The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Deaths caused by drunk driving can be attributed, in part, to people who support staunch drug policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,257 times Debate No: 3582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

Prohibition does not work. Period. People who support staunch drug and alcohol policies are not being effective, because it is clear that many people are going to continue using despite the laws.

Here is my link between people who support staunch drug policy (mainly Republican in ideology) and effects contributing to human deaths through drunk driving:

1) People who support these policies are not effective at all. There is no evidence that can be presented, from our country, that can be used to show that drug use is being slowed by drug policy. I'm sure someone can find some obscure example from some foreign nation that would appear to the contrary, but I doubt the evidence will be all that compelling.

2) DUI's are clearly a phenomenon most common to younger people, under the age of 25(most fatal crashes involving alcohol are committed by people between 21-24 years old). Why is this? Because they are just young and stupid? Well yes, in part, but there is obviously more to it than that. Young people are taught that the law is not that important at an early age. First off, crimes commited by youth are usually tried in a youth court with reduced sentences. The youth learns that they can get away with acts simply because they are young, which motivates them to continue abusing the law. Secondly, when a child skips school, they are labeled truant. Truancy is an illegal activity, and the child is labeled a law-breaker (often subject to fines and the like, as well). What better way to "ease" them into a life of crime than this? Furthermore, could you even imagine a better way to ease them into a life of crime, other than to wait until they become frustrated with school and want to hang out with their friends and then initiate them into the legal system and have them trying to evade police who would be out looking for them in the streets?

3) Drug/alcohol laws are easy to break for kids, especially drug laws in which the drugs are easily procurable from kids at school and there is no need to get a 21 year-old to procure them. Kids are fascinated by drugs. Why shouldn't they be? When they succomb to peer-pressure to try them (a powerful and undeniable force indeed for children), they are automatically considered criminals. When the children drink alcohol, like they see their parents and friends doing, they are automatically considered criminals. They are not technically criminals until they are caught, but they are definitely conducting criminal activity.

4) Once the children get used to being thought of as criminals, and once they get used to breaking laws on a daily basis, they are more likely to try and skirt the law in the future. Respecting the drinking and driving laws is A COMPLETE JOKE to kids. Imagine being at a drinking party at age 17, and trying to tell your drunk friends not to drive. Since the children are already breaking the law, it is not that big of a step to get in the car and drive, and break the law further. If drugs and alcohol were legal, kids could experiment with them and, as long as they don't drive, could get away with it without breaking the law AT ALL. This is a powerful point I am making here, so I hope you all are listening up, especially those of you who know someone who has died, before their time, as a result of drunk driving (most likely every person who reads this). The law is only effective if you can keep people on the right side of it. If you make laws that are difficult to observe, then you will have normal people that are breaking the law and have no chance to remain completely in the right. These people are not dealing with a situation in which they can A) break the law or B) not break the law, they are dealing with a situation in which they can A) break the law or B) break the law even more. As you can see, it is much easier for a person in the second situation to go wrong, and since we are dealing with children, the situation is far worse.

So you see, all of you staunch drug policy supporters are actually voting for policies that hurt our community. You are supporting politicians who support the war on drugs, which costs our nation one thousand million dollars every week, and has little to nothing to show for their efforts. In fact, I am arguing that they are causing more harm than good. I blame you for contributing, in part, to the deaths of countless young people who died in car accidents before their times because of inebriated drivers. I blame you for your callous and senseless disregard for those children who experiment with drugs and alcohol(a huge percentage of children) and I blame you for not offering them a chance to experiment with drugs responsibly, so that they can learn what they need to learn and join the rest of us who have realized that using drugs is a negative thing and should be looked down upon, not criminalized and demoralized. I blame you drug war supporters for wasting a billion dollars a week of our tax monies on policies that are immoral, ineffective, and abuse our civil rights(our right to privacy is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States).
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"DUI'S ARE CLEARLY A PHENOMENON MORE COMMON TO YOUNGER PEOPLE."

