The Instigator
neokansas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I would rather my kids use marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as dangerous.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 614 times Debate No: 71781
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

neokansas

Pro

I would rather my kids use marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as dangerous. I will provide the basis for my argument.
usernamesareannoying

Con

There isn't a specific format for this debate. But, I will refrain from arguing in this round...

I accept. Please begin with your opening arguments.

Marijuana - The dried flower clusters and leaves of this plant, smoked or ingested as an illicit drug to induce euphoria. (1)

Alcohol - drink (as whiskey or beer) containing ethanol (2)

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

This is just to stop unwanted semantics.

Anyway, your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
neokansas

Pro

I do not want my children consuming alcohol or cannabis, but if one of them was to consume one or the other, I would rather my kids consume marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as deadly. I will provide the basis for my argument.

I like Con's attitude about the flexibility of the open format I've established. I take no satisfaction by establishing rules difficult to follow and unorthodox to those with greater life experience.

When it comes to alcohol or cannabis, it is unfortunate that youth are likely to consume one or the other. This is true whether it is an experimentation or an regular use or abuse.

The easy choice is to continue demonizing marijuana over alcohol because it's illegal, demonstrates potential changes in a youth's brain (1), or a risk of psychosis (2). Or perhaps it could hamper lung function or heighten cancer risk (3), even though a growing number of studies show the contrary (4). There are claims it effects cognitive function (5), causes flunking school (6), and the most famous of claims that cannabis consumers are unsuccessful in life (7).

But science is showing that all of these associations with marijuana are not known as causes, and it may be that folks that are predisposed to psychosis seem attracted to pot (8).

Because marijuana is illegal, it is the first thing that comes to mind. The legal ramifications are much more destructive to a young person than the penalties of being caught as an underage drinker. And that seems to be an illogical facilicy to assume that the relationship between alcohol and crime stops there. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (9) reports that alcohol use is an involving part in 40 percent of all violent crimes in the U.S. which include rapes (37%) and assaults (27%) (10).

There has been no such relationship between marijuana users and crime, and what data there is is almost entirely because it is smuggled or cultivated in the U.S. or is grown in the U.S. illegally (11). But even then, the vast majority of people consuming cannabis are not those who are committing violence.

In another study researchers scrambled to find what data there was to suggest those who abused marijuana were likely to die. None were found, but on the other hand, those who are young delinquent males and associated with alcohol abuse and died was 19 percent, or nearly 1 out of every 5 died (12), and deaths were common amount 11 percent of delinquent females. Furthermore, even if the delinquent youth were detained for 5 years, they still had a 4.7 times greater risk of death from other causes like murder, than did others with no alcohol disorder.

It's also important to think about health too. But again, pot is not even close to alcohol. Binge drinking was half of the 80,000 alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. in 2010 according to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (13).

Now let's chat about costs. It's been shown that the costs to our economy from alcohol abuse was estimated to be $225 billion. 17 percent of all drinkers are binge drinkers, and 28 percent of binge drinkers are 18 to 24 years of age. Binge drinking is usually people with a household income of $75 or more, defined as the middle class.

Yet there has been no documented instance where marijuana has killed anyone (14), without a predisposition to pre-existing health issues and no other drugs present or historically abused (14). In yet another study, the American Journal of Public Health observed more than 65,000 folks in the U.S. and discovered that pot use had no effect whatsoever on the mortality in healthy men and women (15).

What about driving a car? Which is more dangerous? One study found pot could increase the potential for a fatal crash by 83 percent (16). But in a more recent study that had controls for variables like how much THC (the psychoactive property of cannabis) was present in the blood, showed no increase for risk of accidents. The same study also showed that having a blood alcohol level of just .05 percent, though, increased the odds for crashing your car by 575 percent!

Alcohol also fares poorly when compared to marijuana in these following areas:
" Intimate partner violence (17)
" Overall violence (17)
" Dependency of substance after experimentation is 9 percent for pot; 20 percent for alcohol (18)
" Thousands and thousands of young people end up in the E.R. every year from alcohol poisoning, of which more than 1,800 die each year (19)

Clearly, the more dangerous choice for drug is alcohol.

