The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

An individual should be a drug addict.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,262 times Debate No: 73825
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)




Hola, this debate is of course about whether or not one should be a drug addict. This sounds pretty obvious but I contend the resolution is true. The burden will be shared, assuming I can prove this is ever true, I win. This will have to do with the individual.

I will be speaking As If I am a drug addict to prove my point, you must prove to me that I should not be a drug addict. That is the point, nothing more. Please tell me if you want to debate me in the comments.

Drug addict- A person who is addicted to a drug, specifically those who are detrimentally addicted. Like a heroin addict...ect.


Since you have asserted that an individual should be a drug addict, let me start off by asking why.
I don't see much reason why all must become drug addicts.
Debate Round No. 1


You are already confused lol. You really should have read the top. We both have the responsiblity to prove our part, you should have argued why its bad to be one, but you haven't, you Must present arguements to convince me I shouldn't be an addict or else you have failed your burden.

Argument 1: The Desire To Do Drugs

A specific reason that one individual should be a drug addict is that they enjoy being high. For them, being high outweighs any other concerns and is the primary concern in life. Because I am acting as a drug addict in this debate, and must be convinced not to be, I will tell everyone that right now I am very unconvinced. And in fact I will never be convinced, drugs are more important than any thing, money, glory, power, other people, love, its all worth nothing compared to the desire for the heroin needle in my veil. That's just the needly, the actual high is much more impartant than any of those things. Thus an individual, a drug addict, should be a drug addict because they want to be.



True. Many of us take drugs because we enjoy getting high. However, drug addiction is different. We are no longer talking about taking drugs just for enjoyment, it is now a need. As an addict, you cannot control the urge of taking drugs, even at times when you want to take a break from them. Addiction is the act of surrendering yourself as a slave and letting the substance be your master. You described more in accordance to how enjoyable drugs are but you aren't taking into consideration the compulsive requirement or the dependency.

If you want to be a drug addict, I have no problem with that. But should you? I don't think it must be that way.
Debate Round No. 2


Hello again.

In the last round the opponent mentioned being, dependant, a slave, out of control, to drugs. Perhaps there are health concerns which he week bring up next ALL of which I say "so what?". In reality we are ALL drug addicts. People love to assert that they are rational and intelligent humans, living their lives in the best way they ever could. Thus a strung out drug addict, such as myself, seems like an irrational, injurious, and crazy individual. The irony in believing this is comical. The fact is, that a drug addict is the exact same as yourself. What people fail to understand is that rationality and intellect are simply tools used by your fundamental emotional base. This base is responsible for assigning value to things, for instance the value of your own or someone else's life. Rationality is simply the mechanism by which these emotional imperatives are applied to you're life and carried out.

Think about it. Every single person reading this understands that sugar is bad for you. They understand that eating fat will clog their arteries, they understand that texting while driving could potentially kill you and they understand that drinking tap water is bad for you because of the chlorine. But do any of us care? In reality, we all have assigned value to certain things, especially or own lives. We know that even though those burgers aren't going to kill you right away, you're inescapably taking several years from your own life, but we consciously, willingly and indifferent participate in these activities every day. Is this but the exact same thing me and my cracked out friends do? The only difference is that we have assigned a lower value to or lives. It was a conscious decision to throw out our self control and let the drugs make us addicts. We decided to devalue our lives by doing drugs, and doesn't that show that we hardly valued then from the get go? In my opinion I should be a drug addict for the same reason that you should listen to music at high volumes, or start a needless conflict, internally, you just don't give a sh!t. Literally the only difference is the amount and scale of your indifference.

Back to you


romeoboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend my argument as uncontested and thus urge a vote for pro. Please do not consider any arguments that might be made in the final round, as this is unfair to my side.

I made the resolution kinda tricky, such that in order to win you would have to convince a drug addict not to be a drug addict, in this way I wanted to make the debate from the perspective of a drug addict to showcase why they are the way that they are, and what makes them that way. Note that the resolution says "an individual" meaning we aren't talking about many individuals or people as a whole, but out of all individuals, that there is at least one who should be a drug addict, and in framing it this way we make it from that persons perspective. I thought someone might make an argument on objective morality which everyperson should have, and then say that not having or upholding such values was a perversion which might be inherently bad. This was not said however, in fact, the only things said were that you can become depended or as a slave to drugs but again this has no objectively bad value and to the person in question this is actually a good thing. For that reason I urge a vote pro.



romeoboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
I would actually do the debate with you
Posted by romeoboy 1 year ago
Thank you for the welcome, TinyBudha.
To be honest, I'm not really against drug addiction itself. For me it depends on the individual's case.
However, you did use 'should' which I don't agree to.

But since you have insisted that I should start off, I'll begin by saying that any form of addiction is detrimental since it means that you are now dependent on that substance and that you cannot do without it. Its like shackling yourself and voluntarily becoming a slave. Why should an individual put himself or herself in such a position?
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
@romeoboy good to have you romeoboy, in this first round you must argue that I should not be an addict. I look forward to your arguments.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The BoP should be on Pro.... No one is going to accept this. All Con has to do is provide a negative case.
Posted by Nathan_Pulbrook 1 year ago

That is the citation for my previous comment, idk how to edit.
Posted by Nathan_Pulbrook 1 year ago
IDC about points or whatever, I don't fit the criteria for the debate, I will however posit that an individual should not be a drug addict.

An individual should not be a drug addict. "Addiction changes the brain, first by subverting the way it registers pleasure and then by corrupting other normal drives such as learning and motivation."(1) This being said, it is logical to deduce that being a drug addict is detrimental to ones health.

If a fundamental inability to respond to external stimuli is caused specifically by the activation and manipulation of the pleasure center of the brain by drugs over time, we can judge that as an objectively bad thing, if that point is assumed then by all rationality, a person should not be a drug addict.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
@FaustianJustice You see, that at least made a bit of sense. Accordingly I will share the burden on proof but will under no circumstances take the full burden of proof.
Posted by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
I am noticing a pattern, here. In a debate such as this, without you specifically stating "I concede", and your ... 'creative' way in which you shuffle BoP, you are doing nothing more than semantically stacking the deck.

In this particular instance, you have adopted a position. You are a drug addict, and more over, you -should be- a drug addict (that is a claim, btw.). You then shift your stance to opposition to convince you why your assertion is wrong without you having to defend it. At all. Literally, as you have constructed this debate, simply repetitiously typing "Interesting, but that's not good enough" would satisfy your part in the dialogue. I am not sure how anyone can take that variety of format seriously.
Posted by Luharis 1 year ago
I'd debate this and take upon myself the burden of proof, despite the fact that is should be taken up on the pro side.
Posted by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Such a resolution calls upon Pro to take the Burden of proof. You can't just say, "Con has burden of proof" and it will be so.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped out, plus did not seem to understand the setup (which would have gotten ugly, based on con's BoP stating Pro must be convinced...).