I'm not sure this is entirely true, but lets suppose that it is for the sake of the argument. Another phenomenon is also common to young people -- crashes. This is also attributed to being "young and stupid," which is why insuring young motorists is so expensive. But the point is, imagine if we were to go by your rationale, which is essentially tantamount to, "Well, they're going to do it anyway, so might as well let them." Imagine if we simply let children make all decisions for themselves, even if they are not of the age of consent. Should we then allow your 9 yr old daughter to smoke crack because she wants to, and should we allow your 4 yr old to drive because he sees daddy doing it, and he just wants to emulate you? There are lines of demarcation for a reason. There are boundaries for a reason. The total abrogation of them does not stop it, it encourages it.

"YOU ARE SUPPORTING POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT THE WAR ON DRUGS, WHICH COSTS..."

It sounds as if you are one of the people that believes that legalizing drugs, even hard drugs, will eliminate drug cartels if the US government manufactures/grows the drugs and distributes them all over the nation. Some posit that this will free up most prisons, as some point out that the majority of prisoners are in on drug charges to begin with. Some feel that once the middle man is removed and money is no longer an issue, the greed that controls the underground drug market will all but fade away, helping to reduce crime overall. This is a very brief synopsis of the overall argument.

Listening to his argument, it was very persuasive in that it almost sounds crazy enough to work. My contention is that the argument is far too idealized and over-simplified to the point of incredulity on my part. I believe you are simplifying the argument to perfect-world scenarios. Its kind of like Communism, in that, on paper I can't find one thing I dislike about it. But as we all know from experience, communism will only work in a utopian society-- it doesn't create the utopian society itself. Its an oversimplification of simplistic for such a complex issue. Here are my points:

I agree that if the US made its own drugs and distributed them for free, it would all but shut down the cartels, at least in the US. However, in order to subsidize this measure, it requires money from taxes-- our taxes. A goal of this magnitude would cost a small fortune because as we all know, there is nothing in life that is truly free. It will be free for the disenfranchized, but will cost middle America a fortune. Secondly, if the US becomes the only nation that supports this, the US will be the major exporter of drugs around the world. If we know anything about human nature, its that we will find a way to bastardize something good and exploit it for monetary gain.

I only mention putting cartels out of business, because if the US just allows for all drugs to be legal, they profit in the order of trillions, as opposed to millions illicitly. You then don't take away the problem of violence, but you increase it.

So lets assume that we not only make legal, but also subsidize it. Think of the size of surplus drugs, because we have no idea what the quantity of narcotics would be necessary to support the drug habit of a few million Americans. Dealing will still be an issue. Case in point: I don't do drugs, but lets say I tell the government that I do. The people with the drug addictions will no doubt be given an allotment. When they run out, people like me will use that to our advantage and sell our supply to the addicts. It will be the exact same problem except that now it will be state sanctioned drug dealing. I could make so much money of the appetite of those who 'need their fix.'

The next issue is the astronomical effects on healthcare. Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year from lung cancer due to nicotine and carcinogens contained in tobacco products. Legalizing it has done nothing to abate the problem. NOTHING! But awareness has.

Where to get the money? Some say that the revenue of closing down prisons will be used to subsidize the project, but they conveniently neglect the impact on healthcare, particularly those in favor of socializing medicine -- which also becomes the burden of the already overtaxed taxpayer. Overdose patients are already a problem. Imagine how many more people will be dying from legalized drugs? Imagine the impact it will have on transportation safety as people are essentially encouraged to drive impaired.

Mind you that NO other country on Earth, not even Holland, has jumped onboard with this? I If complete legalization was worth the trouble I think at least one nation would have implemented this.

In closing, I think it would fall flat on its face. Its too idealized to have any practical application.

Its worth mentioning that I am not in support of a "staunch drug policy." I am actually in favor of a more lax drug policy, especially concerning marijuana and for simple possession. But I am in favor of some laws, especially those that aggressively target the major suppliers.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge, paradigm lost.