Thanks.
NeoKansas

1. http://www.jneurosci.org...
2. http://www.thelancet.com...
3. http://www.nytimes.com...
4. http://jama.jamanetwork.com...
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
7. http://http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
8. http://www.nytimes.com...
9. http://ncadd.org...
10. http://www.nytimes.com...
11. http://www.justice.gov...
12. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
13. http://www.cdc.gov...
14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
16. http://www.cuinjuryresearch.org...
17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
18. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
19. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

Thank you for an interesting argument. I foolishly accepted another argument on top of this one, and I have quite a lot of homework to do over the week. So, I apologize in advance for short and probably poor arguments. I will refrain from rebutting in this round; I will just provide case. It is reasonable to say that I will win the argument if I can prove this to be sound:

P1: Marijuana is worse than alcohol
C1: Therefore, marijuana is worse than alcohol
P2: Any reasonable mind would choose the 'better' option if the rendition were to be dichotomous
P3: If Pro is reasonable, he would choose the better option, which would be alcohol
P4: If alcohol is the better option, it would be illogical choose marijuana instead
P5: By choosing the illogical option, it shows that the resolution is illogical
C2: The resolution is illogical

Arguments

P1: Marijuana is worse than alcohol
C1: Therefore, marijuana is worse than alcohol
P2: Any reasonable mind would choose the 'better' option if the rendition were to be dichotomous
P3: If Pro is reasonable, he would choose the better option, which would be alcohol
P4: If alcohol is the better option, it would be illogical choose marijuana instead
P5: By choosing the illogical option, it shows that the resolution is illogical
C2: The resolution is illogical

Defense of premise one:

Marijuana is a known carcinogen (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). We all know that smoking cigarettes kills millions of people every year, due to the harsh chemicals in the smoke... Well, source one states that "Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke." Source two helps corroborate that marijuana causes cancer, it mentions that "Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers." This is just a couple of examples from the sources... If needed, I will provide more evidence...

Many of marijuana's immediate effects can be very problematic... Marijuana causes:
panic, anxiety, increased heartbeat, poor coordination etc. (6) Not to mention it causes numerous long-term effects... "an association exists between early exposure coupled with continued use into adult life and increased incidence of MDD in adulthood." (7) Meaning that if one were to smoke marijuana in their teens, they are more likely to develop depression in adulthood... Other long-term effects of marijuana may include: reduced resistance to common illnesses (colds, bronchitis, etc.), suppression of the immune system, reduction of male sex hormones, personality and mood changes etc.(6) Source 8 states that marijuana negatively affects the brain, because marijuana overactivates the endocannabinoid system, which alters perceptions and mood, impairs coordination, causes difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupts learning and memory. Source 8 also proposes that "people who began smoking marijuana heavily in their teens lost an average of 8 points in IQ between age 13 and age 38. Importantly, the lost cognitive abilities were not fully restored in those who quit smoking marijuana as adults."(8)

I cannot provide much more, without rebutting my opponents argument, so this premise will be properly defended within the next couple of rounds...

Defense of premise two:

The only two options that were listed in the resolution was: marijuana and alcohol... It is logically reasonable to say that if one product is worse than the other, then the other product that is better would be the most acceptable option.


Defense of premise three:

I hope that Pro would accept this premise if I prove premise one to be valid.


Defense of premise four:

It would be illogical for a father to hope that his children would choose the worse option... Because the health and well being of his children should be his main concern.


Defense of premise five:

Premise five is a logical deduction from premise four.



As you can tell, my argument mainly relies on premise one... Which I haven't defended properly yet. In the next few rounds, I hope to argue its veracity. Sorry if I am not able to reply in time, I gracefully ask for you to wait out your rebuttal for a day or two, just so I can get by stuff in order. Anyway, over to you Pro.





(1) http://www.drugfreeworld.org...
(2) http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...
(3) https://www.psychologytoday.com...
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(5) http://www.cancer.gov...
(6) http://www.drugfreeworld.org...
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(8) http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
neokansas

Pro

I commend Con for continuing participation in this debate, a debate that is largely based on some of the most widely recognized and recent health research studies which are currently greatly in favor of cannabis from a health standpoint.

Con has introduced a tangent subject not directly related, and questions whether my actual debate topic contains an illogical fallacy in line with a simpleton's deductive reasoning: "If marijuana is safer (over 100 times safer according to a study published in Scientific Reports (2)) than alcohol, then kids should smoke marijuana because it is safer than alcohol". I hope that my kids would choose marijuana over alcohol if they were to choose one. This is different, and totally defunct of "I think my kids should smoke pot because it is safer than alcohol". That would be advocating they use cannabis. That's not my intent here.

I would think the logical and perhaps the only way Con can debate this topic is to find health and crime statistical research that suggests drinking alcohol is a better choice for kids than marijuana. Just a suggestion.

