The Instigator
YYW
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
gordonjames
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

"Marijuana, Cocaine and even Heroin Should be Legalized." -Ron Paul

Do you like this debate?NoYes+27
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 14 votes the winner is...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,818 times Debate No: 34305
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (255)
Votes (14)

 

YYW

Pro

I'm going to pull a Ron Paul here:

Structure:
R1) Acceptance, Analysis, Structure and Rules
R2) Opening arguments
R3) Rebuttals and Conclusions

Analysis:

Let's keep this to only to the philosophical basis for the role of government in people's lives -not about the impact of drug use, why drugs are bad, etc. That drug use is harmful to the body is not in dispute. The issue of contention for this debate is whether the government has a right to restrict what you put in your body.

I'll be arguing from a libertarian perspective.

Structure:

3 Rounds
72hrs to argue
8k characters

Rules:

No videos other than the Ron Paul video I posted in this round.
No trolling.
No semantics.
Don't be a jackass.
gordonjames

Con

I accept the challenge as posted by PRO
I like the structure and rules.

I like the fact that PRO agrees with the great philosopher Mr. Mackey, of South Park
"drugs are bad, mmmkay."

This means our debate is more about the role of government in private life.

We need to define government.
We need to define the role and purpose of government.
We need to define private life and public life in terms of behavior.
We will also need to agree on the concept of "greatest good.

PRO states
"Marijuana, Cocaine and even Heroin Should be Legalized."

I argue
The role of government is to work for the greatest good of the people.
One tool of good government is to pass laws to encourage the greatest good.
Slavery is bad. Freedom is good. Anarchy is bad.
Between the extremes of repressive government and anarchy there is a sweet spot we aim for with the most freedoms and the least damage FOR THE GREATEST GOOD.
Governments have chosen to make marijuana, cocaine and heroin illegal for good reason.
These drugs as they do more harm than good.
They should continue to be controlled substances and highly restricted by wise government.

A few thoughts and quotes to consider.

"The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors." - Thomas Jefferson

Defining between"private behavior " vs. "public behavior" is difficult.
I like the definition expressed in a speech in 1882 by John B. Finch who was the Chairman of the Prohibition National Committee for several years in the 1880

"Is not this a free country?"
"Yes, sir."
"Have not I a right to swing my arm?"
"Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins."

Let"s focus on private behavior as behavior that has no harmful effects on others.
Let"s focus on public behavior as behavior acceptable by the majority for a public place.

This leaves room for a huge spread of questionable behavior (say farting in a full elevator) that does no real harm, but of which others don"t approve. I agree with PRO that freedom is good and government has no right developing legislation limiting behaviors that are publicly acceptable or merely questionable (say breast feeding in public).

The Greatest Good or Summum bonum is an expression used in philosophy to describe the ultimate importance, the singular and most ultimate end which human beings ought to pursue.
- http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

I am using the term in the less strict sense as "the most good for the most people"
It is the role of government to aim for this as we work out the balance between my desire for freedom my neighbors desire for reasonable safety and peace. See other definitions below
FROM - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

Judgments on the highest good have generally fallen into four categories:
Utilitarianism, when the highest good is identified with the maximum possible psychological happiness for the maximum number of people;
Eudaemonism or Virtue Ethics, when the highest good is identified with flourishing;
Rational Deontologism, when the highest good is identified with virtue or duty;
Rational Eud"monism, or tempered Deontologism, when both virtue and happiness are combined in the highest good.
Debate Round No. 1
YYW

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for this debate.

In this debate, I hope to advance the values of freedom, individual choice and responsibility. First, I will argue that when freedom of choice is constrained, human dignity is eroded. If drug use is an individual's choice, then so long as and to the extent that any individual is externally coerced by the rule of law, individual rights are the opportunity cost. I will begin by making my case, and then I will address the points my opponent raised in introduction.

I argue:

(1) Individuals are accountable, and only accountable for their choices.

