1.Points to be backed up with official evidence.
2.No trolling or insulting
And I wish the audience to have an open mind on the topic and not to vote for what they have decided before reading this debate.
Thank you and I await acceptance from my opponent. Over to you, Con.
Can you give me some clarification on the topic, is your legislation for legalization or for it to be illegal? also would this be state or federal legislation?
Also I didn't state how i wanted the structure of the debate at the beginning and now as Con has accepted, it is too late to make changes as this would be unfair on him. So I apologise if it becomes a mess (i.e main arguments, rebuttals and conclusion all messed around a bit in different place) but we might have to improvise a bit on this.
To begin, "Marijuana Legislation" I believe that the US should change it's legislation on Marijuana. It is important that I make it absolutely clear from the beginning that I do not propose recreational legalisation from smoking, growing and selling of the herb as the main part of the argument here as is not the case. I believe that there are many benefits in legalising 'Hemp' for industrial use.
Definition of Hemp is as follows : 'The tough, coarse fiber of the cannabis plant, used to make cordage.' 
* Hemp Fiber
One of the strongest and most durable of all natural textile fibers
Using hemp fibers instead of wood fibers to make paper would be less expensive and conserve trees
* Hemp Paper
Until the 1880's between 75% and 90% of paper was made with Hemp fiber
* Hemp Fabric
Lasts longer and withstands harsh conditions
Provides all the warmth and softness of a natural textile but with a superior durability
Can be used in cloth, rope, canvas, sailcloth, sacks, carpets, paint, and car upholstery
* Hemp Fuel
If developed it could be used as a biodiesel/bio fuel
So already there are huge advantages to the economy and also the enviroment:
*Hemp can produce 250% more fiber than cotton and 600% more fiber than flax using the same amount of land.
*Most products made from hemp are biodegradable
*Seeds can grow in dry climates
*Grows without fertilizer or pesticides
The earliest use of hemp dates back to China in 4000 BC where it was mainly used to cultivate land. The five common uses amongst all early societies for hemp were for hempen fibers, medicine, narcotics, food, and oil, the last two of which coming from the seeds. Many cultures regarded hemp as a sacred commodity and either burned it (for any of various purposes, such as smoking or meditation) or wore it during ceremonies. In Africa, hemp was used to treat fevers and illnesses such as malaria and dysentery. (globalhemp.com).
Common misconception about hemp:
"Hemp, like Marijuana, is a Source of THC"
* Although hemp is derived from the same plant as marijuana, the Cannabis sativa L plant, it does differ greatly to marijuana (Kane). The THC level of marijuana is measured at anywhere from four to 20 percent. Hemp, on the other hand, has a THC level of less than one percent; not nearly enough to even obtain the slightest "high" effect.
And my proposition of legalising this would require a licence to be obtained that would be strictly monitored to ensure mass production of 'weed' would not be the case.
Secondly, a regulated system which I did not initially explain in detail at the start and before I go into further detail about what I propose, I would like you to please watch this short video clip from YouTube.com:
Ok so after listening to the argument on the video, you should have some if not most understanding as to what I propose to be the case.
I am in favour of:
1. Decriminalising Marijuana
2. Regulated Government Distribution Of Marijuana Like Alcohol is.
a) Save money being wasted into petty offences of marijuana possession leading to arrest which is a waste of police time and money.
b) Restrict access to it by having it sold the same way as Alcohol and cigarettes, this would:
(1) Keep it away from the black market. Adults would no longer illegally grow it as it would be available to purchase legally. (2) Make it much harder for kids to have access to from a young age therefore shaping a better society in the eyes of the people who currently have a problem with it. "There granddad, you happy now?".
c) Boost the economy as the Cannabis is ranked #6 cash crop and it's all going to the illegal market. This would be no doubt taxed by the government.
d) Introduce a more excepting idea about the herb to society when they see the benefits of this new plan. Why? because countless times people are admitting that we have lost the War On Drugs. And this new system would be a better way at handling the issue with Marijuana. (see 2nd youtube video)
To add to point 'd', this would be a better step in hopefully making the rest of society open minded to the idea of medical marijuana to be legalised across the country. This has shown to be so far successful ever since introduced. But I won't go into that just yet I'll give my opponent a chance to convince us the drug war is fine or if anything needs to be stricter... it will be interesting to read what he has to say.