Many marijuana prohibitionists use the deductive reasoning fallacy strategy when it comes to the subject of marijuana and alcohol and staunchly defend the right to consume alcohol. Yet with stats like these, it's difficult to justify alcohol being a better choice for anyone over marijuana. And that goes for kids or adults. I would love to shift my focus on the direct health risks related to alcohol use and abuse. There's staggering data there.

Whether kids should choose one substance over the other isn't an argument here, but would make a great debate topic for another debate. I'd be happy to take that one on if Con is interested. More specific to this forum here, a premise whether society consumes alcohol by choice because it's legal, overlooking other less-obvious legal and health issues that result from alcohol. Alcohol is extremely DANGEROUS. I've been personally effected by close friends and family killed by alcohol poisoning. Con is welcome to try to justify that alcohol is better, but that is really the only thing in question here.

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The rules of this debate aren't as important as the content, all to be judged by our peers, not a judge. I want the victory that folks outside of debate college experience can plainly see. It's a much bigger audience.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

Ad hominem is always appreciated, Pro. In retrospect, all I need to do to win this debate, is to show that marijuana is "nearly as dangerous" as alcohol. So, I don't even need to affirm that alcohol is the better substance.

Rebuttal

I will try to dispute the veracity of many of Con's sources:

Con uses his 8th source to refute the previously mentioned sources that marijuana causes psychosis, heightens a risk of cancer etc.

He states "But science is showing that all of these associations with marijuana are not known as causes, and it may be that folks that are predisposed to psychosis seem attracted to pot (8)." But, to my surprise, nothing on that website stated anything of the sort. The site only mentioned "phychosis", only one of the handful that Pro commends it refutes... And it doesn't even refute it. The entire page does not even mention 'marijuana'. Not even once...

This makes me question the validity of all of Pro's assertions.

Now, to the next source:

Source "(9)". Pro actually references the source this time. However, this only makes the assertion that x number of people were under the influence of alcohol when they committed the crime; not the cause of the crime. The source states no evidence that it is a cause of the crime. This is a red herring.

Source ten wasn't referenced, so I will not attack it.

Pro uses source eleven to say that there is no link between marijuana and crime. Cool. Nothing that he has cited so far corroborates that alcohol is the cause of crime. So this point is completely irrelevant. It's like saying, x number of murderers had used cars as a mean of transport to get to their victim. It is completely irrelevant.

Then, Pro states that his source twelve says this "In another study researchers scrambled to find what data there was to suggest those who abused marijuana were likely to die. None were found, but on the other hand, those who are young delinquent males and associated with alcohol abuse and died was 19 percent, or nearly 1 out of every 5 died" Nothing in his twelfth source even grazes on the subject of alcohol nor marijuana... This was a source about homicide! And for the part that was relevant, "and deaths were common amount 11 percent of delinquent females. Furthermore, even if the delinquent youth were detained for 5 years, they still had a 4.7 times greater risk of death from other causes like murder, than did others with no alcohol disorder" it is an appeal to extremes fallacy. We are considering your children using alcohol or marijuana. It does not entail that they will definitely become addicts/abuse the substance...

Literally all of Pro's proposed sources are irrelevant or non-existent. Consider the crime section of this debate negated. Pro actually helped my case; his first six or seven sources affirm my case. He tried to dismiss them with his 8th source, but I have proven that the source is irrelevant.


Pro states that marijuana is much safer than alcohol because "It's also important to think about health too. But again, pot is not even close to alcohol. Binge drinking was half of the 80,000 alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. in 2010 according to Center for Disease Control and Prevention". This is a red herring. We all know that some people die in "alcohol-related" deaths... Pro merely says that 40k of them are because of binge drinking...

"Now let's chat about costs. It's been shown that the costs to our economy from alcohol abuse was estimated to be $225 billion. 17 percent of all drinkers are binge drinkers, and 28 percent of binge drinkers are 18 to 24 years of age. Binge drinking is usually people with a household income of $75 or more, defined as the middle class."

Ok... I don't see how this pertains to the resolution. Costs does not mean one is 'safer' than the other. This is also a red herring. Not to mention, that there is no credible source to affirm this. Con merely opines that this is true. Con also seems to neglect the amount of money alcohol brings in...