Points unanswered in round 1:

Contention 1) Con did not provide ample evidence that drug war is working

Contention 2) Con did not contest that kids are "eased" into a life of crime by harsh alcohol/drug laws

Contention 3) Con did not address how easily drugs are procurable by children in school under the current system

Contention 4) Con did not address how once children are on the wrong side of the law, they are more likely to skirt DUI laws and go out there and kill someone

Now to deal with your points.

About letting the nine year old smoke crack, and the 4 year old drive a car: I believe you are seriously exaggerating my argument, to say the least! Your point seems to be "Imagine if we simply let children make all decisions for themselves..." First of all, my point was that if drugs were legal, parents would have the ability to be involved in the children's decision to experiment with drugs. Of course, there will always be those rigid parents who will be too rigid and alienate their children, but they will do that in any case. But the parents who are smart enough to intercept their children's curiosities in this matter would have the option to. A nine-year old girl smoking crack? I don't think this scenario is very likely, but if a nine-year old girl wanted to smoke crack she probably could get it from school as it is anyway, without the parents ever finding out (until it's too late of course). I'm not saying this scenario is "simple", because it really isn't simple any way you slice it. But I would like to see the parents have more options, other than sit by helplessly while the teenagers go out and do whatever they want to do anyway. Am I dreaming? Perhaps I am. Perhaps I am wrong, and making drugs legal won't take some of the appeal away from them. Perhaps the kids who see crack-heads openly in the streets everyday, instead of NOT seeing them (or their effects) will not be a good thing. But I think that I have a good point. Legalized drugs will get them out into the open. When I was a teenager, all I really knew about cocaine was that my friends really liked doing it. All I knew about LSD was that it was a cool thing to do, and the people who were having fun partying were procuring these substances whenever they could. I never saw crack-heads in the street, because the crack-heads were hiding out. I never saw anyone go on a 3 day coke binge, because if they did then they did it in as much privacy as possible. You see, all the bad attributes are hidden when you keep the drugs illegal. I don't really expect that parents are going to have to actually DO the drugs with their children in order to acheive the desired effect. I will get back to this point shortly, as it is hard to set up my points without first explaining the policies that could take effect if drugs were legal.

Let's get to your point about the cost of the legal drugs. "in order to subsidize this measure, it requires money from taxes... would cost a small fortune..." I totally disagree. Drugs are relatively cheap and easy to manufacture. The "cost" comes with the illegality part of it. First, we spend one-thousand-million dollars a week to combat drugs, in a completely futile attempt to "control" them. Second, the illegals who manufacture and distribute them have to take risks to do it, because they are illegal, so the price of the drugs sky-rocket. Gold is at an all-time high at $1,000 an ounce, and cocaine isn't very much behind it! Marijuana is also pretty expensive, with the more potent varieties costing about $300 an ounce. Your argument about cartels making trillions is utterly worthless; cartels will not only become useless, but the drugs themselves will become as cheap as baking soda and laundry detergent. Would you go to a foreign illegal cartel and pay $1,000 for a quart of laundry detergent if you can get it at wal-mart? You go on to talk about drug dealers, which will also be all but obsolete. Do you need a dealer for laundry detergent? Here are the policies that we could implement if drugs were legal labeled as my further contentions 5-8, and I will cover the point I left hanging at the end of the last paragraph here:

5) once legal, legitimate businesses under government control will take over production and distribution of the substances. This will lead to:
---A) Illegal manufacturers of drugs will go out of business
---B) drugs will not be cut with dangerous agents
---C) drugs will go down in price because they are legal
---D) drugs can be controlled MUCH more effectively. The gov't could control where the junkies have to go to get the drugs (marijuana excluded). see contention 7

6) with drug users out and in the open, kids will see first-hand the effects of drugs. There may not ever be a time when the teenager becomes fascinated with them; he/she will have been exposed to junkies their whole life and they will understand them a great deal

7) Junkies could go to safe-houses, where the drugs are readily available. Under the supervision of professionals and medical doctors, they could get the help that they really need without fear of being prosecuted (don't you think they have enough problems already?)