So we have it here is what I propose to start with. I shall go into more depth about them both next round. But for now, over to you Con.
Thanks, best of luck Con.
Firstly, The paper industry is very large in the United States, and if we legalized the growing of Hemp it would hurt the wood industry and give already illegal pot growing people a job. That is not fair to hard working Americans. This could create new jobs but it will also have a damaging effect on a large sector of the American economy.
Secondly, pro says it could be used as bio fuel if developed. If developed! That is not promising anything at all! Many things could be turned in to a bio fuel if they were developed. This statement if very circumstantial!
Thirdly, Pro states that hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana. I will agree with that, but we also have to consider that we will be making paper out of hemp. Kids could go buy a notebook, and roll some papers together and get high. Also, small children would be in danger. Young kids bit and chew things, i don't know why they just do. What is your child got ahold of your Hemp notebook? Would he be in danger? Yes, he would be consuming a drug!
Fourth, Since when has enforcing a drug law been a petty waste of time and money. Also my opponent states all these good things about Hemp, and then slips in the legalization of true marijuana! He never backs his belief on why marijuana should be legalized.
Selling Marijuana the same way as cigarettes and alcohol would not change the accessibility. Younger kids would still but it illegally and many adults would to, because it will be cheaper to buy illegally than at a government taxed rate. Pro may believe that we have lost the war on drugs but we haven't stopped fighting, if we did this we would be surrendering. We would make it more easy for drug dealers to grow marijuana, and sell it!
Marijuana is a drug, We have no reason to consume it, smoke it, or take it in any way. It is not healthy for the body. Yes we are Americans and yes we are a free country, but yes the government can make things illegal if they harm the citizens. Pro talked all about hemp being legal and then talked about legalizing marijuana in this debate as well, i want to see his facts about marijuana legalization!
Vote Con, no reason for this to be more accessible to children, or anybody in that case.
Con doesn't understand my argument and as a result has made claims with no fact or evidence in his rebuttal whatsoever. Therefore everything he has said can be invalid. Con obviously realises that I have very good points and knows they are true so he/she starts twisting my words to make them appear wrong to the audience (a pathetic attempt by Con to try and win). I will go from the start and explain why Con is completely and utterly wrong in his rebuttal. Con has also failed to make some points of his own and clearly has done no research to back his false claims. Sorry, Con I didn't realise you were an expert in Marijuana that you don't need to be arrogant enough to make statements without backing them up. Con will HAVE to do this the next round otherwise will have lost the debate unfortunately. Con stated 'I want to see his facts about Marijuana legalisation' Ok, Con I will dig into that first. 'Marijuana is a drug' - Con, you have not met your burden of proof and need to prove this to be the case before bullsh*tting.
Marijauna in its pure form is NOT a drug, it is a natural herb/plant. Hemp is NOT Marijauna and you can't get high from it.
He says in his second argument that Hemp does have THC, but very little compared to marijuana. I am going to quote this from his second argument, "Although hemp is derived from the same plant as marijuana, the Cannabis sativa L plant, it does differ greatly to marijuana (Kane). The THC level of marijuana is measured at anywhere from four to 20 percent. Hemp, on the other hand, has a THC level of less than one percent; not nearly enough to even obtain the slightest "high" effect." When pro then states in this most previous argument that Hemp has no THC, and that i am wrong in saying people could get high he is lying. So maybe instead of him copying and pasting off of a website he should actually read it so he knows what he is talking about. So if you want to talk about bulls**t, this would be a prime example.
I currently have no burden of proof. Pro has the burden of proof to show that marijuana should be legalized, and he has not shown any facts on marijuana but only Hemp. So if pro wants to win this argument he will have to show why MARIJUANA, not Hemp, should be legal! This is legalization of marijuana debate.