Pro uses his 14th source to say that no-one has died from marijuana. This might not be from marijuana directly. But it has been shown that it causes cancer, which does kill. In fact, his source states "The proportion of suicides increased sharply with the level of cannabis consumption." Well, that was self-refuting. It also says "The relative risk of death among high consumers of cannabis (use on more than 50 occasions) was 2.8%"

Pro seems to be lying about what many of his sources cite. He says that his 15th source ratifies that marijuana has no effects on the mortality rate of healthy men and women... NOWHERE in his source says this. Why are you lying about your sources?

Pro uses his 16th source to say that driving while being influenced by alcohol is more dangerous than when being influenced by pot. Firstly, this is a red herring. Driving while under both are illegal. It is due to the foolishness of the person to risk themselves while under substances that make you: dizzy, have a loss of coordination etc. it's not the substance's fault. The same could be said about putting a high person and a drunk person at the edge of a cliff... It doesn't matter which person falls off the cliff more often than the other. I haven't checked this source to attack its validity. Either way, its a red herring.

"Alcohol also fares poorly when compared to marijuana in these following areas:
" Intimate partner violence (17)
" Overall violence (17)
" Dependency of substance after experimentation is 9 percent for pot; 20 percent for alcohol (18)
" Thousands and thousands of young people end up in the E.R. every year from alcohol poisoning, of which more than 1,800 die each year (19)"

Source 17 doesn't mention alcohol... Why are you lying! It only mentions marijuana.

I'll give Con source 18. However, I dispute its accuracy:
"alcohol (n=28,907), cannabis (n=7389)"
They tested 28k people for alcohol, and 7k people for cannabis. When there is a such a drastic difference in numbers, we can't tell whether the result is a true depiction of the most definite rendition.

Source 19 is a red herring. It's their own foolishness for overindulging in the first place... It's like saying milk is safer than water, because x amount of people drown in the ocean each year...

Literally all of Con's sources are either:
irrelevant
or
does not contain the information that Pro says it does

The only valid information that Pro has displayed is that people are more likely to become dependent on alcohol than marijuana. Albeit, it is only by 11%, I will concede that factor. However, my sources remain uncontested and I have provided tangible evidence about the short and long term effects of marijuana. Since my evidence vastly outweighs Pro's, I have successfully defended my first premise. Therefore, I win the argument.

Pro achieves maximum euphoria when he decides to call me a simpleton. *For voters* bare this in mind when you're trying to decide who the conduct point is going to go to.

Pro cites 2 sources in round three and claims that one says "marijuana is safer (over 100 times safer". Well, I certainly did not find that in the source. That was his only refutation. He did not deny the proposed effects of marijuana that I posted in round 2. He accuses me of committing the deductive fallacy, yet provided no justification for it. Therefore, it can be dismissed.

He constructs his next argument on an anecdotal fallacy. He says that alcohol is extremely dangerous, because one of his close friends died of alcohol poisoning. I am very sorry to hear this, but it does not affirm your case (not trying to be mean).

Con left the resolution very vague. I am affirming based on a vague implication of what it might of been. Since I am the first person to define the resolution (I did this by first stating what my argument would be) we debate under my pretenses (per debating rules).

I have provided more than enough evidence for why marijuana is worse than alcohol, which awaits to be refuted. My BoP is fulfilled.





Debate Round No. 3
neokansas

Pro

Con questions how cited intimate crimes study relates to alcohol. My mistake. But the study does support my argument that when marijuana is involved, fewer intimacy crimes take place. When alcohol is involved, intimacy crimes escalate. A study suggests 25% of American women have been raped, and half of those involve alcohol. This is very "conservative" figure since it is common for victims to not report a rape has taken place. (4)

Con questions whether the study concludes marijuana is 100 times safer than alcohol. Again, I was incorrect. The January 2015 Scientific Reports study according to Newsweek was in actually in slightly different wording to read "the mortality risk posed by cannabis to individuals was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol" (5)

I do not wish to debunk Con"s sources on the harms of marijuana since they are irrelevant, and not "nearly" close to the dangers of alcohol cited.

At one point, Con makes the statement, "Literally all of Pro's proposed sources are irrelevant or non-existent." Yet this statement has to be untrue if this statement is to be taken "literally" since Con contradicts this statement more than once, later "conceding" the sources.

Con states: "Source 19 is a red herring. It's their own foolishness for overindulging in the first place... It's like saying milk is safer than water, because x amount of people drown in the ocean each year..."