8) Parents/teachers could visit the safe-houses WITH the children. Show the children what junkies look like. Let the children watch as the junkie hits the pipe, shoots up, etc. I guarantee they won't try it after that!

So you say I am a dreamer. I respect your analogy to communism, but I insist that every dream is not analogous to communism simply because it is a dream.

Your analogy to tobacco is relevent. But it also serves to invalidate your entire stance: how could keeping something as provenly dangerous as tobacco legal and legitimate be the right thing to do while the US is currently involved in a "War on Drugs?" Alcohol is the same way. A drug is any substance, other than food, that affects the way the body works. Alcohol is certainly just as dangerous as any drug and there is no chance of it being included IN the war on drugs. This makes absolutely no sense. As far as pointing out the ineffectiveness of tobacco being legal, imagine if tobacco WASN'T legal. It would be super-expensive, highly sought after, and people would be going absolutely nuts with tobacco addiction trying to get thier fix. Our prisons would be even MORE overloaded and our entire economy would be strained out of control. Go tell your co-workers and friends that their cigarettes will be illegal tomorrow, and see how they respond. Sound like a good idea?

I think I have provided ample evidence to refute your claim that my ideas are "too idealized to have any practical application".

Some more contentions for you to address, if you are feeling bored:

9) Overloaded Prisons. Our economy is devastated by this phenomenon. It costs as much as a harvard education to keep a person in prison every year. One third of inmates in prison are there for drug offenses.

10) Civil rights violations. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects our right to privacy. The first amendment protects our religious freedom. So the government has the right to raid an indian tribe, using peyote in a religious ceremony, and arrest them all on drug charges?

11) Bad commercials. I mean the WORST. Anti-drug commercials are possibly the worst marketing practices the world has ever bore witness to. These commercials are completely ineffective against the people who are actually using drugs. They are corny, they are unrealistic, they are a waste of money. They portray the STUPIDEST situations, like a kid sitting on a couch in a kick-@ss party all mad and looking at the camera because there mother didn't stop them from coming, or a friend calling another friend telling them they won't talk to them until they quit smoking weed.

Happy contesting!
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"CONTENTION 1) CON DID NOT PROVIDE AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT DRUG WAR IS WORKING."

Since you were the one making the assertion the burden of proof lies with you, not with me. As well, I never said I was in favor of a, as you call it, "a staunch drug war." My contention is with your solution -- which is do nothing. Is stands to reason, when, millions of pounds of heroin, cocaine, etc have been seized, that millions more are likely to be filtering through.

Being a Sea Marshall in the US Coast Guard means that one of my job descriptions entails the seizure of narcotics. And I can tell you that these mafioso's are getting crafty. They've actually learned how to liquefy cocaine so that it can be stored in tanks on a vessel. If the USCG gets too close, they simply jettison it overboard. They have also manufactured semi-submersible submarines. We know this because we have found them.

"CONTENTION 2) CON DID NOT CONTEST THAT KIDS ARE "EASED" INTO A LIFE OF CRIME BY HARSH ALCOHOL/DRUG LAWS."

I didn't think I had to because your evidence to the contrary was completely anecdotal and specious. To assert that it somehow forces kids in to a life of crime because it is illegal is nonsense. It makes about as much sense as saying the justice system creates murders because its illegal. Your argument suggests that kids are just curious. So what? This is often the problem with arguments such as these -- people neglect to personalize the problem -- that way they have a detached perfect-world scenario in their mind. I wonder how cool you'd be if your 14 year old was smoking meth. I wonder if you'd be as flippant about it as you are now.

"CONTENTION 3) CON DID NOT ADDRESS HOW EASILY DRUGS ARE PROCURABLE BY CHILDREN IN SCHOOL UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM."

So your answer is just allow it? Seriously, what kind of sense does that make? Extrapolate this non-answer to any other crime and see if it makes a lick of sense.