If people are capable of formulating the intent to act in some way or not to act in some way, they have acted with volition. To act with volition is to imply that the actor is accountable for his or her actions, but only accountable for those actions. Because no individual may form affect upon another the volition to act unless he coerces him, in the absence of coercion sufficient to overcome the individual will of the coerced men are responsible for their actions. However, where it is the case that coercion, sufficient to overcome the individual will of the coerced, causes the coerced to act as he otherwise would not, it may be said that the actions of the coerced are the vicarious actions of the coercer rather than the act of the individual subject to coercion.

If external coercion by the rule of law where drugs are illegal is sufficient to preclude individual drug use, then the the individual whom is subject to coercion is not choosing for himself to use or not to use drugs, but rather his decisions are the product of his or her being externally acted upon by a coercer -in this case the rule of law. If external coercion by the rule of law where drugs are illegal is not sufficient to preclude individual drug use, then the individual will has been exercised insomuch as it was able to resist the force of coercion.

Where individual’s choices (such as that of drug use) are constrained by external coercion, to the extent that their actions are influenced or impacted by either the force of coercion or resistance to coercion, individual moral and ethical agency is undermined as those and the actions of those “acted upon” are forced to reconcile their will with that of an external force.

(2) Drug use is an individual’s choice.

If an individual choice is the act of selecting an option from two or more possibilities, then because one may choose to use drugs or not to use drugs, drug use is an individual choice. However, if the choice to use drugs or not to use drugs is subject to external coercion by the force of law, then legislation and the legislature that passed it are constraining individual choice. By constraining individual choice, human dignity is the opportunity cost of the rule of law as the individual is coercively acted upon by the law maker. The “acting upon” individuals by external agent’s imposition of coercion to the effect that individual’s choices are constrained is a violation of individual liberty, and an alienation of the human dignity of those made subject to external rule.

Because drug use is an individual choice in which the agent making the choice is the subject acted upon and the only subject acted upon, the decision to use or not to use drugs is an individual’s have a right to make for themselves. By making drug use illegal as such, the rule of law functions to alienate the rights of the individuals that the law’s just exercise ought to protect. So, because drug use is an individual’s choice over him or herself, it is necessary and proper that he or she make that choice without external coercion.

(3) To the extent that freedom of choice is constrained, human dignity is eroded.

Universal human dignity requires that people be afforded freedom. The right of freedom is grounded in human dignity, and is defined as the right or power to act, think, believe and speak as one chooses without external restraint. Freedom implies the absence of external coercion (the use of force, or the threat of the use of force) from law or other coercive forces or agents. So, while universally unrestrained freedom would necessarily preclude any formidable social order, it remains to be the case that universal freedom consistent with that of others within a social order is required if a government is to respect the dignity held by all persons for being people.

To externally limit personal freedom (by threat, coercion, or force of law, for example) is to erode human dignity because by limiting an individual’s right or power to act, believe or speak as he or she chooses one is not afforded the opportunity to choose to act in his or her best interest for themselves. By limiting individual choice, the individual whose choice is limited is infantilized by the agent who seeks to limit the individuals choices because they are not afforded the dignity of being permitted to choose what is best for themselves -but rather rely on external judgements to define their interests. An individual who makes a choice to or not to take some action while subject to external coercion cannot take responsibility for their actions because their choices are not of their own will, but the product of external influence.

So, because the choice to use drugs like marijuana, cocaine or even heroin is properly and only properly an individuals’s, drugs as mentioned ought to be made not illegal -which is to say they ought to be legalized.

Disclaimer on Sources: I did not consult external sources other than my experience in political theory and philosophy for this debate.

In response to CON’s initial points:

Government is the governing body of a state, and its purpose is to fulfill the tasks of legislating, executing legislation, and adjudicating conflicts within a sovereign territory. However, I neither want to entertain a semantic debate about what government is, but rather what role it ought to occupy in regulating individual's choice pursuant to the resolution. I do, however, invite my opponent to offer his own thought on the point’s I’ve raised here and above. Individuals lives are always already private to the extent that they make decisions for themselves, which affect themselves or those whom they are responsible for (like their families). Individuals lives cease to be private when individuals actions impact others.

