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

Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan.

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: 6/27/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,593 times Debate No: 17298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




I was sitting back listening to my favorite Songify song, Winning, by Charlie Sheen () when it occurred to me... this man is truly a societal pariah. While one interview with Katie Couric usually isn't enough to forever poison one's image, it would seem that in Mr. Sheen's case this has certainly been the effect.

While, true enough the incident has lead to a variety of hilarious sketches, spoofs, and the etc. (like SNL's seen here: or college humor's seen here: one has to consider the impact that this has on society as a whole.

Charlie Sheen balls seven gram rocks, because that's how he roles; as if merely possessing "tiger blood" gives him license to unapologetically flaunt his epic "run" that made "Sinatra, Flynn, Jagger, Richards all of 'em just look like droopy-eyed armless children" before the world. There comes a point where enough is enough.

For some time I had taken solace in the fact that, at least kids can see Charlie Sheen for the buffoon that he is, but my heart sank when I learned that Justin Bieber had dubbed Charlie Sheen the "most influential person in the world." ( According to the less-than-worldly tween singing sensation, the most influential person in the world... "has got to be Charlie Sheen. He's got a million followers in one day on Twitter. And… I've never seen that happen before. Plus, he's got tiger blood, and he's always winning."

If Justin Bieber weren't the idol of, say, the overwhelming majority of teenage girls, fans of Glee, and etc. ( and accomplished enough to, at 16, publish an account of his life's story I might not be so concerned... but this is an endorsement that has catastrophic impacts to the most impressionable of age demographics (11-16 year old girls).

Lindsey Lohan at least apologized for her... well... debauchery (or tried to fake it) which is more than can be said for Charlie Sheen. She pleaded guilty to possession charges and attempted to face the consequences of her actions -more than Charlie Sheen. ( Even more to her credit, She at least is attending rehab ( in attempt to get clean. She didn't try to perpetuate the lie that she just blinked and cured her brain. Now, Lohan is out ( Presumably she is clean... which is more than we can say for Sheen, who is now occupying his time on a psychotic comedy tour that is apparently immeasurably bad ( How's that for a torpedo of truth?


In the comment sections my opponent defines socially undesirable as "not benefiting society because of harm caused". He goes on by stating:

"In essence, who causes more harm? The metric for harm, then, can be impact on the society that both subjects (Sheen and Lohan) primarily affect. So that the scope isn't too exceptionally broad, let's just stipulate that it's America we're talking about. We might draw the following question, then, from the debate: Is America worse off because of Charlie Sheen or Lindsey Lohan? Of course, the resolution implies that both parties cause harm. If we accept that both Sheen and Lohan cause harm, then who causes more harm?"

What actions can cause harm? I can endanger or destroy your life, liberty, or property. These are objectively actions that would cause harm to others.

Now, in theory drug addiction should only cause personal harm. In other words If Lindsay Lohan dies of a cocaine overdose, she's the one that bares the cost. Nobody else. However, this is not true. If someone of influence does drugs it has a ‘multiplier effect'. It encourages other people to follow in their idol's path.

So which person has a more profound influence?

Lindsay Lohan is a Disney movie star who starred in "Herbie Fully Loaded", "Freaky Fridays" and "Get a Clue". These shows are designed to be watched by younger audiences.

Charlie Sheen is well known for his role in "Two and a half man". He plays an alcoholic, narcissistic, misogynistic douchebag on two and a half man. His character is designed to be dislikable. The show is designed for adults.
So based on these comparisons: It should be obvious that Lindsay Lohan will have a greater ‘multiplier effect' on socially destructive behavior. Children are naturally influences by idols, and are easily influenced by persuasion. Adult minds are less likely to be influenced so easily.

However, besides the multiplier effect, what else has Lindsay Lohan done?

She has had two recorded DUIs! Remember, police officers are unlikely to catch a person every time they are drinking while driving. So she has likely has drank and drove many times.[1]

Drinking while driving is a serious offense. The dangers of drinking while driving isn't just personalized, its socialized. Her intoxication was a danger to all drivers and pedestrians on the road. She could have easily killed someone. This behavior is also amplified from the ‘multiplier effect' that I explained earlier. Charlie Sheen has not once been convicted of a criminal offense.