"CONTENTION 4) CON DID NOT ADDRESS HOW ONCE CHILDREN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW MORE LIKELY TO SKIRT DUI LAWS AND GO OUT THERE AND KILL SOMEONE."

Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but you are the one encouraging deaths, not me. If drugs are not illegal, as you hope for them to be, then there is no legal justification for stopping them before they kill someone. I'm mystified as to how and why you think being arrested on a drug charge is going to make people get baked even more. They are going to do whatever they want to do and weigh the risks. The fact that they know they are not allowed to do it is the only thing that keeps it from becoming rampant. The kid hopped up on crank under your plan can plow in to a family, survive the crash themselves, and walk away a free man. Why? Because they've done nothing illegal. Yet you chastise those in favor of SOME drug policy? That's patently absurd.

Try and remember that these laws are passed to protect the general public. Its like the seat belt law. They passed it because so many people were dying without them. Out of the interest of others they made it mandatory to wear a seat belt. Likewise asbestos was found to be toxic. Out of the interest to the health of the general public, they made it illegal to manufacture. The way you make it sound, resolutions were passed to ruin peoples fun. But they aren't. It is with good reason.

This is what you support. Take a hard look at the reality.

http://www.drugfree.org...

"YOU ARE SERIOUSLY EXAGGERATING MY ARGUMENT."

Am I? Or is it that you really haven't considered how this would actually work beyond the theoretical stage? Besides, you stated in no uncertain terms that anyone cool with a drug policy is to BLAME for anyone who dies as the result of the drug. That's not a gross embellishment? Cause I always thought the blame lie mostly with the people who profit off of the drugs. Back to the highlighted point you made: If drugs are legal, then, pray tell, what legal justification do you have to stop a 9 year old from smoking meth till their hearts content? You would actually be taking away their rights if you did.

"IF DRUGS WERE LEGAL, PARENTS WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CHILDREN'S DECISION TO EXPERIMENT WITH DRUGS."

They have that ability right now, whether it is legal or illegal. But lets extrapolate your argument once again. You've claimed that the fact that drugs are illegal actually causes kids to do drugs, presumably, 'cause their feelings are hurt and they want to take away the pain. If the parent does not allow the child to do drugs because, heaven forbid, they care about the welfare of their young and naive child, are they at fault for killing them if they do attempt to stop them? Its sounds like a serious case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't as a parent. A parent, then, can actually do no right under your system.

"ONCE LEGAL... GOVERNMENT CONTROL WILL..."

Again, this is so oversimplified. I doubt that you've really considered what it takes to accomplish something of this magnitude, and then you tell me, honestly, if you believe that it can work. Lets first consider manufacturing and distribution.

There are many different kinds of drugs-- some synthetic, some grown naturally, some hydroponically. Who covers distribution? How does anyone know how much are needed and where? Is a clinic in Los Angeles' Hollywood district going to have thousands of pounds of various narcotics to dispense? How much is going to be alloted to a clinic in Lincoln, Nebraska? How much and what kinds of drugs will Yuma, Arizona receive? What about Scranton, Pennsylvania? This is an enormous nation with an insatiable appetite for narcotics. And what happens when those places run dry? Where will these distribution centers be located?

Now lets say that I'm clean. But I lie and tell the government that I'm a junky who can't live without heaping helpings of meth. If I can go down to the clinic in, say, downtown Portland, OR and get me some free crack, I can cover the other districts like Eugene, Salem, Gresham who are in demand for more crack. I could be the most successful peddler ever. I have PURE profit. I have NO overhead costs because I don't have to spend any money to re-up my supply. I make nothing but money, at the expense of YOU, the taxpayer. Then I can set my crime ring and I become the mafioso that you put out of business in Mexico.

Like I said, if there is one thing that you can guarantee about people is that we will find a way to manipulate and rape something good for nefarious means.