Whether or not college youth overindulge in alcohol is indeed greatly pertinent to this debate because of fatalities occurring! (?) I don"t believe Con"s "ocean" example supports his statement that Source 19 is a "red herring". But nowhere does the study encourage students to smoke pot because there are deaths associated with alcohol. Nor does the article rest blame on the students themselves for drinking alcohol in the first place, or discourage them from attending college altogether to avoid such issues. Perhaps Con determines a youth"s intelligence as criteria for worthiness and infers it is youths fault for not refraining from drinking. In essence Con once again creates a straw man logical fallacy inferring Pro"s argument is "kids SHOULD smoke pot because so many kids die drinking alcohol".

Considering there are no known deaths from overdosing, or as a direct effect from consuming marijuana (3), is another true reason why marijuana is obviously not as nearly as dangerous as alcohol. The article by the National Institutes of Health has an abundance of data on the dangers of alcohol and college youth.

If Con wishes to focus on the deaths due to indirect consumption of both drugs, alcohol is still a factor in many times greater in fatalities than marijuana when it involves driving a car, as I had provided in round 1. (6) It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana"s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol.

Con states what is needed to win this debate is to show that marijuana is just close or "nearly" as dangerous as alcohol. So far, Con has not provided this data. Rather, Con has provided data on the detriments of marijuana consumption, but none of the data provided about marijuana states causal death. This is because there is no data that even could suggest that marijuana has caused a single death"ever (with no prior health or other drug history) as a direct result of consuming the marijuana. Con does not dispute the fact that alcohol kills thousands annually as a direct effect of consuming alcohol. Again, I challenge Con to enlighten the audience and give factual data about how marijuana has killed anyone whatsoever as a direct effect of the consumption of marijuana itself. According to one frequently cited study, a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount of THC in a joint in order to be at risk of dying. (3)

Of course it will be up to the audience to use their own judgement to decide if Con has proven whether alcohol is "nearly" as dangerous as marijuana. I believe after they have read all of the evidence provided, they should vote me as the winner, because Con has not justified his statement that marijuana is "nearly" as dangerous as alcohol. In essence, the measure of "nearly" is an ambiguous term, or open to more than one interpretation. But comparing the thousands of mortalities with one drug to virtually no mortalities with the other drug, I hope that one would believe "almost" to be a number close to the other in the number of deaths.

I concede to Con that I used an anecdotal fallacy by discussing my own experience with family and friends dying from alcohol. However, Con misquoted what I stated , "He says that alcohol is extremely dangerous, because one of his close friends died of alcohol poisoning." But the actual statement I made was, "I've been personally effected by close friends and family killed by alcohol poisoning." I ask that Con avoid dishonesty when quoting my statements.
Con contends I did not clearly define the resolution and states we must follow Cons format. But, per debate rules, both parties must agree upon the resolution format. Therefore, I reject Cons format and believe we currently have one.
Con states "I have provided more than enough evidence for why marijuana is worse than alcohol, which awaits to be refuted. My BoP is fulfilled." Yet I do not find this evidence, or believe the evidence Con has provided does not meet this criteria. Con"s "BoP" reference does not carry any meaning.

Con makes accusations frequently ("why are you lying!", ..."Pro seems to be lying",... "why are you lying about your sources?"). I caution that unless Con knows for sure that I'm lying, suggest Con refrain from using insulting statements. One lying in a debate would logically serve to support one"s argument. Where Con makes accusations doesn't meet the criteria, therefore can't be lies.

Con claims I have lied about the study, "Marijuana use and mortality" study published by the American Journal of Public Health (7), in my statement, ""65,000 folks in the U.S. and discovered that pot use had no effect whatsoever on the mortality in healthy men and women." I see again that I have once again made an error. The figure is actually 65 million, which supports my argument even more, so it would not be logical for me to misrepresent this study. A Harvard policy analyst concluded from the study that ""marijuana has produced remarkably little laboratory or epidemiological evidence of serious health damage done by the drug." (8)

1. Hingson, R.W.; Zha, W.; and Weitzman, E.R. Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18"24, 1998"2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Supplement 16:12"20, 2009.
2. Hingson, R.W.; Heeren, T.; Zakocs, R.C.; et al. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18"24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(2):136"144, 2002.
3. http://www.americanscientist.org...
4. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
5. http://www.newsweek.com...
6. http://www.cuinjuryresearch.org...
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
8. http://www.pbs.org...
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

Pro dropped a lot of arguments that round. Six out of his seventeen sources affirmed my case. He tries to defend three of his eleven sources in his rebuttal - ignoring the rest... He entirely dropped my argument how marijuana is a carcinogen and still neglects all the evidence I have posted! And since the resolution wasn't clear, per debating rules, I get to define it. This is how debating works... As long as it is reasonable, it's ok. My definition pertains to the context of the resolution. You have to agree to my terms. From that logic, I could just deny your proposal, and it could be in an infinite progression. And for Con's accusations of ad hominem (1) reads "You are saying something dishonest" does not constitute as ad hominem. "Why are you lying" definitely constitutes as that. I have proven that you lied about what your sources contained, and you admitted to that in this round.