Lindsay Lohan has also been anorexic[2]. This is again, a bad influence on young impressionable minds. It is estimated that 80,000 people die from anorexia a year. Lohan's behavior only harms others who will likely develop an eating disorder due to Lindsay Lohan's anorexia.

Lindsay Lohan also stole a $2500 necklace, even though Lindsay Lohan makes millions herself. This is theft of property and directly harmful. If she wasn't caught, the storeowner would have lost $2500. Think about this. How many people do you know that stole anything worth $2500. Also, how would you feel if $2500 was stolen from you?[3]
It should also be noted that Lindsay Lohan also smokes cocaine, just like Charlie Sheen.

However, Lindsay Lohan has done something that is much worse than any of the above. Her most atrocious offense is this:

That's right. She tried to endorse Barack Obama. This guy has increased the size of our national deficient, and dropped more bombs then George W. Bush ever has. He has introduced a new healthcare bill that promises to increases the national deficient and will crowd-out private health insurance and make it more expensive for employers to pay for health insurance. He has exacerbated the problems of the economic collapse. He has put the US down a path of unsustainable debt. He has lied about his promises of "Washington as usual", "bipartisanship", and the end of lobbyist control.

Worse, she described Sarah Palin as a 'a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe.'.[5] That is just mean. Ironically, If Sarah Palin were to be president, she would likely be a great president. She had the highest approval ratings of any governor in Alaska, balanced the budget, and pushed for ethics reform in Alaska's government. Lindsay Lohan is just a mean girl.

Charlie Sheen at least can come up with intelligent statements. Here are some examples:

"That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"This bootleg cult, arrogantly referred to as Alcoholics Anonymous, reports a 5 percent success rate."

His statement about AA is correct. Not only have that, but his opposition against AA made others think about this destructive organization. This organization, not only has a low success rate, but the 12 step program is quite religious.[6] It removes the individual from responsibility and puts him or her in a helpless state. How would this program work for an atheist? Worse, this program is required for those with a DUI. This is outrageous. Let's compare Charlie Sheen's quotes to Lindsay Lohan's "brainy quotes"

"When someone tells me not to do something, I'll do it more"

"How can you not like Britney Spears?"


First, Pro tries to make the outrageous claim that Lindsay Lohan at least admitted to what she did while Charlie Sheen did not. Lindsay Lohan had to plea guility. There was no way out of it. It's not an apology. Charlie Sheen has also pleaded guilty for his crimes.[7] It does not make it honorable, but it's an easy way to reduce one's crime sentence. Even still, Lindsay Lohan pleaded not guilty to stealing a necklace even though there was video tape evidence she did.[3]

Pro's own source shows that Charlie admits to doing cocaine stating he has done "7 gram rocks" of cocaine.
Next, Pro falsely states that Charlie Sheen has not been clean, while Lindsay Lohan has not. This is quite false. Lindsay Lohan has only given us her word. Charlie Sheen gave us more, his pee. In a drug test, Charlie Sheen tested clean for drugs.[8] This is more than can be said for Lindsay Lohan.

Charlie Sheen has also been in rehab as well as Lindsay Lohan[9]. Charlie Sheen just did not like his experience there. He's right too. The success rate of rehab is low, and questionable. The decision to become clean is based mainly one's willingness to be clean.

PRO claims that Justin Bieber claimed Charlie Sheen is the most influential person. There are two problems with this statement. First off, it's a massive appeal to authority. What gives Justin Bieber the authority to claim Charlie Sheen is the most influential person. What was his survey? Second off, I couldn't even gain access to the link provided, so I don't even know if this statement is true.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Darkkermit for his insight. Let's analyze it... shall we? (I apologize for the Bieber article. It seems that Charlie Sheen continues on "winning" by requiring people to register for site content now... perhaps it's because he needs the extra cash to fund his smoking habit.)