CON says: “Between the extremes of repressive government and anarchy there is a sweet spot we aim for with the most freedoms and the least damage FOR THE GREATEST GOOD.”

While the notion of the “greatest good” is in keeping with government’s pragmatic role as a common authority among individuals within society, the interests of “greatest good” is not the only metric by which government may justifiably legislate because intrinsic to any just government is the more compelling and prior obligation to protect individual rights and uphold human dignity. So, while if possible to justifiably not act at the expense of the “greatest good” -whatever it may be- to protect the greatest good is a secondary obligation which can only be considered after individual rights are secured and human dignity is respected. By restricting individual’s private choices (those choices individuals make for themselves within their private lives), government erodes human dignity and strips people of their moral and ethical agency by acting vicariously through individuals rather than protecting and upholding individual freedom.

I wish my opponent the best in the following round.

Thank you for reading.

gordonjames

Con

Thanks for your thoughts.

PRO states his desire to "advance the values of freedom, individual choice and responsibility."

His main focus seems to be:
(1) Individuals are accountable, and only accountable for their choices.
(2) Drug use is an individual's choice.
(3) To the extent that freedom of choice is constrained, human dignity is eroded.

Pro jumps from these faulty assertions to this conclusion
"because the choice to use drugs like marijuana, cocaine or even heroin is properly and only properly an individuals"s, drugs . . . they ought to be legalized."

First lets look at a few of the faults in his assertions

1. Although accountability for my choices should be mine alone,
THE RESULTS OF MY CHOICES AFFECT SOCIETY AT LARGE.

2. DRUG USE IS SELDOM AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.
All our actions take part within our society.
A drug user purchases drugs from another individual. Do we now legalize selling?
My actions while impaired affect others. Do we legalize impaired driving as a free choice?
My friends, family and many others are affected by my choices. Who should pay for my increased use of the medical system (Canada pays for hospitals from tax revenue) Wo pays the social cost of my addictions or habits. Do we refuse to treat people for medical problems that are a direct result of their bad choices?

3. ANARCHY IS BAD!
Pro has confused freedom with anarchy.
Most of our freedoms are limited . Some are limited by the laws of our land. Some are limited by where we live. Some states are more free than others. Some municipalities are more free than others. Rural areas tend to give more freedoms for private behavior as long as your exercise of freedom does not bother others.

Pro argues "To the extent that freedom of choice is constrained, human dignity is eroded."

This has little to do with the point of the debate.

We are not debating dignity.
Our debate is supposed to focus on the role of government in private life.
The trigger for this debate was the statement by Ron Paul
"Marijuana, Cocaine and even Heroin Should be Legalized."

On to the topic.
The best government should have the smallest possible involvement in private life while still meeting the other obligations of government.

PRO states that the purpose of government "is to fulfill the tasks of legislating, executing legislation, and adjudicating conflicts within a sovereign territory"

Those big words say that ONE MAIN ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT IS LEGISLATION.

Drugs are bad.
Good legislation will reduce the harm they do.

PRO agrees that
"the notion of the "greatest good" is in keeping with government"s pragmatic role "

The most good for the most people is one practical measure of the greatest good.
Because drug abuse harms so many, so deeply, they must be tightly controlled.
This is a primary function of good government.

PRO seems to believe that
"to protect the greatest good is a secondary obligation which can only be considered after individual rights are secured and human dignity is respected" - I disagree

He believes that individual rights (the right to do drugs) is more important than the expectation the community has to be protected from the damage caused by drugs. Here he is clearly wrong. A number of countries feel that even cannabis possession or trafficking are worth the death penalty - http://en.wikipedia.org...

PRO also states
"government erodes human dignity and strips people of their moral and ethical agency "

That is the purpose of government and police.

I like to drive fast.
Government says I should not. (For all the right reasons)
They reduce my individual freedom and take away my "moral and ethical agency" (fancy words for telling me what to do or not do).
If I want to drive fast, the place to do it is on a drag strip, or on my own property, and not in a school zone.

