Instigator / Pro
5
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic

Prohibition worked it reduced drinking by a big margin

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
2
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
1
2

With 2 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

oromagi
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1929
rating
99
debates
98.99%
won
Description
~ 556 / 5,000

alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: con
Pro asserts that it worked because alcohol consumption may have decreased, but con counters that it failed in its' actual goals and was a conspiracy against minorities (German and Irish) spearheaded by the KKK. Pro dropped the entire con case, and refused to defend any aspect of his own. It would be more favorable to call this a concession, but it was not explicit enough...

Sources: con
Pro's first source was beat into the ground by con, and his second had no connection to the debate in progress. Con on the other hand, used a half dozen to prove that prohibition both failed and was evil anyway (by the accepted definitions, something did not work if it was incorrect).

S&G: tied
Pro, thanks for working hard at improving this. No deduction here.

Conduct: con
Pro's R2 was effectively plagiarism. Always highlight if you're quoting something, not just a link at the end of it (I give leeway on that, but only for the precise paragraph preceding the link... and you should bloody well have your own introductory text before any lengthy quotation anyway; like you're debating, it should be primarily your words).

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro drops a lot of what con brings up. Pro leans on shaky/old evidence to prove his point while Con gives me(the voter) great reason to believe prohibition increased alcohol related crimes which are backed up by reliable sources that also debunk the idea that prohibition was effective in lowering alcohol consumption as well. Con's sources that show the inefficiencies of prohibition at lowering alcohol consumption look at it's effect in the long-term, which show how after alcohol consumption fell initially, it rose sharply afterword, this really sealed Con's victory for the arguments point seeing how much better and in depth his evidence is.

At the end of the debate I see that Prohibition merely ate up resources and time while failing to achieve it's goals in the long-term. In a lot of ways prohibition achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to in the sense that drunk arrests increased, Con points this out and I can only side con at the end of the debate.