Kids... they are an impressionable bunch. They look up to role models, follow pop culture, and now have more access to media in every conceivable variety than ever before in all human history. Lindsey Lohan has caused her fair share of harm too... (from shoddy b-movies to her fair share of substance abuse problems, as my opponent points out). The magnitude of the harm that Lohan causes though, no matter how bad that harm may be -is still less than that of Charlie Sheen. My opponent inquires as to what actions cause harm? In reply... those of Charlie Sheen. Plain and simple. Here's why:

Neither of us would have any way to prove wether Lindsey Lohan or Charlie Sheen either one caused kids to use drugs, or influenced them to make destructive decisions of any variety (even if that destructive decision is one's political preference at the ballot box). Even if we had access to, say, the arrest records of every kid in America (or adult for that matter), who is going to admit that they took up a habit of cocaine addiction because they wanted tiger blood too? Obviously... no one.

Both Sheen and Lohan are reprehensible figures, the question then becomes what each figure does with themselves once they clean up their act -or just snap their fingers and cure their brains in Sheen's case. Remember, he's a b****** rock star from mars... automatically "winning."

When Lohan gets into trouble though, she gets arrested. She goes to rehab. She faces the consequences of her actions. Sheen? Not so much... He not only hasn't been arrested, prosecuted, etc. for his epic "run" that made "Sinatra, Flynn, Jagger, Richards all of 'em just look like droopy-eyed armless children," he is proud of it! He isn't ashamed. He doesn't feel even the slightest scintilla of guilt. He didn't even have the courtesy to apologize!

Lohan apologized. Lohan was arrested. Lohan went to rehab. Charlie Sheen is suing his former employer ( and he is now on a comedy tour (, all the while insisting that he is "winning."

Is this winning? "Winning," by Sheen's standard, is cheating the law, disregarding social and societal codes of decency, and flaunting a comprehensive decorum of debauchery before the world as the media watches. He has faced no consequence. He claims he doesn't need rehab. He shows no remorse.

The problem with that that I have is simple: the idea that it fosters. Charlie Sheen, by example teaches kids (and adults too) that they can get away with things, that they can live lives without consequences -if only they have enough money or a crappy show on network TV. The message that Sheen's mere existence (outside of prison or rehab) is what is harmful to society.

What does it say about the integrity of our system of law and order that Sheen wasn't arrested? Is he above the law? I will point out that if Sheen hadn't acted out as he did, regardless of that system, the message wouldn't have been sent. The message is the problem. The societal implications are the result. Celebrities politics, religious preferences (don't even get me started on Tom Cruse), etc. all falter in comparison to the message Sheen sends. Kids turn on their TVs and see a fully grown man out "winning," and think to themselves... "me too!" That is my greatest fear, behind adults doing the same...


Thank you for Pro's response. Pro has not refuted any of the objective behavior of Lindsay Lohan, however I will go over them:

-Stealing a necklace, and pleading not guilty
-Doing Cocaine
-Drinking while driving
-Slandering Sarah Palin
-Endorsing Barack Obama, whose presidency has caused this nation to suffer
-Feeding us full stupidity

According to Pro, Charlie Sheen only "crime" is cocaine use. I should remind the audience that since Pro is entering his final line, he cannot indict new arguments or evidence proving that Charlie Sheen has antisocial behavior.

It should be noted that Pros reasoning for why people are required to register for Charlie Sheen's site is speculative and unsubstantial, and should be disregarded. Even without a source to back up Pros claim, I have demonstrated in the previous round why using Justin Bieber as a source is fallacious reasoning.

CON states that kids will be affected by Charlie Sheen's actions. Again, the demographics for Two and a Half men are adults[1]. Charlie Sheen does not even play a character who is meant to be a role model. He plays a character who is selfish, hedonistic, and a drug user. Lindsay Lohan is a Walt Disney movie star. Disney is obviously designed to appeal to children. It's the difference between Mr. Rogers and Howard Stern being caught snorting cocaine and sleeping with prostitutes. Howard Stern was never meant to be a role model and his show is designed for an older audience. It's different with Mr. Rogers who should have higher expectations.

Therefore, from both magnitude of harm AND who should have higher expectations, Lindsay Lohan wins both contests.

So what is Pro's main contention. Charlie Sheen supposedly does not face the consequences of his actions. I will demonstrate why this is false.

