Speaker roles(THW ban alcohol)

1st prop
Introduction of the topic: Under the influence of alcohol,having no control over our freedom and our wills ,state is playing it´s
role by protecting freedom of people by prohibiting alcohol.

Definition: self-explanatory

Clarifications:Role of state and harms to family.

Line of argument:ban alcohol in it´s productivity,sale,distribution and consumption.

Positive case: argument 1

 Why should we ban buying alcohol isn´t that their freedom? (state role)

Freedom goes hand in hand with rationality and autonomy, therefore alcohol which prevents doing so limits
their freedom,this is not a restriction of freedom to ban alcohol because a person at first be rational but looses it´s rationality
due to main trait of alcohol,Firstly, when he is drinking alcohol looses the ability to make rational decisions.

Argument 2:harms to family

 Explain in two levels,immediate and long term consequences:

By consumption of alcohol person behave abnormal might lead to an action of violence(taking father as an
example might lead into domestic violence towards their children whereas many children are taken away from their parents
because they aren´t treated the way they should because their parents are alcoholics.

Alcohol makes you addictive at two levels physically and mentally,you get weakened by excessive consumption and get
irrational and can further cause financial problem.

Summary:By banning alcohol duty of the state can be fulfilled and people´s freedom can be protected because it only has bad
affects on rationality and freedom.

1st opp
Intro: It isn´t consumption of alcohol the problem to alcohol itself but the problem is over consumption.

Negative case: As stated by team prop that a person tend to loose rationality,NO having a glass of wine would not make you
give up your choices or looses your autonomy over yourself it´s another case with over consumption though
governments do have mechanisms to stop over consumption(as a lot of bars have specified their limit which is
acceptable) and we think there isn´t no harm in alcohol itself.

 In the case of domestic abuse we do not punish alcohol itself we punish the crime. Completely banning the
alcohol isn´t the only alternative because people who are addicted to alcohol still have other avenues to get
alcohol from the black market by giving double amount and additionally the alcohol they consume at the
black market is unhealthy and might lead to more health issues.

Clarification: Person´s right to choose his own lifestyle and widespread black market created by banning alcohol.

Line of argument:

Positive case: Argument 1

Every person has their independent choices and to determine their own desires. Person consuming alcohol is fully aware of the
consequences and still choose to consume it we don´t see why government choose to curtail their freedoms(though fully
standards are being maintained by the government which doesn´t cause any further harm).

Argument 2: Advancement of black market(alcohol banned in USA in 1930s),prices and quality is heavily messed up and
quantity they consume isn´t clearly monitored.

Summary:We see alcohol can be regulated,managed and enjoyed when it´s under governments open square and we don´t see
just reason to ban alcohol.
2nd prop

As we have figured out that alcohol is the principal cause of the domestic violence and deaths.Alcohol is harmful even a small
amount is consumed.

(rebutting) Starting of by freedom as our first speaker told, that you become irrational due to the consumption ,we consider
after even consuming small amount the threshold of your abilities is solely decreased.We believe state should be involved in
stopping you if you do something which isn´t fully sober from beating your own children or going onto the road driving drunk
,though according to the team opposition government have such mechanisms to stop this e.g limiting the amount at the bars
well it´s not representing the household people keep on getting drink and end up to be addictive.Making alcohol legal makes it
easily accessible though a lot of people can´t afford alcohol in the black market which eventually decreases the
consumption(reason why prop arguments are right).

Positive case: