Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Alcoholic products should be subject to plain packaging laws

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's third argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
1550
Contender / Con
1668
rating
55
debates
69.09%
won
Description
~ 29 / 5,000

I will waive the first round.

Round 1
Pro
I waive the first round. 

Username1 BoP = Alcoholic products should be subject to plain packaging laws
fauxlaw BoP = Alcoholic products not should be subject to plain packaging laws

Good luck. 

Con
Resolution: Alcoholic products should be subject to plain packaging laws
 
Having accepted the debate, as is, I officially file the following disclaimer here: 
Disclaimer:  Pro’s Description is limited to a single statement to which I see no imposition requiring my compliance, to wit: “I will waive the first round.” I expect Pro expects my reciprocal waiver of the last round, but Pro makes no such demand. I therefore expect that Pro will either enter a first round text to the effect that he waives argument in that round, or will forfeit the round. I know it is a relatively popular tactic to waive rounds, i.e., the instigator waives first round, the challenger waives last round. However, I will hold to the current debate protocol of DArt that, “The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate.” In other words, there should be argument [including rebuttal, defense, etc] in all rounds. [https://info.debateart.com/help/debates]   I will comply with this policy with arguments/rebuttals in all rounds [4 rounds, designated by Pro], having no compulsion to waive any round, regardless of Pro's actions.
 
Since Pro has waived R1, I have no rebuttals to argue. I will quote the resolution at the beginning of each of my argument rounds to keep it clearly in focus. My R1 arguments:
 
I Argument: Plain Packaging is biased toward negatives about product.
 
I.a Plain packaging recommendations are, in the U.S., an issue restricted to tobacco products.[1]  To extend the practice to alcohol is an assumption made by Pro that may have proponents, but current plain packaging law does not exist, even for tobacco products, in the U.S.[2]. Do I presume Pro intends this debate to be restricted to the U.S.? In point of fact, it does not matter, but the above reference [1] does indicate that such “laws” as the Resolution describes are not extant currently in the U.S. However, tobacco products [only] do have health warning requirements by policy.[3]  I will proceed in this and future rounds with the assumption that we debate the issue at least  in the U.S., and that we are talking about statutory law; federal, or state.
 
I.b Further, contrary to fair practice in advertising, tobacco [and, I presume with Pro’s Resolution, alcohol], according to the World Heath organization, in 2016 said:  “Plain packaging is an important demand reduction measure that reduces the attractiveness of tobacco products, restricts use of tobacco packaging as a form of tobacco advertising and promotion, limits misleading packaging and labeling, and increases effectiveness of health warnings.”[4]
 
I.b.1 Such restrictions unfairly prevent notice of positive benefit to alcohol products, such as any documented health benefits to consuming a glass of wine,[5][6]  for example, having numerous benefits.[7]. As with any consumable, moderation is a necessary factor to consider in meeting those benefits, and that excessive consumption will have negative results.
 
I.c Therefore, Pro’s Resolution is false. 
 
II Argument: Advertising should have all legal tactics available to engage for all legally distributed consumer products
 
II.a With argument I noted above assumed as correct, I extend that argument to all legally distributed consumer products without restriction, albeit government agencies may impose health risk requirement of posting for legal products that do have potential health risks to consumers. I do not argue the use of these health risk notices. However, I do oppose legalizing plain packaging law that does not, as noted in my arg. I, currently exist. While I do accept the prudence of masking some consumer products, such as pornographic materials, from view by minors in brick-and-mortar establishments in which minors maybe present, I oppose the restriction of sale unless imposed strictly by the retail shop owners, themselves, who have a right to merchandise any products they choose to vend, albeit by use of age-restricted measures for adult-only products, such as smoking and alcoholic beverages and related products.
 
II.b  Therefore, product manufacturers should be allowed to use their product packaging for the purposes of not just identification of product, but for benefits and pleasures of use, even to the extent of suggestions for use, albeit within consideration of age-related propriety, if any.
 
II.b.1 For example, there are reasons why product packaging has important considerations for consumer education:[8]
 
1.    It differentiates one brand from another
2.    Packaging colors sway consumer purchasing habits
3.    Product packaging is a marketing tool
4.    Product packaging creates branding recognition
 
II.b.2 Virtually all of these considerations would lose their marketing impact were plain packaging laws imposed on some products, and not others, unnecessarily creating bias in consumer choices. If a product is considered a legally appropriate consumer product, all such products should have an equal opportunity to fully market that product. Plain packaging is biased against such an argument, as noted in my arg. I, above.
 
II.b.3 Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails by its discriminatory position.
 
III Argument: Consumer choice is not fairly educated by restrictive, plain packaging
 
III.a Applying the 4 reasons noted above in my arg. II, the restricted marketing of any legally consumable product is disadvantageous to that product, even if every product of a similar nature, such as all alcoholic beverages and other alcohol-containing products [rum cake, for example], are differentiated by, frankly, boring, plain-brown-wrapper type packaging. Plain packaging is not nearly as appealing a colorful packaging with impactful fonts and examples of suggested use, all of which are viable marketing techniques for consumer products.[9].  Studies indicate that plain packaging does not sell with the frequency of professionally marketed packaging design and graphics.[10][11]
 
III.b Therefore, Pro’s resolution fails by disadvantageous product attraction.
 
 
 

Round 2
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Resolution: Alcoholic products should be subject to plain packaging laws
 
My opponent has waived the first round, and has forfeited the second round, which constitutes a lack of argument in two of four rounds. I shall continue my allotted rounds of argument/rebuttal, except that, to date, there is nothing to which I need to offer rebuttal. Therefore, on with arguments.
 
I Argument: Negative impact results to retailers due to plain packaging requirements
 
I.a A report by Cebar, a British business solutions by forecasts and analysis company, conducted a study in 2013 regarding the economic impact of plain packaging on convenience to large retailers of tobacco products.[1] The report concluded there were “Increased insolvency rates in convenience retailing with the loss of between 2,000 and 3,500 jobs…”[2]  in spite of the reduced cost of wholesale purchase of product in plain packaging. As noted in my R1, III.a, “Studies indicate that plain packaging does not sell with the frequency of professionally marketed packaging design and graphics.”[3]  
 
I.b Although the Cebar study involved tobacco, and not alcohol sales, the relative success of marketing principles and sales results track a similar pattern with both product categories.  According to a Verywellmind.com article, it asks, “Did you ever wonder why so many of your friends who drink  [alcohol] also smoke?”[4]  The article answers the “why:”[5]
 
1. Alcohol drinkers smoke more than non-drinkers.
2. People smoke more in places where alcohol is served.
3. Smokers are more likely to be binge drinkers.
 
I.c Not just marketing prowess, and behavioral attitudes, science has discovered that nicotine [by smoking] offsets alcoholic beverage drinking’s effects by both substances.[6] There is also an increase of dopamine [the pleasure enzyme] concentration in the blood by the added effects of tobacco and alcohol.[7]
 
I.d Since there is a direct correlation of alcohol plus tobacco use, more so than with either product’s exclusive use, that these products would be, by the Resolution, packaged in plain-brown-wrapper style, or, since the Resolution does not dictate a specific color of packaging, even a plain-white-wrapper is contrary to the economic viability of retailers marketing either alcohol, or tobacco products, or both. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
I conclude my R2 argument and pass R3 to Pro.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet