The Instigator
GoOrDin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
andrew_294
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Cartels vs the Republic

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
andrew_294
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 101577
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

GoOrDin

Con

I argue that Sponsoring or Funding
Capitalist, Whore-mongering, Criminal Cartels by purchasing Marijuana, thus
Crashing our economy of food, cloths, utilities, security, media, education and paraphilia
which is the act of money laundering and gang affiliation
through enabling and harbouring criminals who are selling drugs to children, womanizers, bigots, drug addicts, lazy spouses & depressed people

Is a criminal offense that should not be legalized for the sake of the demography which is guilty of this offense.

If Marijuana were to be legalized, then it should be done so with Zero correlation to the Decisions of the Criminal Population which has been Robbing the republic, empowering the cartels, thus tyrannizing and enslaving our working class, our food producers, our foreign associates and our officials.

More over, It does create psychotic anomalies in the mind, which are nearly impossible to reprimand , in the same way that sexualizing a child is unreprimandble.
Indicting that it is not just a criminal act, but an inhumane act to sell or legalize it.

The Cartels are currently so powerful,
making millions a day selling liquor, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, porn and porn apparatus
that they have influence in our media, in our politics, in our demographics and in our education system.
Thus, introducing to this article of discussion,
sex trafficking, robbery, violence, social bigotry, depression, economic insecurity (national and private).

So. I am 100% against Marijuana Culture. and I would like someone to address each of these topics for what they, individually, and maintain their position of Pro with sustenance. If you fail to perceive any of these arguments, we have a 'comment' section to address your lapse in understanding [ As it is impossible to respond to a clause, if you do not know what clause you are responding to. ].

thank you, for taking on this debate challenge.
Accepting before reading will undoubtedly be an automatic fail.
andrew_294

Pro

First let me say I am unclear of where I stand on this urgent issue. But for the sake of the debate I will stand for the legalization of Marijuana.

Let me begin by addressing the stigma associated with marijuana. Beginning with the counterculture movement in the 1960's and 1970's, the rapid spread of marijuana usage has taken the world by a tour de force. We typically think of the typical marijuana user as a left-wing, liberal idiot who has no concern for the legal aspects and laws of the United States. However, this is not the case. Many who use the illegal substance are in fact seeking a fix for terminal illness, typically cancer patients and the like.

Who are we to deny said terminally ill patient the usage of a substance that will alleviate the mental as well as the physical aspects of the illness?

It is also true that drug cartels, primarily in the central American regions that procure and distribute these illegal drugs across borders into many other countries. I am making the claim that, if we legalize marijuana, we will see the reduction of illegal activity among the said cartels as well as decreasing the overall price for the substance. With this, the cartels will be reduced to minor operations who will in turn focus on other moneymaking drugs, that which I think also should be legalized, to prevent any further cartel activity.

By legalizing marijuana, we open the door to many opportunities for the terminally ill, as well as job opportunities for those who are jobless. With the legalization of marijuana, we will need distributors that are legal entities residing within the U.S. who responsibly distribute the substance through retail as well as freight operations.

As far as the effects on the mind, marijuana has no predisposition to induce psychosis on the normal population. However, it in fact does induce psychotic thinking with those who are genetically predisposed to mental illness such as myself.

The production of dopamine in the human brain is a marvel. It brings us a heightened sense of pleasure as well as controls our personality, the way we think and etcetera. Those whom have normal dopamine production will only feel a heightened sense of pleasure as well as euphoria. On the other hand, a person already experiencing the effects of incorrect dopamine production will in turn feel a heightened state of paranoia as well as an increase in psychotic thinking (a disconnection from reality).

The notion that legalizing marijuana will increase the markets of sex trafficking and pornography is false. Individuals whom participate in these activities are already doing these things for a source of income. Most populations that practice in prostitution are cultures that already endorse it, a perfect example being the prostitution hotbed of Tenancingo, Mexico.

As far as the industry of pornography, the income they receive is self evident. It does not come from the usage of illegal drugs. It comes from the consumers whom pay monthly subscriptions to the service.

I look forward to your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Con

I will reiterate my comment: that, this debate is geared towards the demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use.

All my previous arguments, in turn are yet to be addressed, and doing so is a prerequisite to this debate. As, disregarding contributed arguments is bigoted, insolent, arrogant and impudent (each), and thus this would no longer be considered a DEBATE. as in a debate, the winner doesn't win based on inconsideration and pompous self-satisfaction, they win only By over-turning the content contributed in one way or another.

