Debate Rounds (3)
I agree; this debate will rely on economic policy. My values would be liberty and privacy. In a free society, based on liberty,the government should not try to dictate what is moral, and what is immoral. The government should not say what should or should not go into our bodies. Every time the government has tried to do that, it has ended in disaster. Prohibition in 1913 was a complete failure, but we repeat our mistakes and do not learn from the past.
The government should not dictate what goes into our bodies.
What role does the government have that it should say what is good for the people or bad for the people? We all know bad diet leads to early death. Should the government dictate what we eat? There are 23,199 annual deaths from alcohol. There are 0 annual deaths from marijuana (http://drugwarfacts.org...). If you want to prohibit marijuana why stop there? For the welfare of the people, why not prohibit cigarettes, too much fat in your diet, If anything we should be prohibiting alcohol. Prohibition increases violence and crime. If you want to stand up for the welfare of the people let them make their own decisions on their body and reduce crime. We spent 15 billion dollars on the war on drugs. 858,408 people were arrested for marijuana violation. 89% of those arrests were for possession only. The percentage of people in prison for marijuana equals more than murder, rape, and robbery combined. If we decriminalized marijuana possession we could focus on real crimes and reduce spending by 15 billion dollars.
Well, do you mean that all drugs should be legalized? Because government shouldn't ban them. Do you mean that our government should allow the food industry to insert cancer-inducing products?
My basic argument is that marijuana causes economic detriment. Precisely because people addicted with marijuana spend too much money on it, they have given up resources that may be directed to raising education caliber, solve our debt, and strengthen our defense.
If such philosophical argument as posed by my opponent were to be accepted, the government's existence would be almost no meaning. What is this government different from anarchy? Both don't care about their citizens' well being and define their well being as absolute freedom. But really? We will have much less freedom if powerful people can just kill us without being culpable. Essentially you're arguing for a society like that of the Middle Ages. Nobody cares if you used marijuana in the Middle Ages. Do you think you would be happy that way?
Thus the assumption that maximum freedom is achieved by giving individuals all freedom is wrong. If we want to play a game fairly and have fun, we must abide to rules. If you look at the U.S. constitution, it states that state governments should see to people's health and well being. If you disagree with that principle, you can petition all you want or leave this country. As long as you want to enjoy the freedom and opportunities this country offers, you shouldn't try to do something this country forbids in order to provide that freedom and those opportunities.
My opponent claims that if the government that I advocated for was implemented, the society would be "like that of the Middle Ages", and it would be similar to anarchy. He completely strays from the argument at hand. I am only advocating for marijuana legalization, and not no government. He also claims that the government that legalizes marijuana would not "care about their citizens' well being, but I say if you cared about your citizens you would legalize. I agree that we need to protect the welfare of our citizens, and that is why I say legalize marijuana and crack down on violent crimes.
Con said:"We will have much less freedom if powerful people can just kill us without being culpable." What does that have to do with the argument at hand? I never said we should eliminate the police.
My opponent stated, "My basic argument is that marijuana causes economic detriment. Precisely because people addicted with marijuana spend too much money on it, they have given up resources that may be directed to raising education caliber, solve our debt, and strengthen our defense."
Based on that assumption we should prohibit alcohol and cigarettes because they are addicted and spend too much money on it. I think the government spends too much money trying to prohibit marijuana. We could use that 15 billion dollars in tax money to better the economy by letting the tax payers keep it.
Also, when talking about why marijuana should be illegal, you stated it would "strengthen our defense". How would keeping marijuana illegal strengthen our defense? If we legalized we would have more policemen to use on "strengthening our defense".
The constitution also says the government must "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves".http://archives.gov...
lailaiwd forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put forth arguments that were never really rebutted. Con strawmanned then forfeited the last round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.