Pro states that Lohan got arrested and went to rehab, while Charlie Sheen did not. This is false! My opponent makes an incorrect claim. Charlie Sheen was sentenced to 30 days of rehab [2]

My opponent has not shown a single example of Lindsay Lohan apologizing for her actions. I checked my opponents sources and not once does it state that Lindsay Lohan apologized or said she was sorry for her actions. My opponent is simply lying about this. Pleading guilty =/= apologizing. And again, Charlie Sheen ALSO pleaded guilty.

Charlie Sheen actually DID apologize for his actions[4]. Basically, all the information that PRO has stated is patently false.

Lindsay Lohan has said some outrageous material that endorses her behavior and is straight up lies:

"How can you not like Britney Spears?"
"Going clubbing is my way of relaxing or releasing a lot of stress. I don't feel that I should have to justify that part of my life. I don't know that I'm necessarily an addict."
"I'm not skinny for the wrong reasons. It's not because I'm bulimic or anorexic or doing drugs."
"When someone tells me not to do something, I'll do it more."

As I stated in the previous round, Charlie Sheen is proven to be clean.[5] That's more than can be stated with Lindsay Lohan. So why shouldn't Charlie Sheen feel good about ‘winning'? Remember he made the claim that he was winning AFTER he quit doing drugs, not before.
Charlie Sheen did not lie when he stated that he was able to cure himself. People can stop doing actions through sheer force of will power.

In Charlie Sheen's interview with Katie Couric, Charlie Sheen just answered the questions honestly. She asked him how much cocaine he has done in a sitting. Charlie replied "I was banging 7 gram rocks. That's how I roll". He was not endorsing his behavior. He was just answering the question truthfully. He even states that for most people, the quantity WOULD kill others.
"I'm different. I have a different constitution, I have a different brain, I have a different heart. I got tiger blood, man."
Since most people do NOT have tigers blood, it's logical to conclude that this would not be an endorsement of drug use.

Charlie Sheen is actually the more noble person out there who does drugs. He does not feel the need to blame others for his actions. He takes full responsibility. In the interview Katie Couric states "He makes no excuses for it"

Next Pro complains that Charlie Sheen is doing a ‘comedy tour' and is ‘suing his boss'. First off, there is nothing wrong with Charlie Sheen doing a comedy tour. He will be providing entertainment for thousands perhaps millions from the tour. He is acting productively.

Next, Pro attacks Charlie Sheen for ‘suing his boss'. As far as I'm concerned, Charlie Sheen is an American like any other person. He has the right to sue others for wrongful actions. Charlie Sheen lost his job and did not receive it back even after coming clean from drug use. Charlie Sheen has the right to job security, and his boss should follow the rules and condition of the contract. If Charlie Sheen feels his boss did not uphold his end of the contract, Charlie Sheen has the right to sue, end of story. It's not even certain if Charlie Sheen will even win the lawsuit, but he has the right like any other American to file one.

Conclusion: Pro has made claims about Charlie Sheen that are false without any sources or proof. Lindsay Lohan is worse than Charlie Sheen for a multitude of reasons as explained earlier.
Charlie Sheen has been more apologetic and has actually had to face his actions more than Linday Lohan. If anything, Charlie Sheen has been punished MORE for his actions, through losing his job in Two and Half Men, even though there is proof he is clean. Charlie Sheen has been more truthful and responsible about his problems then Lindsay Lohan, and has done a better job of cleaning up his act.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his response, but would humbly point out that the substance of my response serves as a refutation to all of his major points -but rather than refuting them individually I did so on a collective basis. However, to avoid confusion in the future, I will individually address all points he makes.

To begin: My opponent notes that Lindsey Lohan has done the following: stolen a necklace (that she was convicted for), drinking while driving (which she was also convicted of), and the list goes on. I notice a recurring pattern here... as I am sure that any judge of this debate would as well. In every instance, Lohan was convicted of wrong doing and faced the consequences of her actions. While there is no doubt that she is, perhaps, a less than savory individual -on every occasion she has faced the consequences for her antisocial behavior. Presumably, she will continue to do so. Charlie Sheen, by contrast, has not -or at least hasn't at the time of this debate. I hope he will (but as of yet it seems he is above the law). I will say, as an aside, that Lohan's political beliefs, while absurd, are of practically no consequence. I mean, who takes their political cues from a convicted felon with multiple DUIs?