Rebuttal

"But the study does support my argument that when marijuana is involved, fewer intimacy crimes take place."

Bare in mind, that's because many more people drink than take marijuana - bare in mind, one is legal, the other isn't.

"A study suggests 25% of American women have been raped, and half of those involve alcohol. This is very "conservative" figure since it is common for victims to not report a rape has taken place. "

This is a red herring. Nothing in this source says that alcohol was a 'cause' of the crime. You completely dropped this argument. I proved why this is an irrelevant factor, which you haven't refuted yet. *For voters* this is still irrelevant!

"the mortality risk posed by cannabis to individuals was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol"

This completely neglects the factor that marijuana is a known carcinogen, that has 50-70% more cancer causing chemicals than tobacco smoke. It might not kill anyone directly, but it causes something that does kill. So, this stat is very misleading. Pro actually lied about this as well... The source actually read "You are 114 times more likely to die from overdosing on alcohol than you are from cannabis, a recent study has found." Overdosing would definitely constitute as an appeal to extremes fallacy. So, this is still an irrelevant factor. My stats show that after casual use, one can develop numerous types of cancer!

"Whether or not college youth overindulge in alcohol is indeed greatly pertinent to this debate because of fatalities occurring!"

It is known as an appeal to extremes fallacy. Overindulging in anything can be bad - especially alcohol. Overindulging in the first place is their own foolishness, not the drinks fault.

"Con determines a youth"s intelligence as criteria for worthiness and infers it is youths fault for not refraining from drinking"

No. Just 'over drinking', because it's dangerous. It's their fault for puting themselves at risk.

" In essence Con once again creates a straw man logical fallacy inferring Pro"s argument is "kids SHOULD smoke pot because so many kids die drinking alcohol".

The resolution implies a hypothetical situation, which I defined with my argument. You didn't define it in all of the time you have been arguing. This is not a strawman.


Pro's third source neglects the fact that marijuana is a cancer causing drug.

The deaths caused from overindulgence in alcohol is an appeal to extremes fallacy. It's like saying, water is worse than milk, because people drown more often in water!

" alcohol is still a factor in many times greater in fatalities than marijuana when it involves driving a car"

This is still illegal. Pro dropped this argument. This is a red herring, because the user knowingly puts themselves at risk!

" Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol."

This is because, more people drink alcohol, so there is obviously going to be more casualties. This is still an appeal to extremes fallacy.


"Con states what is needed to win this debate is to show that marijuana is just close or "nearly" as dangerous as alcohol. So far, Con has not provided this data. Rather, Con has provided data on the detriments of marijuana consumption, but none of the data provided about marijuana states causal death"

Did you read my case? "Marijuana is a known carcinogen (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)". Death isn't the only factor in whether something is safer than the other. That's an appeal to extremes fallacy. Your drug causes cancer which does kill.

"Again, I challenge Con to enlighten the audience and give factual data about how marijuana has killed anyone whatsoever as a direct effect of the consumption of marijuana itself."

This is known as 'moving the goalposts'. I have more than fulfilled my BoP. I have shown that alcohol is the better substance, never mind getting it near marijuana. You still neglect that it causes cancer!


"But comparing the thousands of mortalities with one drug to virtually no mortalities with the other drug,"

That's because millions of more people drink alcohol, to smoke marijuana. Because one is illegal and the other isn't.

"I hope that one would believe "almost" to be a number close to the other in the number of deaths."

This is a completely irrelevant factor, because all the sources you listed are deemed as 'an appeal to extremes' fallacy. Not to mention, millions of more people indulge alcohol rather than marijuana!

"But, per debate rules, both parties must agree upon the resolution format."

This is untrue. I defined the terms, it matches the resolution. "The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first" (1)

"Con"s "BoP" reference does not carry any meaning."

It means "burden of proof". Which I have fulfilled, because you dropped the arguments about marijuana being dangerous.

(look into the prologue for a refutation of the ad hominem accusations)


"The figure is actually 65 million, which supports my argument even more"

I am looking at the source, but I am not seeing anything of the sort. Nothing on the provided source asserts this...