Regarding the use of Medical Marijuana. Medical marijuana does not conclusively Cure any afflictions. I have never seen any research indicating that, nor any Medical Publications. (I would love for you to provide me with A CREDIBLE publication that is not second, third or fourth hand, But is directly from this Credible source. Please, as it is YOUR argument.)
I personally knew a man who died of Colon + liver cancer who smoked Marijuana routinely. I knew another heavy smoker who died of leukemia.

Yet for the terminally ill. Who are we indeed, to deny this pain relief. Yet, despite I have not fought against this right, It should also not be administered or prescribed, as it can cause Great mental strife and physical trauma. As I stated, I have both had my brain bleed, and have had a heart attack.

Job creation is not real. As pre-existing establishments would by default inherit this market (example: Monsanto's [actual example, Canada]). The only other people entering this market would be Pre-existing illegal cartels. To remain legal is financially expensive. This is not a job creation sector. IN fact, the rise in Market Distributers would complicate the tax system, and excessive corruption would arise, where a solution had been sought to be installed.

Marijuana does in fact have a predisposition to induce psychosis on all Humans. That is a scientific fact. Some people, however, simply, mask their delusion, insolence, selfishness, Perversion and Psychotic symptoms. Ticking-Time-Bombs, Suicides, Crooks, Bigots, Asshols, Sloths, Gluttons, Jackasses... That is a fact, that Marijuana does have this disposition to inflict Psychosis, and merely the individual copes uniquely.

I'll address sex trafficking in my next round, After my opponent rebuttals my First Round Arguments, While I reinforce my case.
andrew_294

Pro

It is clear that my opponent is making an all out attack on users of marijuana. Therefore, I will do that same for my case.

My opponent has made the statement that "this debate is geared toward demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use". However, my opponent uses words such as "bigot", womanizers, drug addicts, lazy spouses and depressed people, which in turn I will pose the question : how is your argument not geared towards the ideology of marijuana usage when you use the above terms to describe it's users?

My opponent has also made the statement that "medical marijuana does not conclusively cure any afflictions". I completely agree with this statement. However, many drugs are in use today that do not cure afflictions, especially afflictions of the mind. Some examples of drugs that do not cure but "mask" the problem (and I will use my own experience with mental illness as example) are antipsychotics, anti-depressants, and nerve medication.

Also, my opponent has not provided any scientific arguments but insists that his argument is scientific in nature, when in fact, it is completely ideological. I will provide scientific arguments for my position.

In an article by npr.org, the author does state that marijuana does cause psychotic symptoms, however, it does not cause a complete psychosis, much like that found in disorders of the mind such as schizophrenia. The author makes the following statement: "Drugs like marijuana or methamphetamine can make someone experience symptoms like paranoia, hostility and disorganized thinking. But that's very different from a chronic, persistent psychotic disorder like schizophrenia." Notice that the author says it "can" cause some psychotic thinking, but not a total psychosis of the mind ( I am schizophrenic and have never used marijuana in my life, so I have experience with this issue). The amount of THC content in a strain of marijuana also contributes to the factor of psychotic thinking. A THC content of 15 percent or more would definitely cause a psychotic break, albeit temporarily. However, I am not advocating for high potency marijuana. I am arguing for a low potency, moreover a medically acceptable form of cannabis.

My opponent also makes the statement that job creation is not real. In turn I will ask this question: where are the facts to back this up? An article from the reputable economic website forbes.com states that by 2020, the cannabis industry will create more than 250,000 jobs in the LEGAL cannabis market, talking about the legal cannabis market for medical purposes. The author of the article also makes this statement : "The legal cannabis market was worth an estimated $7.2 billion in 2016 and is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 17%. Medical marijuana sales are projected to grow from $4.7 billion in 2016 to $13.3 billion in 2020. Adult recreational sales are estimated to jump from $2.6 billion in 2016 to $11.2 billion by 2020."

The numbers posed by the author in terms of economic growth are astronomical. Why deprive the American economy of such a thriving industry that has the potential to create the amount of jobs described. The manufacturing job market is expected to decline with operations moving overseas, so why not replenish the job market with jobs in the cannabis industry?

In conclusion, my opponent has made harsh statement that essentially cannot be backed with scientific and economic research. It seems as if my opponent is making an ad hominem attack on the cannabis industry in general, a common fallacy used in making a weak argument. I am simply stating the facts and research. I do not have a personal agenda concerning the cannabis industry. I am only providing what experts say. I feel that the cannabis industry is an answer to many problems we as Americans face on a daily basis.