My opponent listed this little gem that I think you all should enjoy, seen here:

"According to Pro, Charlie Sheen only "crime" is cocaine use. I should remind the audience that since Pro is entering his final line, he cannot indict new arguments or evidence proving that Charlie Sheen has antisocial behavior."

My opponent has entirely disregarded the real harm caused by Charlie Sheen, writing it off as "irrelevant" because he can't refute it -how pretentious of him, almost as pretentious as defining rules two rounds into the debate. If I wanted to introduce new evidence, of course I could, because I didn't stipulate that I wouldn't. Rather, of course, than focusing on the crux of the message I'm getting across here, my opponent would rather take a passive-aggressive lunge at my case while trying to trick a judge into thinking that any response would be "against the rules." I ask my opponent: What rules, good sir? Those rules that I never defined? Those rules that you never agreed to? Ah! Those rules... yeah... the ones that don't exist! Such folly...

The fundamental problem that my opponent seems limited by is his affinity to compare Sheen and Lohan on the basis of what crimes they have committed, not the impact that such unsavory activity is inclined to have on society in general -even less the message that such activity sends. That message, the message that people can buck up against society, do drugs, solicit prostitutes, (live like Charlie Sheen) and get away with it... that is the real societal harm.

(On a more nuanced note, since societal harm is, in fact, the metric for social undesirability -and my opponent has only cited localized stuff for Lohan, nothing he has said up to this point holds any water to the topic we are discussing.)

My opponent has made a lot of semantic claims, that I am sure any voter will recognize as patent absurdity. In truth, this debate is one of patent absurdity, so I suppose the topicality of what this lovely discussion does lend itself to such claims. Nevertheless, that does not give my opponent licensee to just run off the deep end here.

Now, how to vote... since of course that's what you have been waiting for:

My opponent hasn't offered a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the magnitude of harm caused by Lindsey Lohan exceeds that of Charlie Sheen. The resolution states that "Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan." More undesirable, on a scale, means 50% +1. What, then, is cause to tip the scale?
Did Lindsey Lohan give an interview with Katie Couric where she flaunted her debauchery before the world? No.

Did Lindsey Lohan act like she was not only not sorry, but proud of her unrepentant drug use? No.

Did Lindsey Lohan dodge the consequences of her actions, leading people to believe that they can get away with living like Charlie Sheen? No.

Of course Lohan didn't! Why? Because she's not Charlie Sheen!

I compel the voter to do their own research on the matter, and ask themselves, who would I rather see put out to grass? Sheen or Lohan? An honest and candid examination of the facts in this debate lead to no other conclusion that Charlie Sheen ought to be put out to grass, and sooner rather than later. Lohan is just a nuisance. Sheen is actually causing harm!

Sheen did plead guilty to previous arrest charges, assualt, criminal mischef, and a plethora of drug charges, (source= but he has faced no consequence for his latest "run." That latest bender (the one he bragged about to Couric) is the one that I take so much issue with (seen here =

Now, I know my opponent didn't intentionally try to mislead any would-be voters here -but it seems that unwittingly he has. Of course, I say "unwittingly" because I would never call the integrity of a debater into question in a desperate attempt to secure a victory -unless, of course, I was debating Charlie Sheen in this round.


In conclusion, this debate comes down to the societal harm caused by Sheen versus the societal harm caused by Lohan. We accept that both are unsavory characters, but who's actions have a worse impact to society overall?

The only way that society overall can be impacted by the negative actions of any individual celebrity is through the message that is sent by those actions. (It's not like you can start a Bill and Melinda Gates Legion of Doom, or get Bono to sponsor terrorism.) Especially with a comparison of Lohan and Sheen -no one is going to look to b-list actors for anything other than a bad example, principally because if the example were good it wouldn't get any media attention. I mean, when was the last time anyone heard anything about Tom Sellak?

So, since the media only pays attention when celebs are misbehaving, who's misbehavior causes more harm? Lohan gets caught -every time. Sheen got away with it, and rubbed it in our faces. His freedom (as opposed to his incarceration) sends the message that says that anyone, as long as they have a crappy sit-com, can get away with anything! Our system of justice, our social mores, society in general all suffer (in spirit) because Sheen can get away with whatever he wants and tell us all about it.