Next argument: The government would have to ration these quantities, otherwise you run the risk of the very problem I mentioned above. But now you have crack fiends, en masse, who have used their entire supply. They have to wait until next week to re-up. Question: Do really think that a true junky is going to lovingly and patiently come down to the clinic once a day to get just one fix? Hell no! They'd break into the place at night if they could, which, by the way, raises another question about security needs. OR, who do they come to? They come to me, Dr. Feelgood, who extorts them for money. No money, no drugs. Then they have to wait.

Do you really think the government is going to allow that? Would this be legal for me to do? If not, and they caught wind of my felonious ways, don't you think legal action would be taken against me? Well, if that happens to me, surely that would happen all over the nation -- this enormous nation that the government would have to subsidize for. All of a sudden raids are being conducted, sting operations on every other corner, just like how it is now! So you not only did not take away the War on Drugs, but you just federally funded people to their deaths! When exposed to the light of scrutiny, your plan looks like an abject failure.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

You do not have the burden of proof, granted. But if you let my points slip by uncontested, then you are making a big mistake! As I see it, you have let quite a few of my points slip through without a whimper, and you are losing ground with every one of them. Whether or not you support a staunch drug policy is irrelevent. You took the con position to my title which includes that wording, so you must defend that position whether or not you decide half-way through the debate that you no longer want to!

1) You still, as of yet, have not even come close to addressing my first point. At this point, I am not going to have an opportunity AT ALL to rebut your answer, so I am just going to have to count it as a win. I stated that the war on drugs has not been effective in slowing drug use at all. I would have liked to let this point evolve through 3 rounds of synthesis, other than just stake this naked claim the way it is, but you have left me no other choice.

2) So you didn't think my second point was WORTH rebutting. Well that's a new debating technique to me... Anyway, my point was that by making drugs illegal, kids are well-initiated criminals before they even turn 18. Since our drug war isn't helping the situation (point 1), all it's doing is making them bonified criminals. Again, since you refuse to address my point, no productive synthesis is possible from the debate and my point is left rather bare and simple. I already discussed the implications of this mistaken policy in the first two rounds, so I will simply extend my second contention argument through.

3) You made an attempt at least, albeit short, to rebut my third point. I wouldn't suggest legalizing every other crime known to man just because I believe this one to be unjust. If you saw a law to be unjust, would you consider legalizing other things that are completely unrelated as evidence to support your decision? This makes no sense. If I thought the government illegalizing interracial marriage (which once was true) to be unjust, I wouldn't just say "well should the government just roll over on murder as well?" Now I have made some pretty decent arguments, if I must say myself, to justify the complete legalization (with subsequent strict government controls) of illicit drugs, at least enough of them anyway to warrant a response. But your attitude towards me reflects society's: drugs are immoral, and let the government throw whoever uses them in jail. This same argument has been used to justify the following, in the past:
a) persecution of racial minorities
b) persecution of homosexuals
c) persecution of different religions
d) persecution of women
e) persecution of people demonstrating free speech (prior to the rev. war)
as well countless other unethical activities...

4) I was waiting for you to bring up these good points, and I wouldn't expect a productive discourse on the matter without them"
a) how does making drugs legal make people stop using them?
b) what about the issue of people getting high and driving thier car into the side of the soccer-mom minivan filled with kids?