IT IS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
I am happy that my government chooses to make laws against the possession and sale of Marijuana, Cocaine and Heroin.

PRO bases his argument on individual freedom. The "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man" is helpful here. http://www1.umn.edu...

Article XXVIII.
The rights of man are limited by the rights of others, by the security of all, and by the just demands of the general welfare and the advancement of democracy.

NOTICE THAT
THE RIGHTS OF MAN ARE LIMITED BY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS

Individual rights end where they bump into the collective rights of society.

RESOLVED
- drugs are bad
- a claim to individual rights to use drugs should not override
The reasonable expectation that good government will restrict drug use with strong laws.
Debate Round No. 2
YYW

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for his interesting thoughts. I'll refute his points and in doing so reaffirm some of my own arguments where necessary and finish with some concluding remarks.

CON says: "Although accountability for my choices should be mine alone, THE RESULTS OF MY CHOICES AFFECT SOCIETY AT LARGE."

CON's principle concern is the impact that he believes drug use has on society at large, and because of that societal impact, legislation is necessary to countermand that bad outcome in defense of the common good.

I would like to suggest the following:

Drug use does not necessarily have an impact on society at large, positive or negative.

Let's suppose that a marijuana smoker, or other person who uses cocaine or heroin in the privacy of their own home consumes any one of the aforementioned substances in the privacy of his own home, where he remains until the effects of the substance have passed. Let's stipulate that the substances in question were bought and paid for by money that the individual in question earned legally. Let's further stipulate that such a person has neither a wife or other immediate family who depend on him.
==> In that case, the drug user's individual choice to use drugs has no broader societal impact in that instance.

Let's suppose that a marijuana smoker, or other person who uses cocaine or heroin in the privacy of their own home consumes any one of the aforementioned substances in the privacy of his own home, where he remains until the effects of the substance have passed. But this time, let's stipulate that the substances in question were bought and paid for by money that the individual in question obtained from selling items he or she stole to support a drug habit. However, let's hold constant that such a person has neither a wife or immediate family who depend on him.
==> In that case, the drug user's individual choice to use drugs still has no broader societal impact in that instance either, because even though he or she stole the belongings of another, it cannot be said that the drugs are themselves to blame for the individual's choice to steal. How can this be? Whether a person is on drugs or not, even if they are addicted, they are nevertheless still responsible for their actions. To blame the drugs is to allow the thief to escape responsibility. It was not the drugs, but the bad choices of an individual -the choice to violate another's property rights- that caused the person in question to harm others.

To make this perfectly clear: drug use is absolutely, and unavoidably an individual choice. If individuals are accountable for their actions, then whether drugs are legal or illegal if people take drugs and proceed to harm others they are still accountable. If people are accountable, then they -not drugs- are blameworthy and ought to be subject to punishment when they choose to harm others or violate others rights because the fact that a person uses drugs does not diminish their capacity to know right from wrong. It is not necessary, then, to make drugs illegal -because responsible individuals will choose not to use drugs and irresponsible individuals will pay for the consequences of their actions if they choose to harm others.

CON, however, remains concerned that the common good may not be protected in the absence of laws which make drugs illegal He asks: "Do we now legalize selling? .... Do we legalize impaired driving as a free choice? .... Who should pay for my increased use of the medical system? .... [Who] pays the social cost of my addictions or habits? Do we refuse to treat people for medical problems that are a direct result of their bad choices?"

It seems to me to be the case that people use drugs anyway, whether they are legal or illegal so my opponent's implied assumption that 'if drugs are illegal, then people won't use drugs' is negated and his concerns about selling, driving under the influence, or increased medical expenses are rendered moot because Canada -and to a large extent, the United States as well- already pays many costs associated with drug use from incarceration to rehabilitation and treatment. Whether I think they should or not, however, is tangential to this debate. Even still, if to protect the common good is con's purpose (which is to say, to minimize drug use), his means to that end seems to fall in that it is at best inefficacious, if not counterproductive. The research suggesting the failure of the American drug war is staggering, but I digress....

Curiously, pro argues: "ANARCHY IS BAD!"

Well... maybe... maybe not. That too is beyond the scope of this debate. Even so, his claim that "most of our freedoms are limited" misses the point. That government -as a statement of fact- does limit individual freedom by unnecessarily restricting individual choice does not mean that government OUGHT to do so or that it has a right to do so (and so, for that same reason, pro's mention that some countries punish pot trafficking with execution holds no water for the same reason). But, this isn't a debate about anarchy -this is a debate about the extent to which government ought to restrict individual choice by regulating drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin.

CON seems to assume that keeping drugs illegal somehow serves some social utility -when the fact that people in countries use 'illegal' drugs proves that he is in fact mistaken. Again, at best making drugs illegal does not curtail drug use, at worse it exacerbates drug use. So, government is implementing policy that does not do what it purports to 'ought' to do, and we know this by the failure of government to -through policy- eliminate drug use in culture.

Additionally, CON disputes the relevancy of human dignity to this debate -which is problematic because in his introduction that: "our debate is more about the role of government in private life."

If the government's role in citizen's private lives is not to defend and uphold their human dignity, then such a government could not be just because only that form of governance which is based on defense of the rights of the governed can be just. Said another way, just government must uphold and defend human dignity (the source of rights) as its foremost obligation to the governed, because it is for that purpose that governments are created among men. If government becomes destructive to those ends, it is the right -or, perhaps even the obligation- of the people to alter or abolish it and erect new government that the blessings of liberty and freedom are enjoyed by society (yes, I was pulling from Jefferson in that sentence).

So, because to defend human dignity -that is, to not unnecessarily regulate their private lives- by upholding the rights of the governed is the preeminent task of government, individual choice cannot be the opportunity cost of legislation in defense of the "greatest good" because only that legislation which upholds individual rights can serve the greatest good. Therefore, it it is necessary that drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin ought to be legalized.

Note on sources:

I didn't consult any in the process of writing this round.
gordonjames

Con

First, I want to recap, respond to PRO"s assertions and then move on to some conclusions.

PRO states

:: Let's keep this to only to the philosophical basis for
:: the role of government in people's lives -
:: not about the impact of drug use, why drugs are bad, etc.
:: That drug use is harmful to the body is not in dispute.
:: The issue of contention for this debate is whether the
:: government has a right to restrict what you put in your body.

SO
PRO agrees that drug use is harmful individually.
PRO agrees that drugs are bad for society as a whole.
PRO wants the debate to focus on the role of government.

Here is my framework

The role of government is to work for the greatest good of the people.
One tool of good government is to pass laws to encourage the greatest good.
Slavery is bad. Freedom is good. Anarchy is bad.
Between the extremes of repressive government and anarchy there is a sweet spot
we aim for with the most freedoms and the least damage FOR THE GREATEST GOOD.
Governments have chosen to make marijuana, cocaine and heroin illegal for good reason.
These drugs as they do more harm than good.
They should continue to be controlled substances and highly restricted by wise government.

I want to make clear the idea that the role of government includes limiting freedoms when people choose actions that damage individuals or society as a whole.

Now, PRO wants to convince us that . . . (from round three)
"Drug use does not necessarily have an impact on society at large, positive or negative."

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.
1. It I outside the stated bounds of this debate (From round 1 and acceptance)
2. It is clearly wrong.
"Drug abuse costs the United States economy hundreds of billions of dollars in increased health care costs, crime, and lost productivity." -
http://www.drugabuse.gov...

More later, but PRO is trying to argue a point he requested we not bring up.
:: Let's keep this to only to the philosophical basis for
:: the role of government in people's lives -
:: not about the impact of drug use, why drugs are bad, etc.

Let me respond to PRO"s arguments.

:: CON's principle concern is the impact that he believes drug use has on society at large,
:: and because of that societal impact, legislation is necessary to countermand that bad
:: outcome in defense of the common good.

This is a fair assessment of part of my position.

