You should not dismiss the guy/gal that said liquor has been around for a long time. That is a valid observation and a counter example to your argument, so it positively contributes to the discussion. Try to think about what makes beer different in that it is also part of society but is proven to cause harm, and come out with a different, stronger argument. A person that points out the flaw of your argument is not necessarily your enemy, and may still agree with you after all. Yes. I’m like that in real life.

I agree with you, but we should not compromise logic just to confirm what we believe.

To say something is good merely because it has been consumed for a long period.
Very often people use a terrible argument and reach the right conclusion by chance.

I think the point was just that the argument was flawed.

Then get yourself some better arguments. You are hurting your cause. More context does not hurt. If you are right, it will prove you right.

Sorry, but i hate this argument. Any conflict can end if one side accepts the terms of the other side. You can just pick the side you dont like and say “well. They can end it if they do this now”, implying all the destruction is their exclusive responsibility. To make a better assesment of who to blame, you need to get to know what their motives are and any and all context involved. This should be the first step for those seeking peace anyway.