My answer to a)- First of all, I have made the point already that the drug war is not stopping people from using drugs in the first place. I can make this point a third time, that the War on Drugs is a complete failure, but at this point I have to just assume you agree with me because you haven't technically disagreed with me on this point yet. Now with that point established, I will move to say that people are not just going to start using drugs just because they are legal. I mean, are you, paradigm lost, going to start shooting up morphine if and when prohibition ends? I think not. The people who are using will continue to use after prohibition ends (which I know it will eventually, it's just a matter of time), and when it does end we will have much more leverage to get them out in the open and get them some help. Druggies are usually in hiding (from the law) as it is now, and those pictures you posted are a good example of what happens when people have no access to professional help because they are persecuted by the law. You think those people in those photos are being helped? Helped into a jail cell maybe! Ask them how the war on drugs has treated them! It's not a war on drugs AT ALL, it's a war on drugGIES. Those faces are the faces of people who are criminals simply because they have an uncontrollable addiction. Those faces have been pushed away by society because society doesn't want to deal with them. You can judge a society as a whole, simply by analyzing how they treat the poor, the helpless, and the meek. Why don't you ask those people how society has treated them? Maybe the officer said hi to them before he put his knee into their backs while they layed on the ground with pavement in their face. And then those people have to deal with YOU, telling them they are not victims of drug addiction, a psychological disease, but that they are criminals who should be locked up behind bars so that you don't have to deal with them. I want YOU to take a good look at those faces, because those faces reflect the results of your precious war on drugs.

My answer to b)- Drinking is legal. Drinking and driving is not. Any questions? Driving under "the influence" whether it be someone who is drunk, high, coked up, or medicated up on legal drugs, is DUI all the same. It is punishable by the law because it is not a private act, it is an act that puts other people in danger. I totally support and endorse laws against this. Furthermore, the fact that alcohol's influence on driving is well documented, coupled with the fact that alcohol is 100% legal and acceptable in society, works to show that the only answer to societies' problems isn't simply prohibition. We tried prohibition with alcohol once. Look what happened. What is the fundamental difference between alcohol and other drugs? Tradition? How does tradition help the green soccer-mom minivan filled with kids, exactly? I think that dropping the drinking age to zero would help our cause quite a bit. Kids are drinking anyway, and we might as well make a last-ditch effort, in order to save those DUI victims, to allow people to stay on the RIGHT side of the law by having the legal right to drink, but not having the legal right to drink and drive. This will allow (sorry for beating the dead horse) everyone to experiment, without driving, and NOT BECOME CRIMINALS. I think that the "not becom[ing] criminals" part is essential to my argument. It gives society the chance to explore its psychological urges RESPONSIBLY. What other choice do we have? Don't we owe it to the victims of DUI's, both past and present, to try and find a strategy to stop the needless deaths? Don't we owe it to them to scrap a worthless and innefective policy in order to persevere to find success?

5) You attempt to refute this point at the end of your argument, but none of it is really that relevent to my argument. Drugs are not inherently costly, so it wouldn't cost us much at all to produce them if need be; the only cost comes with distributing them illegally. It is clear we would save much money under my plan. I already outlined how in earlier rounds, and my evidence was pretty clear.
6) you do not address this contention. extend my argument
7) your arguments kind of beat around the bush to refute this point, but you don't meet it head-on. The hypotheticals you presented don't seem very likely...
8) you do not address this contention. extend my argument
9) you do not address this contention. extend my argument
10) you do not address this contention. extend my argument
11) I just made this one for fun, but those commercials really irk me!

You attempt to straw-man me with the title. If voters vote for bad policy, then they should shoulder the burden of the result and start thinking about changing the policy.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

You know, this website is horribly prone to bias. People seem to vote on pre-conditioned responses rather than judging them on the merits of their stengths. I suppose this is to be expected to some degree when the average age on here is all of 16 years.

Because this is the case, I've grown totally disenchanted with this site. I see no point in spending time on something when its evident that it doesn't much matter.

So I'm forfeiting all of my debates from hereon out and going somewhere else where I can find equity. Thanks for the debate, and sorry for not finishing it.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
shorack I am having trouble following you... by slope do you mean "slippery slope"? Could you reiterate your point to me please?
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
First you would have to isolate the times of day (or night) and particular days of the week most fatalities occur. Then you would have to run the numbers again. I would bet on friday and saturday night after 11p.m. a decent percentage of drivers have some alchohol in their system.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
first off: @handsoff: that is not strange at all, since we can safely assume that far more than 2/3 of the drivers on the road are sober.