The PRO suggests
"Drug use does not necessarily have an impact on society at large, positive or negative. "
The facts say drugs are bad.
They cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year in social cost.
They do far more harm than good.
Unregulated use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin is bad for the health of individuals or society.

Marijuana, cocaine and heroin have a huge impact. Not only is there the daily cost in health care, lost productivity and associated crime, but there is the long term cost of people who should be productive citizens, but are now a drain on the legal and social services of our country.

The American Journal of Public Health comes to the following conclusion in an issue focusing on harm reduction:
"It is now abundantly clear that the nonmedical use of psychoactive drugs is one of the major causes of health problems in the United States, as is reflected in the physiological effects of the drugs (overdoses and alcohol cirrhosis), behavior while under the influence of drugs (drunken driving and domestic violence), and consequences inherent in drug administration (carcinogens, HIV and other serious infections transmitted through shared injection equipment)"

[D C Des Jarlais. Harm reduction--a framework for incorporating science into drug policy. American Journal of Public Health January 1995: Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 10-12.]
http://ajph.aphapublications.org...

PRO suggests a mythical drug user, not connected to society, in his/her home until all effects from drug use have passed. This is not realistic. No one started taking drugs with the idea that they would die of an overdose or become a life long resident of a psychiatric ward. This mythical "it doesn"t hurt anybody" idea IS AT THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. A user who does not get hooked, and quits before much permanent damage happens is rare. They are NOT representative of the average drug user.

It is not the job of government (or police or hospitals) to deal with this mythical creature. They deal with the real results of recreational drug use AND ARE STRONG SUPPORTERS OF LEGAL SANCTIONS.

PRO states "Drug use is absolutely, and unavoidably an individual choice."
This is incorrect. It is (currently) an illegal action with huge social and medical costs.
PRO might wish it was an individual choice, but wiser people have seen the need to pass laws that limit the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Society has chosen to make these laws even more strict through the years. - see the history of drug laws here. http://facultypages.morris.umn.edu...

NOTE - This is a part of the history of US drug legislation. It is the history of governments doing the hard work of enacting legislation in response to real problems. We keep making laws to restrict drug use because it keeps on bringing new problems that "we the people", want legislation against.

Up to 1900 there were no "Federal laws governing use or distribution of any drug (medicinal or recreational). Substances such as heroin, morphine, and cocaine are readily available and sold as part of "patent" medicines to cure everything from menstrual cramps to toothaches in children."

In 1906 the Food and Drug act was passed (primarily a labeling law) to make "patent medicines" label their ingredients. Any items could be sold as long as they were labeled properly.

From 1907 to 1919, 39 states enacted prohibitions against alcohol. 64% of Americans lived in "dry" territory.

In 1914 the Harrison Tax Act was enacted to deal with "narcotics." Keeping in line with the view of the Federal government's role in interstate commerce. Under the act, physicians were able to "minister to patients" and "...drugs obtained by addicts were to be secured through registered physicians." Coca and cocaine were inappropriately identified in this Act as narcotics.

The 18th Amendment (Volstead Act) of 1920 crossed the line from taxation to high levels of enforcement. Two times as many drug (opiates and cocaine) arrests as for alcohol during this time."

I post this brief history to show that
LEGISLATION COMES IN RESPONSE TO A NEED
Through our history we have had to pass more and more legislation against drugs.
LEGISLATION REFLECTS PUBLIC OPINION
Public opinion is changing regarding marijuana.
We may need to changes some of our current legislation to meet the desires of public opinion.

I like the idea PRO suggests of making drug users responsible for the cost of their actions.
I want my portion of the hundred billion spent every year on the medical and social cost of drug abuse.

PRO states
"people use drugs anyway, whether they are legal or illegal"
This is a part of his reasoning for removing the laws restricting drug use.

Legislation has been shown to reduce harm from drug use!
Legislation has been shown to reduce the amount of drug use.

In many ways, drugs are the new slavery. Addicts and enthusiasts do things to get drugs or money for drugs that defy logic. People lose marriages, children, home, employment, character, dignity and even their lives because of drugs.

