The Instigator
williamskillem
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Legalizing Drugs

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 3 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 84228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

williamskillem

Con

I am against drug legalization. I think it would be the down fall of this great nation under God. The bible states that we are not to put body harming things into are body's. You say the only bad thing legalization will do is put out officers into more danger. But it will also brim up the problem of more immigrants coming and going with drugs. It will do so much harm to people. Because people that do not believe in God and who do not hold there self's accountable to him do so to the government( if they are law abiding citizens) but if the government then says its legal they will do it. Because there accountability will fall though.
bballcrook21

Pro

Thank you Con for creating this debate.

No rules are present, so I shall assume that the debate shall be rather informal.

I will write my main argument in Round 2, and I shall write my conclusion as well as my rebuttals in Round 3.


Summary:

The intake of drugs is rationally a victimless act. For an individual to have control over their body, as any sentient being should, the should be allowed to injest any chemical or drug that best fits their desire.

I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
williamskillem

Con

The bible says we are not to inflict badly harm on our selves. You can not deny that drugs are very bad for you even though weed really isn't by its self. But it will wreck people if we allow drugs to be legal.1.) Just picture this in your mind. Your waking with your kids on a Sunday morning at the outside mall. You pass a high kid laying on the ground he's not mean or anything he's just chill. What do you think your kids are thinking. Then you pass a women on math. Your kids see her might have bad dreams. And kids know that stuff is bad so if they see that you think it's fine what do you think they will think now. If they have respect for you they will follow you and might just become drug addicts. 2.) The hospitals will not be able to handle the drug overdoses. The military won't be able to handle all the extra illegal drugs. There will be more deaths because of high drivers. And peoples family members will be killed because of someone's self centered choice to drive under the spell of drugs.
bballcrook21

Pro

Contention 1:

"The bible says we are not to inflict badly harm on our selves. "

My opponent foolishly states that the Bible is justification enough for the creation of a set of laws. In the United States, which I premuse is the premise of this debate, laws are made based upon rational thought and the Constitution. To even utter that the Bible is justified in being used as reasoning as to why a law should or should not be passed is completely absurd.

My opponent fails to state any sections or verses from the Bible that condemn this type of behavior, so I shall take it that there are none.

Contention 2:

"Your waking with your kids on a Sunday morning at the outside mall. You pass a high kid laying on the ground he's not mean or anything he's just chill. What do you think your kids are thinking."

I will ignore this poor excuse of a complete sentence, and just focus on the argument itself.

Firstly, the scenario or argument for drug legalization is not relied on whether kids see it or not. It is the parents choice and fault if their kids happen to get involved in these kinds of activities, or at least to be introduced to something of this sort.

Second, smoking drugs or doing any type of drug in public is not legal, so this argument does not stand. Drinking alcohol is even illegal in many states.

Contention 3:

"
Then you pass a women on math. Your kids see her might have bad dreams."

I don't know what kind of children you have or what kind of child you embody, but I am more than sure that if kids see a couple of women doing mathematics, they won't have bad dreams. They may have bad dreams about your spelling though.

Contention 4:

"The hospitals will not be able to handle the drug overdoses. The military won't be able to handle all the extra illegal drugs."

This is probably the only good argument that my opponent has made, and let me debunk it.

Observe the amount of deaths from overdoses, and their trends.






Photos are from [1]

As it can be seen, the amount of deaths from the most popular "killer drugs" is quite low. I am more than sure that the 5,686 hospitals in the United States, with their 914,513 beds could take care of these people. [2]


Contention 5:

"There will be more deaths because of high drivers. And peoples family members will be killed because of someone's self centered choice to drive under the spell of drugs."

Here is a picture that accurately shows how many drug related accidents occur per year.



As my opponent can see, the numbers are very low. A slight increase is not a substantial reason for alarm.


Lastly, individuals already take drugs, and many lives have been ruined because of the injection of a victimless substance. It is more than safe to state that people who take drugs illegally, are going to take it in the future, regardless of its legality. To state that banning drugs will make less people take drugs is wrong, and this has not been backed up by my opponent.





Sources:
[1]http://www.drugabuse.gov...
[2]http://www.aha.org...

Debate Round No. 2
williamskillem

Con

As many of you can see my opponent is probable a democrat. All you did was state the facts now but the charts and facts will be very different if drugs go legal. Thank you for going after my spell and not the real argument very professional.
bballcrook21

Pro

As you can see my opponent is probably a Bible-thumping moron that brings shame to Conservatives alike.

Trust me, I am far from Democrat. Wanting legalization of drugs is not something just attuned to Democrats.

Conclusion:

Since my opponent did not end his Round with any argument, I will just extend my own.

All drugs deserve to be legalized. Under Constitutional law, and Libertarian principle, a crime only occurs if it violates the liberties of someone other than the "criminal". Evidently, if an individual decides to drive while under the influence, and later causes an accident, then the crime will be more potent due to the injection of drugs beforehand.

Vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: headphonegut// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments

[*Reason for removal*] RFD is not posted in comments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does go through a good deal of the debate and makes reasonable assessments of how the various points play out in the larger decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by pimpmaster 11 months ago
pimpmaster
I accept your challenge. For good measure I will be high while I debate you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 11 months ago
SolonKR
williamskillembballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bSh69W_6y4ZeHt_30ywa9qQQZXX6X1mn-R2sCnvXZ20/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 11 months ago
Midnight1131
williamskillembballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to have to give this win to Pro. Con's case consisted of appeals to religion and assumptions. Nothing he said was backed up by any stats. This already presents a weak case, that should be easy for Pro to refute. First off, Con's argument about the bible is immediately thrown out, because he hasn't shown why the bible should dictate our laws, or that it's a credible source. Pro refutes Con's argument concerning children, because he states that any legalization of drugs would ensure that it remains illegal to do drugs in public. He also uses solid statistics to refute Con's claim that the health system wouldn't be able to take it, and the claim that driving would become much more dangerous. To conclude, I award arguments to Pro, because he refuted all of Con's arguments, which weren't sufficient to start off with, due to the lack of sources on his part. I also award Pro the S&G points, because of some of Con's many grammatical errors made the debate hard to follow [meth = math]
Vote Placed by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
williamskillembballcrook21Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Whz6oUV9lShFjaNBe8t7m-0f0syNpLHmdCyWUbBbe-E/edit?usp=sharing