If you believe i should forfeit because of ignorance, just remember that i actually wrote all of this and did not cut and paste it. You can tell because i never said to exactly opposite things like you did. I hope after you read this you understand that you messed up and i believe you should forfeit.
Pro also say that my facts about the wood industry are wrong, but you only bring up the fact that hemp is renewable. Pro never addresses the fact that this bill would hurt the wood industry in the United States! Also forest in developed nations forest are growing and returning to a healthy and restored condition. So this is not actually killing the environment but is a very sustainable resource. The forest are coming back not being destroyed:
Just because the pro and con both agree on something does not mean a part of the debate is forfeited but that there is a general agreement to work off of. Just because i said hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana does not change my stand point of the bill. It is actual fact that hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana, but that does not make it right, or reason for it to be legal. The only reason i mentioned it was to agree that it was harder, but also to point out that it wouldnt make a difference how much harder it was to get high off of it if we sold 80 page notebooks of it like pro suggests.
Also the "videos" that were supposedly posted were not on my screen so no i could not respond to them
Vote con, he refutes himself if you read his arguments
Once again a little advice to pro is to at least read what you cut and paste.
Sir, Ignorance is not an excuse ok. The fact that you could not find this video 'www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wi1GkbmU4E'
which backs my proposition to legalise Marijuana as a regulated system because the current approach is not effective. So being stubborn will not benefit you. You will effectively loose at least half of the debate by not responding to this. So please watch as it is a major role in my argument.
The fact that I contradicted myself by mistake on one instance does not automatically dismiss my whole argument and make it invalid as you are under the impression that kids are going to consume '80 page notebooks' to not even get a slight high is ridiculous at this idea. This is because it is once again factually incorrect of you and no I did not even suggest it - so what are you talking about..
As for the second video, it is a news clip saying that 82% of American's of the National Telephone Survey believe they've lost the war on drugs, 12% aren't sure and just 7% said they think they're winning it. So it was just one source I refered to to back my claim which you refused under the explanation of 'Pro may believe that we have lost the war on drugs but we haven't stopped fighting, if we did this we would be surrendering. We would make it more easy for drug dealers to grow marijuana, and sell it!' which is absolutely absurd. We wouldn't make it more easy for drug dealers to grow marijuana, and sell it. This would mean the exact opposite that abolishing the drug trade on marijauna because it puts them out of businness they will loose their customers because people dont want to buy dodgy untrusted product when they can buy a safe, legal alternate. Reminder: I am proposing a strict regulated distribution similar to tobacco and alcohol.
'I would like to thank pro for winning this debate for me.' you haven't one anything so don't get cocky because you honestly make that ridiculous arrogant claim based on the fact that I made one error in my writing as if to say you haven't made any mistakes. Well, that will show the audience just what a miserable b*tch you are.
He makes some ridiculous case unrelated to the actual main argument of the debate because he cannot face the truth and the fact that marijuana regulated legalisation would be a better option that current laws for the benefitial reason's that I have outlined which he did not argue against so he's effectively lost half of the debate already as he only found reasons against Hemp (50% of the case). Let alone did he match the number of points in that let alone his weak opinions not backed up intially wth evidence of such. Everything he has written so far is therefore counted as his opinion and cannot be claimed as fact until evidence is provided in his points. Therefore invalid in a debate such as this.
This is an actual quote from my opponent. 'Vote con, he refutes himself if you read his arguments' Here Con, is referring to himself 'he' in this sentence. Proof of a mistake in his writing just like I did. This makes him a hypocrite and shows exactly why his arrogance is nothing to be fooled by.
Con has not been willing to co-operative in what I thought would be a 'productive debate' at all because he has simply whinged about small unnecessary gaps and not produced a substancial argument. Please vote Pro even if you're not in favour of the bill, I had more reliable sources, conduct, convincing arguments. I also had much, much more points to contribute to my side and have met my burden of proof, which Con's seems to think I haven't.