Sources
http://www.npr.org...
https://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Con

My opponent s a bigoted idiot.

He failed for 2 rounds to address the Topic of discussion.

He clauses were ignorant, and hapless.
as his Economic research, was not credible, first off, but was followed up with untrue remarks concerning Job creation.
pre-existing Distributers will assume responsibility for distribution, Unless
we're to replicate Mexico's Corner-vs-Corner-Hotdog-economy Model.
and that is why I mentioned Cigarettes and Booze already.

now, I get it. I didn't exemplify this aspect of my argument very functionally.
As I didn't round about to sex trafficking, being a drug related topic.
Or the disrespectful population of ignorant assholess.

However, How Ironic is it,
that the twat who Pretends that he is debating with me, carries on, so impudently dodging the ONE obligation he had in this debate.

So:
This is Over.
I won,
By default;
when after 2 rounds he continues to Troll,
with the insolent remark embedded in Text, documented, and reference-able in context, as testimony against the structure of his debate, That he was 'mimicking my Style of Approach', and "debaucherized" the attempt to demonstrate such a thing.

Good day.
Any further remarks from my opponent to follow up this exhibit, are an errant attempt to boost his ego.
Lest. He revert to the First Post, and make his argument based souly on the content I contributed as the Substance of Discussion (none of which was fallible.).
andrew_294

Pro

I wish to congratulate my opponent for his failed argument as well as myself for providing solid evidence of my case. Whatever you were trying to accomplish, it has failed. As for the bigoted idiot comment, you might want to look no further than yourself on that one. I was looking forward to an informed discussion on the matter but clearly you've made no attempt at further enlightenment on this issue. Next time I will choose a more competent opponent. Cheers.

Sources:

My vast pool of knowledge and ego :)
Debate Round No. 3
GoOrDin

Con

this was a debate, not your 15 minutes of fame.
andrew_294

Pro

This has been a most unfruitful discussion. When I see your username again in the debate I will NEVER attempt a scholarly argument with my opponent. Please, to the voters at home, don't encourage this type of nonsense on a website where we as debaters try to come to common ground, despite our differences. And to fellow debaters, this user has been the "bigot" of the debate. I encourage others not to attempt scholarly discourse as my opponent may not understand or know the definition of discourse. Thank you for those at home and I wish all well. Goodnight.

P.S. I did win this, just so you know ;)
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I set a topic of debate. and you set a delusional topic of discussion. let's meet in the middle.

you're a BIGOT***

folks. go home happy, that no one lost here who had anything to lose.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I set a topic of debate. and you set a delusional topic of discussion. let's meet in the middle.

your a BIGOT***

folks. go home happy, no one lost here who had anything to lose.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I set a topic of debate. and you set a delusional topic of discussion. let's meet in the middle.

your a BIGOT***

folks. go home happy, no one lost here who had anything to lose.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
:s

your point, was not on point.
did you understand that?

https://www.youtube.com...
I love this song. so please, don't make correlations between me and it.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Webster 1980: Bigot: Having blind attachment.

I beg forgiveness. May you debates here be functional and fruitful for everyone.

good night.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
inconsistent cont.: it doesn't measure up in or to reality.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Bigoted: incoherent & inconsistent.

incoherent: you don't know what you are asserting before you've begun to develop your assertion, nor how it is relative to the clause that prompted a response.

inconsistent: it doesn't follow the context of discussion.

bigoted*
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
IN a debate: you address the content your counterpart Provides; You don't shove your head up your arse and babble.
so, Tomorrow then.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
:D

first of all. You continue, as in 2 for 2, to ignore your obligation as my debate counterpart.
but secondly, I am going to walk all over your argument,
as it was void, ignorant, Ignorant
and Ignorant.
Tomorrow, shall we.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
thank you for responding so promptly. I won't be so, generous.

BUT,

as far as Cancer patients having Nausea and vomiting relief:
that is not a medicinal effect.
That is a mere distractions.
Those patients feel alone, lost and confused. > That is the cause of the nausea and vomiting.
The Marijuana, simply distracts them form their complex lives.

This is easy to prove.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
GoOrDinandrew_294Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While I find myself in agreement with many statements made by Con, I was at a loss to figure out what his primary argument was. Con's poor conduct also forfeited his potentially more convincing argument. Pro maintained a more civil discourse and was the only one to use any supporting sources whereas Con simply asserted his case.