullock from the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. All of which are either zoological doctors who study the functioning of animals and social cultures, as well as anthropologists, who basically study societies of people. And one cannot predict the future obviously, but one can, however, look at the past actions and see what occurred as a result. Also, they can use simulations to see if one thing in a scenario was subsequently taken out of the scenario, if it would affect it or not. Fourth: "In regards to your rebuttal to my banana-London argument, if I was talking about me(which I was but that's irrelevant), I have no potassium deficiency and so your argument would be meaningless to me and many other people. The only given in the situation of the example is that: this person will make the decision to go to college in London in the future and eats a banana in the present. Unless you can make a direct link on how the banana affects the London decision without using a something that is not a given in the situation(the potassium deficiency). Thus, I do not think this story is valid because you added a factor that may not occur. I can find no factor that directly relates to the givens that would absolutely prove that the banana would ALWAYS affect the decision to go to London no matter who the person(this includes everything about them physically and mentally and their situation)." Alright I admit, it was a silly argument. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that yes, anything will affect someone else, whether it be through time, subconscious thought, or even through a direct link that affects it. Thus to conclude this debate here are some key reasons to vote for Pro: -The definitions were clearly on the side on the Pro, and in regards to the original focus of the debate, the Neg has no ground to stand upon since she clearly did not have good definitions to defend her side. -A multitude of scientific theorems and studies have been brought on by the Pro, whereas hardly any scientific refutation has been brought about the Neg, which means that professionals on the Pros side automatically outweigh in regards to credibility. -On multiple occasions, Neg has dropped arguments in a round, and in the debating world, silence on an issue is consent, thus another reason to vote for Pro. -The Neg has specifically only argued for possibilities, which is unreliable in that possibilities doesn't even address the idea that it will actually happen. The Pro has made arguments that include probable effects that have happened in the past, thus the Pro's arguments are more reliable in that aspect. -If I may remind, I did not say that I specifically believe that the actions in question are immoral in regards to my opinion; I am however saying that some people consider them to be immoral, thus they are moral issues, based on the aforementioned arguments on the Pro side. I would like to thank my opponent for the great debate! It has been a very fun one with a lot of thought-provoking arguments!