An individual should be a drug addict.
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
I don't see much reason why all must become drug addicts.
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.
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.
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 round...to 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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
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...).
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.