There is no sane argument for suddenly or carelessly removing the legal prohibition against drugs.

Thanks to PRO for the great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
255 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by greatzeus 3 years ago
greatzeus
not conducive to a good ethically sound society
Posted by Lucian09474 3 years ago
Lucian09474
We should legalize All types of ilegals drugs but tax them heavy for this country economic sake
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Actually if you post a response as a member, you are barred from posting again on that question if you are logged in as a member; try it if you don't believe me. If you go in from another site, e.g., goggle or twitter, you can post as many times as you like as anonymous. And, if you are a member and don't sign in, you can post as many times as you like as anonymous; and then post once as a member.

I am sure many of the members have figured this out, and most likely have posted more than one time.

I sent an email to DDO, Alex to confirm that. Here is my email and the email from DDO, from Alex:

Hi Alex,

Thanks.

I have a few other questions, which are below.

My questions are :

1. Who are these anonymous people?

2. Are these anonymous people members of debate.org?

3. Can members post as anonymous?

4. Can an anonymous person post a "yes" or "no" response more than once?

5. Can a member post a "yes" or "no" response as a member, and then post that same "yes" or "no" response as anonymous?

6. Can an anonymous person vote in a debate, and,

7. Can a member vote in a debate as "anonymous"?

I hope you can answer my questions, and I thank you for taking

Hi, GWL-CPA.

To answer your questions in regards to Anonymous users...

1)The Anonymous people are users who choose to not create an account before posting their response. Often these people are first-time users who come to the site via Google.

2)I don't know if they are members of Debate.org, but I would assume that if they were members they would log in to their account before posting.

3)Members can post as Anonymous if they are not logged in to their account.

4)Since we have no way of tracking Anonymous users, I suppose in theory they can post a "yes" or 'no" response more than once.

5, 6 & 7) The only activity Anonymous users can participate in is posting in the Opinions section.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, GWL-CP
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
I once couldn't log in and posted an anonymous opinion (yes, I signed my name, if I remember correctly; at the very least I didn't go back when I did log in). Wouldn't let me post more than one opinion. Now, I shall grant that a proxy could get around that.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I've trolled pretty hard, but it seems that my trolling questions get removed.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
I don't imagine many serious members like the opinions section. I've gone there about 4 times and hated it each time. Never left an opinion, never will.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I have complained extensively, but for different reasons.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
YYW, have you complained about this? Have others complained?
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
You are not the only one who thinks the opinion section is problematic, GWL.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
YYW and Noumena, if you can find the sponsors, let"s do it; otherwise, it is not going to happen, so let"s agree to drop it.

I found out something today that really bothers me. You can"t trust the percentages for "Yes" and "No" in the Opinions section.

I sent an email to DDO about the "Anonymous" "Yes" and "No" responses in the "Opinions" section. You do not have to be a member to post a "Yes" or "No" responses in the Opinions section. They confirmed what I already knew. A member can post a "Yes" or "No" response as a member when they sign in; but, they also can post unlimited "Yes" or "No" responses by not signing in, which will appear as "Anonymous." They have no way to track the people who are not signing in and posting "Yes" or "No" responses. Many of these people are coming in through Goggle.

Now, of course, no honest member would do that. Sure!

So, on most of these very controversial Opinions, e.g., drug legalization, recreational marijuana, gay marriage were there are sometimes hundreds of "Yes" or "No" responses from "Anonymous," you have no way to know for sure what the correct percentages of "Yes" versus "No" posts are.

But, why does that not surprise me.

A joke!

DDO should only allow members to post in the "Opinions" section.

