The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
AshleysTrueLove
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

All Drugs Should Be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AshleysTrueLove
Started: 1/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,776 times Debate No: 28912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I challenge AshleysTrueLove to an intellectual dual. I sincerely hope he accepts, and in the case he does, I wish him luck in the following brief rounds.

I argue that the resources government uses to enforce drug laws are wasted. (1)

(1) http://www.cnn.com...
AshleysTrueLove

Con

I accept :)
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thank you for accepting, but you didn't refute my argument that the resources government spends on keeping drugs illegal is wasted.
AshleysTrueLove

Con

Firstly my opponent should know(reading the rules of DDO) unless explictly stated in the rules of the debate, I do not have to refute my opponents link. He needs to post a actual case or lose the debate not simply presuppose what he is trying to prove. My opponent has not fufilled his burden of proof. I needn't refute CNN because they are nonbais and cannot firmly take a position so :P
If this is allowed then:
http://www.activistpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Drugs should be legalized because their unlawful status has not substantially reduced their use or availability. (1) This means that most resources directed towards enforcing their illegality are wasted.

(1) http://www.cliffsnotes.com...
AshleysTrueLove

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument, i don't think its usually allowed to post arguments last round but whatever. Now onto his point, it doesn't matter whether it reduces drugs substantially or not. It only matters whether it does at all. Cold corpses speak louder than abstract freedoms, and legalizing all drugs will increase scale of robberys and illegal activity by ten fold, and it will introduce a new black market that isn't so secretive known as private enterprise. We need to stand by this.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
I just read Con's source and it's actually satire and making fun of Con's position... lol.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
Oh ok, my mistake.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
I double-checked and my vote is as-intended:

"Pro had the burden of proof, but provided no cited statistics to prove his case."

I awarded the "Convincing arguments" points to Con.

"Pro's source, however, was in-line with his position whereas Con's source was not (thanks to Bodhivaka for pointing that out!)"

I awarded the "Reliable sources" points to Pro.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
likespeace, you voted against me even though your comment seems to imply you meant to vote the other way... I'm confused!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
GarretKadeDupreAshleysTrueLoveTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con disagree about whether laws against drugs are effective in reducing their use. Pro had the burden of proof, but provided no cited statistics to prove his case. Pro's source, however, was in-line with his position whereas Con's source was not (thanks to Bodhivaka for pointing that out!)
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 1 year ago
Bodhivaka
GarretKadeDupreAshleysTrueLoveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither participant presented any compelling arguments; however, Pro obviously used better sources. I doubt Con even read his own source, as it uses obvious satire to mock those who support drug prohibition.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
GarretKadeDupreAshleysTrueLoveTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Aweful debate. But pro had the BOP - and he failed to prove his point. Con wins.
Research this debate: California