"A Harvard policy analyst concluded from the study that ""marijuana has produced remarkably little laboratory or epidemiological evidence of serious health damage done by the drug." (8)"

Pro still neglects the mounds of evidence that I provided earlier.

Conclusion

I have shown that we should debate under my pretenses, for that is debate custom. Bare in mind that my pretenses are the resolution. I have provided mounds of evidence to why marijuana is bad, not to mention the first 6 sources in Pro's round two, actually contribute to my case. Pro, tried to compare the number of mortalities between the two, however, the causes of death for alcohol, were deemed as 'appeal to extremes' logical fallacies. Pro compares the actual mortality rate, even though, millions more drink alcohol than smoke marijuana, so the comparison is extremely flawed. In round two, Pro committed an ad hominem fallacy. Pro dropped my entire case to why marijuana is bad. From the effects I listed, we can clearly see that alcohol is near the level of safety, if not, even safer than marijuana. From the evidence brought forward, Pro dropped many arguments that claim he lied. So my accusation of him lying is justified. So, it's therefore, not ad hominem, as read in source one. Pro opines that alcohol is related in crime. Ok, I concede that. However, nothing says that it causes them to commit the crime - it is a red herring. Alcohol in accidents is also a red herring, because it is illegal to drink and drive. They are all red herrings.


(1) http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 4
neokansas

Pro

Con says I have accused him of ad homonym. Never said it.

Con continues to ignore serious data and (the huge elephant in the room) and is not reasonable in mind. It is so sad that Con can't make an argument that could convince others, instead hides behind the rules of debate without getting to the issue at hand. Is alcohol nearly as dangerous as marijuana? Of course not.

Con makes wild claims about "carcinogens" and "smoke" and "cancer", but provides no sources for them. If it is the study I'm thinking, it has already been debunked.

Con tries introducing cancer as a cause of smoking pot, but provides no source for this information. If it is the study I'm thinking, it has already been debunked.

Con denies his argument is a straw man, but provides no info.

Con wildly throws around terms like "cancer", implying some deaths are from marijuana, but provides no data.

Con creates imaginary rules for debate.org and reads them to me.

Con again claims not to understand articles sited or specific figures. Go figure.

In Conclusion, I have proven that marijuana is incredibly safe and alcohol is incredibly dangerous when human lives are considered. I have found what I thought would be a great debate turn into a debate with a someone always complaining about the violations of rules and could never really get into a worthwhile discussion about how ridiculous a notion is to argue such an impossible argument to begin with.
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

In other words, Pro can't refute anymore, so he resorts to multiple use of ad hominem. Pro has constantly lied about what his sources contained, and has been entirely unfair this whole debate. He dropped literally all of the arguments proposed, and claims that I am unreasonable - the hypocrisy.

Rebuttals

"Con says I have accused him of ad homonym. Never said it."

"I caution that unless Con knows for sure that I'm lying, suggest Con refrain from using insulting statements. One lying in a debate would logically serve to support one"s argument. Where Con makes accusations doesn't meet the criteria, therefore can't be lies."
That sounds like an ad hominem accusation to me. And I have already refuted why it isn't ad hominem - you did lie. You lied in over ten sources. Just read my round two.


"Con continues to ignore serious data and (the huge elephant in the room) and is not reasonable in mind."

What serious data? My entire argument remains uncontested. I refuted every argument you made!


"It is so sad that Con can't make an argument that could convince others, instead hides behind the rules of debate without getting to the issue at hand. Is alcohol nearly as dangerous as marijuana? Of course not."

It's sad that this is how a new comer gets treated. I don't think Pro even read my case - the whole thing still stands. I have debated fairly this entire debate.

"Con makes wild claims about "carcinogens" and "smoke" and "cancer", but provides no sources for them. If it is the study I'm thinking, it has already been debunked."

What?! Did you even read my round two?
My case for cancer: "Marijuana is a known carcinogen (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). We all know that smoking cigarettes kills millions of people every year, due to the harsh chemicals in the smoke... Well, source one states that "Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke." Source two helps corroborate that marijuana causes cancer, it mentions that "Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers." This is just a couple of examples from the sources... If needed, I will provide more evidence... " I will repost the sources as well, plus the seven that Pro posted that affirms my case. Therefore, there is a total of 15 sources that affirm my case, that remain sound. It cites immediate and long-term problems of marijuana, including cancer.

"Con denies his argument is a straw man, but provides no info."

I did provide information actually. What Pro forgets is that he dropped every single argument. And how your sources are appeal to extreme fallacies.