The good news is that non-members can only post in the "Opinions" section.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 3 years ago
Contra
YYWgordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I will start out by saying that this was an excellent debate regarding drug policy and its impact on civil liberties. Pro had a better debate structure for his arguments, as well as slightly better spelling and more elegantly worded arguments. But his superior structure is the reasoning behind my awarding of points. Pro's arguments were generally stronger, how "humans are accountable for their own actions, should be free to decide and make their own choices, and how gov't force usually erodes human dignity". Con later in the debate became sidetracked, presenting biased sources and arguments. The arguments should have been more about ideas regarding gov'ts role, not the impact of the aforementioned substances. If Con had displayed arguments that somehow showed drug use itself harmed others -- not other types of actions (like robbery) not caused by drugs -- it would have helped his case. Again, this was a fantastic debate.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
YYWgordonjamesTied
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: Pro's arguments were much more organized and understandable. I felt Con was a little scattered an all over the place. Pro showed how people should have the initiative and the right to make these decisions for themselves. Con kept saying that the government works for the greatest overall good but I feel that this is an unfounded position. At the very least the government works for the people's will not necessarily their overall good. Con could not pin down his point that more government in private life is truly better. Pro points out that by not respecting a person's right to choose for themself what they can or cannot do with their own body that erodes human respect and dignity which is detrimental to the government's role in private life. Pro squeaked by with a win. Everything else was decently even.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
YYWgordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to show clearly the negative impacts of legalizing drugs. It seemed that Con provided good arguments and refutations specifically for its impact on society. I felt Pro spent too much on freedom, but did not talk about drug benefits all across the board. Finally, Con ujsed sources while Pro did not.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
YYWgordonjamesTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had much better structure; met BOP in R1 with a decent case focusing on individual dignity, while con focused on negative externalities from drug use. Much of this analysis con used much too late so I had to ignore it. I felt pro won the dignity point, but con averted a disaster by making the appeal to an obviously bigger issue, since I felt it was clear the dignity to the drug user was less than the dignity of all those who might be affected by that decision. I didn't feel con did a very good job at all of proving what those externalities were that the government is protecting us from. Such an argument would have won it. Pro had a much more fluid response with multiple in-depth examples showing how drug use can have no impact, which is the narrative which sold me since con didn't have much of an alternative. I felt con's approach was obvious and pro should have spent more time focusing on non-users and the govt's duty to protect them. Con needed better structure. 3:1 aff win.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
YYWgordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that Con was more organized and straightforward in his arguments - which is why he got points for conduct But then again, I think pro used more details instead of broad, general points - so he gets points for convincing arguments Also, Con gets points for S&G since YYW did not use punctuation for his rules. And obviously, Con gets points for sources cause he used them and Pro did not.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
YYWgordonjamesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate comes down to showing whether the good of legalizing drugs outweighs the harm. Pro wasted too much space on how it's better to be free; that's not in question. Con only cited the specific consequences of impaired driving until the last round, where his introduction of new evidence must be ignored because Pro couldn't respond to it. Con's last round should have been his first. The debate was played out on an abstract plane with too few arguments on the actual good and harm caused to society. Con wasted too much space on arguing the use of government for the public good. We needed more about the facts of the good and the harm. Pro, however, had the burden to prove the resolution, and so an overly abstract argument must lose. Personally, I remain undecided about the issue, and this debate didn't help.
Vote Placed by Noumena 3 years ago
Noumena
YYWgordonjamesTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
YYWgordonjamesTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
YYWgordonjamesTied
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: danielleisawesome didnt give nearly a clear enough RFD, anyone could make claims like that even if they didnt read the debate...and she even indicated she wanted it to tie. Hence my counter.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
YYWgordonjamesTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmmm, this debate is rather tough to vote on. Pro made some good points about individual freedom and how a just government places human dignity very highly. Pro also talks about how the individual still has the freedom of choice regardless of whether they used drugs or not. Although I don't think Con adequately responded to Pro's argument of the individuals freedom, I do believe Con responded very well on how drug use affects society as a whole negatively and even provides the Declaration of Rights to show how the "rights of a man are limited by the rights of others." Con showed that individual freedom should not be placed at the expense of the safety and well-being of the society all together. As for S&G I give it to Pro because I found Con's writing style to be a little bit confusing and his use of CAPS annoying when he could have just bolded what he wanted to emphasize. Great debate to both of you.