My opponent will try, I suppose, to counter... but there is no feasible possibility that the message that Lohan sends is worse than Sheen's. As such, sheen is more socially undesirable and I have won this debate.

Vote Pro.


Thanks to my opponent for the excellent debate. A sidenote. I stated that my opponent cannot use new evidence in the last round of a debate. This does not mean that my opponent cannot refute claims. However, it is common courtesy and debate rules to not bring up new evidence at the end of a debate. The reason is that the opponent is not given enough space to adequately refute such claims. In theory if you can bring up evidence at the end, one can just troll the entire rounds, and then bring up a bunch of points at the end of the debate, in which the opponent would not have enough space to refute. Then the opponent can declare victory.

First my opponent admits that Lindsay Lohan did the following: stole a necklace, DUI, endorsing Obama, slandering Sarah Palin and doing cocaine. It should be noted that my opponent did not in one instance refute that endorsing Obama and slandering Sarah Palin was a harmful act. It should also be noted that Lindsay Lohan did not have to face the consequences of her actions. But now we live in a world in which President Obama has bombed five countries, companies are able to obtain money through political connections under the guise of ‘stimulus money', unemployment in the United States is still high, and the debt is skyrocketing. He did not refute that Obama is bad for America. In fact, I actually stated that this is the worst action that Lindsay Lohan has done. I have addresses this in both rounds, yet PRO did not refute any of this. And yet, allowing a destructive man to become President has had a hampering effect of more than drugs can ever do.

My opponent then goes onto state that ‘who takes there political cues from a convicted felon with multiple DUIs'. Apparently PRO does not realize the effects that celebrity's have on presidential campaigns. Politicians seek their endorsements for good reasons. Lindsay Lohan is an influential celebrity.

So my opponent is incorrect stating that she faced the consequences of her antisocial behavior, as stated earlier since she did not face the consequence of slandering Palin and endorsing Obama.

Next my opponent states that Lindsay Lohan faces the consequences of her actions.

She got 35 days of house arrest for DUIs and stealing a necklace[2]. Big deal. She lives in a paradise of a house and it's not as if people can't visit her. She even hosted parties there. What a punishment. I bet most people would be willing to pay to have a punishment like that.

My opponent then states that Charlie Sheen hasn't faced his consequences. I have already shown that he has faced many negative consequences including getting fired from a TV show and going to Rehab. Also note that Charlie Sheen has done victimless crimes. Lindsay Lohan has done crimes with victims so she deserved to get punished at a much worse bases then Charlie Sheen. This should be self-evident.

We also seem to both agree that Charlie Sheen's crimes are less than Lindsay Lohan's. However, my opponent seems to believe that Charlie Sheen is worse since his crimes have a greater impact since he brought a "message that one can do whatever he or she wants and get away with it". Yet, this statement is meaningless since I have already demonstrated that Charlie Sheen has not gotten away with his "crimes". I also showed in the last round, that less people will be impacted by Charlie Sheen's behavior since he plays an unlikeable character on an adult show while Lindsay Lohan appeals to younger people and plays likable characters on family shows. This has also gone unrefuted. I already stated that celebrities behavior is likely to affect the behaviors of those watching them.

My opponent next states that I make some semantic claims, but does not even bother to point them out. So the comment should be ignored.

It is actually the Burden of Proof to show that Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable then Lindsay Lohan, since PRO made the claim, and is instigator. In theory, it is impossible to figure out which person has caused more societal harm, since there is no hard data on it. We can only figure out which one has a probable cause of societal harm.

However, due to Lindsay Lohan's appeal to young children who are more open to suggestion and easily persuaded, and since her magnitude of crimes are greater, it is more likely that she has a worse effect on society.
Moreover Lindsay Lohan has stated the following:

"How can you not like Britney Spears?"
"Going clubbing is my way of relaxing or releasing a lot of stress. I don't feel that I should have to justify that part of my life. I don't know that I'm necessarily an addict."
"When someone tells me not to do something, I'll do it more."
"I'm not skinny for the wrong reasons. It's not because I'm bulimic or anorexic or doing drugs."