"Con wildly throws around terms like "cancer", implying some deaths are from marijuana, but provides no data."

I posted five sources that ratify that argument, you just haven't refuted it yet.

"Con creates imaginary rules for debate.org and reads them to me."

Pro obviously didn't read the source that's named "new members read me", which gives all of the information on how to debate on this site.

"Con again claims not to understand articles sited or specific figures. Go figure."

Which ones are you referring to? The ones that are irrelevant? Or the sources you lied about?

Conclusion

My entire argument remains uncontested. There have been 15 sources posted in this argument that affirm my case. The only sources that Pro posted were either: irrelevant, lied about, appeal to extreme fallacies, or non-existent. The only sources I accepted, is that people die more often from alcohol. Yet, I proved why that is irrelevant, because: one, it's an appeal to extremes fallacy, two: more people drink than smoke marijuana. So, obviously more people who drink are going to die. It's like comparing the annual deaths of people in China, to Madagascar, then concluding that Madagascar is definitely safer. I have most definitely fulfilled my burden of proof. And I win this debate. Thanks Pro for this argument.

(1) http://www.drugfreeworld.org......
(2) http://www.cancerresearchuk.org......
(3) https://www.psychologytoday.com......
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
(5) http://www.cancer.gov......
(6) http://www.drugfreeworld.org......
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org......
(8) http://www.drugabuse.gov......
(9) http://www.jneurosci.org......
(10) http://www.thelancet.com......
(11) http://www.nytimes.com......
(12) http://jama.jamanetwork.com......
(13) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
(14) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
(15) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com......
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by neokansas 1 year ago
neokansas
Please read this debate and cast your vote!
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Sorry, I seem to refer to you as con in the beginning. My bad. This is my first debate where I have taken the con stance. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Oops I forgot about this... I will rebut tomorrow, I promise!
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
According to the national cancer institute a comprehensive Health Canada monograph on marijuana concluded that while there are many cellular and molecular studies that provide strong evidence that inhaled marijuana is carcinogenic, the epidemiologic evidence of a link between marijuana use and cancer is still inconclusive.
http://www.cancer.gov...
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
The immediate effects of taking marijuana include rapid heart beat, disorientation, lack of physical coordination, often followed by depression or sleepiness. Some users suffer panic attacks or anxiety. But the problem does not end there. According to scientific studies, the active ingredient in cannabis, THC, remains in the body for weeks or longer.

Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke. One major research study reported that a single cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five regular cigarettes smoked one after another. Long-time joint smokers often suffer from bronchitis, an inflammation of the respiratory tract.
The drug can affect more than your physical health. Studies in Australia in 2008 linked years of heavy marijuana use to brain abnormalities. This is backed up by earlier research on the long-term effects of marijuana, which indicate changes in the brain similar to those caused by long-term abuse of other major drugs. And a number of studies have shown a connection between continued marijuana use and psychosis.Marijuana changes the structure of sperm cells, deforming them. Thus even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility in men. Marijuana use can upset a woman"s menstrual cycle.

Studies show that the mental functions of people who have smoked a lot of marijuana tend to be diminished. The THC in cannabis disrupts nerve cells in the brain affecting memory.

Cannabis is one of the few drugs which causes abnormal cell division which leads to severe hereditary defects. A pregnant woman who regularly smokes marijuana or hashish may give birth prematurely to an undersized, underweight baby. Over the last ten years, many children of marijuana users have been born with reduced initiative and lessened abilities to concentrate and pursue life goals. Studies also suggest that prenatal (before birth) use of the drug may result in birth defects, mental abnormalities and
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Interesting argument mate. I will rebut tomorrow, I just posted an argument for an other argument, so I will post my argument tomorrow :)
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The greatest detriment to the family or the individual concerning marijuana use, is law enforcement. Also marijuana has no lethal limit unlike alcohol. An average of six people die every day of alcohol poisoning, and most are not binge-drinking college students, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. However I would hide your cookies.
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Nope. Marijuana is just as dangerous. It empairs your senses and just as dangerous to take as alcohol is when it concerns driving. There is also marijuana addiction just like alcoholism. My friend has an addiction to marijuana. Can't pay his bills cause he's paying for weed. Sad. And plus, weed does kill brian cells. Alcohol doesn't. Alcohol just slowers or hinders the development of the frontal love of your brain. Weed literally kills the cells developing your frontal lobe or any part whatsoever. They're both as equally dangerous. Whoever says elsewise is an ignorant fool.
No votes have been placed for this debate.