Now to our Pro:
i find it quite amusing that you are in fact using the slope argument: it start with (tagging them criminals for drinking under legal age, not going to school etc) and ends only further down (dying by driving drunk)

why? because that is exactly the idea behind prohibiting certain things: it starts with allowing something small (drinking under legal age for example ;)) and if we allow that, we'll end with closing eyes to worse (drunk driving? :))

Second, the alternative of society jumping in is laiser faire, which also involves personal responsability.
but you are exactly practicing the opposite: blaming people for the deeds commited by others.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
I recently read that nearly 2/3 of all fatal car crashes are caused by sober drivers. Maybe we need to take a closer look at these non drinkers.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Paradigm_Lost,

If it makes any difference, or counts for anything, I have enjoyed your debates. It may be that there is a bias in the voters, but who cares?

You say "I see no point in spending time on something when its evident that it doesn't much matter."

Let me ask you: Would any of this matter if there was no voting bias? Of course not! the only difference is a silly number next to your picture that changes color from red/green as the ratio goes up.

The point of Debates are meant to keep the mind sharp, as well as increasing ones knowledge on subjects vie interacting with people who disagree with you. Not to put a meaningless number in one's profile picture. The fact of the matter is, voting can be done by ANYONE as many times as anyone wants. One person can simply make multiple accounts and vote as many times as they want. Win/Loss ratio doesn't count for anything.

If it makes any difference, I ask you to reconsider, and if you do leave, I ask you not to leave based on this reason.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
" I should just allow the opinions of those that I value matter."
-sounds a lot like life to me.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"I sincerely hope that I did not contribute to your decision"

No, definitely not. I'm not sure why you would think that. In fact, I was browsing through some of your debates and I like the way you approach them. I've seen some of the debates you supposedly "lost" and was appalled that you didn't get the votes when some of your opponents arguments were so weak. And this is what I'm talking about. Great debaters are losing for what I can only surmise is rampant bias. Its bullshit. Plus there are so many debates now that they are cycling through so quickly that hardly anyone has a chance to see it.

I guess that's one of the pitfalls for the increase of popularity. I guess that I'm just annoyed. I've been through this same journey on other sites where alliances were forged on the basis of like-mindedness, rather than simply appreciating the dialogue.

"this site is merely for our own learning experience, to create a useful synthesis with other intelligent people."

I suppose this would be the only reason to stay. I should just allow the opinions of those that I value matter. The rest can have their biases and prejudgments. It just seems like such a shame, you know?

I might just reconsider. I think part of the problem is that I've been through this before and I just found this site hoping that it would be a breath of fresh air. It ended up feeling like the same mouthful of mouthwash swishing to the other side of the cheek.

In any case, rest assured that you in no way attributed to my desire to leave. Ironically, you are currently attributing to my reasons for staying. So, thanks. Hope to see you again.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Paradigm lost, I stand here completely aghast. You don't finger me outright in your accusations, but I feel like I contributed to your discontent. This particular subject is of my most encroaching bias, and I fear it is of no coincidence that you make this decision after I failed to keep this debate as professional as it could have been had I been debating an issue that I really don't care about. I just want to say that I sincerely hope that I did not contribute to your decision, as it is very unfortunate whenever any individual we debate with lets emotion slip into the process. I would leave you with a word of advice: this site is merely for our own learning experience, to create a useful synthesis with other intelligent people. The votes don't matter; if you will notice I have a losing record despite my best efforts to defend my beliefs; and yes, I believe I should have won most of them and I wish I could just see who was voting against me and why but that is not possible. If you close your account I hope you will take some time to reconsider your choice and rejoin us at a later date, even if you must do it under a new name in anonymity. I am sure you can agree that there was SOME good that came out of your experience here. Best of luck, Rob.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
I called my arguments "contentions". I am thinking maybe that is what con's arguments are called and I misworded them? I'm still trying to get my bearings with the debate lingo...
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Damnit I have a ten-page paper due by tomorrow night and I have to work tonight. I won't be able to post until the last minute unfortunately...
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Rob1BillionParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30