Those quotes aren't exactly anti-drug and clean comments. The last quote is a lie as well.
As I stated before, Charlie Sheen was just answering the questions. He told her how much he took. He's off drugs. His reference to ‘bi-winning' is in no way a reference to drug use. He has tested against drug use. He has stated he was proud of his drug use, but so what? Living a life of regret is a terrible way to view the world. It takes you backwards, it does not bring you forward. Even still, it is not an endorsement of drugs. As stated, Charlie Sheen is different. Not everyone could have lived the lifestyle of Charlie Sheen, and Charlie realizes that.
My opponent then states that one "should do their own research on the matter". However, there is no reason they should for voting purposes. The winner of the debate is deterimined by who makes the better arguments, not whose side is necessarily correct. My opponent had three rounds to make a claim. There's no reason voters should do outside research when all the information necessary for voting is right here in the debate.

My opponent states that Charlie Sheen faces no consequence for his latest "run". Alright, I have no idea what that even means. This should be ignored. As far as I'm concerned, he has done nothing illegal recently. He then posts a 12 minute video which I should not have to watch to understand what he is demonstrating. Sources are designed to prove that your statements are true, they aren't supposed to make the arguments for you.

Again, my opponent then tells the audience to watch a Katie Couric video before voting. Why should they? The voters base their decisions based on who has the best arguments. Videos should not speak for the debater, only back claims.

A comparison between Lohan and Charlie Sheen shows that Lohan has done more crimes, has more fans, and has fans that will be impacted the most. PRO has not demonstrated reasonably that Charlie Sheen has gotten away with his crimes. It's plain false. Charlie Sheen drug test shows that he is clean.

Conclusion: PRO has many baseless claims. He has tried to shift his responsibility of argumentation by asking us to watch videos of Charlie Sheen. This is a spiteful tactic, since he is letting his sources do his work for him, when they are only a back up. He has not demonstrated that Charlie Sheen has caused more harm to society then Lindsay lohan has, since Charlie Sheen has cleaned up his act and has done less criminal acts. Lindsay Lohan has a fan based whose minds are more impressionable.

Therefore I urge a vote for CON.

Thanks again for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
Lol, it doesn't matter. You entirely missed my argument anyway... but it's all good. No worries.
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
Of course if my opponent actually stated that Charlie Sheen physically assaults women and put a knife to the throat of his ex-wife, It would be a difficult to try to justify this. However, my opponent didn't even bother to mention that.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
I couldn't agree more, Charles!
Posted by charleslb 5 years ago
Well of course Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan, after all Sheen physically assaults women, he put a knife to the throat of one of his ex-wives, and some time ago he shot one of his girlfriends. In other words, if you had a daughter you might be a wee bit concerned for her physical safety if she became one of Charlie's "goddesses" or wives. He's a pretty much unchastized-by-the-system (thus far he hasn't done any actual jail time or received any legal chastisement more severe than court-ordered rehab) addict who gets violent under the influence. Lindsey Lohan, on the other hand, just purloins jewelry and then plays dumb. There's really no contest here.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
Socially: pertaining to or with respect to society
Undesirable: not wanted, not to be desired (in so much that the effect is more harmful than it is beneficial).

Socially undesirable: not benefiting society because of harm caused

In essence, who causes more harm? The metric for harm, then, can be impact on the society that both subjects (Sheen and Lohan) primarily affect. So that the scope isn't too exceptionally broad, let's just stipulate that it's America we're talking about. We might draw the following question, then, from the debate: Is America worse off because of Charlie Sheen or Lindsey Lohan? Of course, the resolution implies that both parties cause harm. If we accept that both Sheen and Lohan cause harm, who causes more harm?
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
still, YYW, how do you define "socially undesirable"?
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
This is, obviously, a joke debate. Let's not make it anything too complicated. We can have some fun with this...
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
Yea, I just realize that this debate can easily be won using semantics. However, I feel that would be unfair.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
It'd be best to define socially undesirable.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
I suppose I didn't specify so... that's open to interpretation. However, Sheen is a western public figure so I suppose Western society in general.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con Arguements were well thought out