I'm going to extend my framework and defend my points.
1. Extend the point. It hasn't been violated, but I just want it for the last speech with new points after this.
1. The debating is going to happen in the sub points, again.
A. While there are a handful of nations that have illegal alcohol and maybe a couple micronations with illegal tobacco, this doesn't answer the inherent point that the majority of the world already has legalized alcohol and tobacco. What this means is that even if he is gaining independent reasons to vote based on these places that have alcohol illegalized, it is a small bonus at best due to the simply small number of people who would actually have this change.
I. My opponent said he isn't endorsing the status quo, but without any counter proposal from the beginning, we have to assume he's supporting the global status quo. He doesn't get to claim prohibition as a reason to vote Con since he never plainly stated he was endorsing a counter proposal of illegalizing all drugs. Without any specification through framing or counter proposals, it's fair to assume Pro supports the resolution and Con supports the status quo. Don't let him claim solving alcoholism in all the countries that have legalized alcohol since he never wanted to endorse a counter proposal.
II. All of my comparisons between drugs and prison apply to alcohol in these countries, so if I win prison is worse than drugs, this comparison of alcohol doesn't matter.
B. This was divided into individual points.
I. My opponent dropped that your chances of getting addicted to drugs goes up in prison, so if drugs are actually bad for people, then the last thing we should do is illegalize them so that people end up in drug filled prisons. This was a turn that makes any form of illegalization bad, meaning that this is a definitive reason why Con can't stop drug use, and actually makes it worse. Since I lower drug use rates by keeping drug users out of prisons, this is an independent reason to prefer Pro.
II. My opponent dropped this turn, meaning I actually prevent rapes happening to drug users by not sending them to prison. View this as an independent reason to prefer Pro.
III. The only comparison that my opponent didn't drop between prisons and drugs was the full possession argument. He said that since no one would willing walk into a prison to forcibly stay for 10 years, this proves there's an inherent deterrent effort to drug use. Don't buy his vaguely warranted at best argument and buy the argument that has been ceded every round that says 10% of people will use drugs. How many people willingly just go into prison for fun, signing once to stay for 10 years. A whole lot less than 10%. 10% of people willingly choose to start using drugs, but very few of these people want to go to prison. The fact they chose to start doing drugs, knowing they're illegal, means my opponent has a really high burden to prove that people willingly choose prison just like they willingly choose drugs. Drugs are like a contract you willingly signed, prisons are literally something you get thrown into and have to be stopped from escaping. Prison is worse for autonomy than drugs.
2. It could go a lot farther. His argument that it simply isn't possible is absurd. Sugars can achieved from fruits and vegetables, meaning sugar could be banned and supplemented from original sources. On top of this, there could be limits to intake that simply don't allow for certain cultural foods to be had. To simply put up that there is literally no way to regulate it farther is simply calling on the imagination of me or the judge, and if we can think of at least one, you've lost the argument.
A. Food prices was divided into sub points, so I'll keep the debate there so there's independent reasons to vote.
I. If I win that there's less drug users because of tax application, then cross apply that to this point.
II. As a side note, before I answer this, having a judge vote as a reason to win this point or this debate does not rely on my opponent understanding it. I'm going to try to reword it because education is important, but him saying "I don't understand" doesn't mean he negates the point, otherwise he could just say he doesn't understand anything and then he automatically wins. If you as the judge understand the point, either through the original explanation or this reexplanation, still vote, regardless of how well my opponent understood it. On the point itself, my point was that in the world of Pro, people who chose to do drugs originally don't get to afford food, while in the world of Con, all impoverished people can't afford food. If we had to choose which is worse, it's definitely the world of Con, meaning that you as a judge should value this point as going ot Pro.
3. I would argue that McCarthyism is proof that personal autonomy of the mind is not safe in the United States, as well as the hate speech examples I already brought up. Since there is already attacks in this area, if you think that guaranteeing personal autonomy in drug use has any chance of spillover, then I win this point as pro.
4. Just because my opponent has ignored point 5 from the beginning and has never engaged with that source since it was brought up and cross applied in every round does not mean I did not source it. Don't let his blatant ignoral of my point be a legitimate reason to think I never cited the 5th point in my first speech and then brought it up every single round as dropped my opponent. I'm going to answer my opponent's "double-bind" and then answer his argument about him having more money.
A. The double-bind is actually how the taxation works. The point is, if the rehab is ineffectual, drug use would go up, tax rates would go up, more money could be invested into these rehab facilities and finding alternative methods to solve drug use, and then it would eventually solve as more resources were going into this area, which would result in section two, less drug users, less need for rehabs, less taxes for the rehabs. The point is that the amount of money going into the structure is relevant to the amount of people needing it, meaning we never underfund or overfund the rehabilitation scenario I've set up. He's never really argue that's how the tax system works either since the beginning, and consistently shows why the system is better and better for drug use numbers.
B. On this numbers game, there's a couple of flaws.
I. He isn't creating $1.45 trillion dollars, this is money already lost in the status quo. That means, while drugs are illegalized, we lose that much money to drugs. If I can't solve drug use, but I get the taxation, I can at least drop that number to $1.09 trillion. Don't let my opponent claim he's solving $1.45 trillion dollars when we've lost the war on drugs and drugs are already used. Also, if I win that rehab numbers can even keep drug use constant, if not lower it, then he doesn't get to say this number goes up, meaning that I still make the world a little better.
II. If I win that I can drop drug use tremendously through the rehab system, then I solve a majority of his $1.45 trillion. This means that he is actually showing the amount of money my plan has to solve. Once again, since he is just showing how bad the status quo he advocates for is, if you think there is a chance to lower that number through Pro, you have to vote to lower that number.
5. Once again, extend this point. This proves we lost the war on drugs and the sources are in speech one when I first made the point. It's been cross applied where necessary.
Every attack Con has thrown at Pro has either been turned to show that Pro solves better, or at least shown that it isn't a warranted argument, so Pro's case still stands strong.
I think drug users should be rehabbed or left alone depending on the circumstances.
Sorry for forfeiting the last round. Life got to me. I apologize.
I might be willing to debate you on this sometime.
If you legalize all uses of all drugs, then the world will be more dangerous.
If you only legalize the bare minimum, then you are basically not legalizing drugs.