Also this video does contain polls, but just because americans believe we have lost the war on drugs does NOT mean americans believe we should legalize drugs. Also the facts were from Huffington post, which a notably bias news station.
Also people will continue to buy illegal weed, it will be cheaper, and no tax! This would not help the war on drugs, also kids would still have to buy it illegally.
Also this was not a simple mistake of yours! you are wrong in your debate. You choose to debate using youtube videos and copy and paste. This is why you contradict yourself so maybe you should debate and use your own ideas and make sure you read what you copy and paste. I could post a thousand youtube videos against this but i dont because the point of this website is so two people can debbate eachother. not one person debating youtube videos
I am sorry that me pointing out your mistakes is arrogance. o no wait it isn't, and you have not reached your burden of proof on marijuana, only posted facts about hemp. Vote con, and next pro needs to argue, not youtube.
Stop because you're making yourself look like a fool. You still believe for some reason that kids can get high from hemp paper well your wrong because it is nearly impossible and not worth it to anyone. You obviously are unaware about other legal products that kids have easy access to if they wanted to get high, and they choose not too (e.g. glue).
Hemp is a strain of cannabis that happens to have a very low percentage of THC (the stuff that gets you high). Plus, it's grown naturally, where the males are able to pollinate the females. An unpollinated female will have a higher percentage of THC. It doesn't matter if you smoke the flowers of the female plant, you still WON'T get high. Well, technically, if you really tried to get high you could get only a slight barely noticable effect, but you would have to smoke so much, your lungs would be burnt up. That is every reason that kids wouldn't try it. It would do way more harm to the body (lungs and throat) then what would be achieved and this is not expected of a child's thing to do (smoke notebook paper as Con claims). So that is dismissed.
Your concern about the wood industry need clarification because: The industry expects that demand to double by 2050. A company’s use of email causes an average 40% increase in paper consumption. The U.S. consumes 200,000,000 tons of wood products annually, increasing by 4% every year. U.S. paper producers consume 1 billion trees each year (735 pounds of paper for every American). U.S. at 5% of world population consumes 30% of world’s paper. Only 5% of virgin forests remain in the U.S. So hemp paper needs to be an option at some point as it is more renewable and requires less process to not involving the toxic waste chemicals given off into pollution from turning trees into paper. Yes I am right in stating that you're ignorant on the topic.
'Also this video does contain polls' it wasn't this video it was the second one on my original argument 'www.youtube.com/watch?v=it9_D6Xu9ok'
but just because americans believe we have lost the war on drugs does NOT mean americans believe we should legalize drugs. We're not discussing the legalisation of druggs we're discussing a regulated distribution of marijuana that would actually be more successful in keeping it from kids and the black market. I also refuse your misuse of vocabluary 'drugs' if you were referring to marijuana (a natural plant grown on this planet) not manmade like cocaine and LSD.
It's also if any drug, a good one. A medical drug used as a pain relief, treatment of Glaucoma, Spasticity in muscle sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, Brain cancer, Opioid dependence, Controlling ALS symptoms, Crohn's Disease, diabetes and many more. (this is not something for you to argue against) you obviously seem to think you know better than most doctors and scientists and researchers and journalists. So for your sake I advise you to stop making a fool out of yourself.
'Also the facts were from Huffington post, which a notably bias news station.' my opponent has made a positive claim on his behalf but has not met his burden of proof for this and therefore is then counted as invalid or a seperate matter he needs to deal with he has given no evidence to uphold this claim other than his own word (a highly incorrect and unreliable source as we've already learnt).
'Also people will continue to buy illegal weed, it will be cheaper, and no tax! This would not help the war on drugs, also kids would still have to buy it illegally.' You say people rather take an unnecessary risk of getting arrested or going to jail to save just a bit of money. An even bigger unnecessary risk for the grower most likely an adult who could go and purchase this for his own recreational use he would have lost his business there won't be enough buyers to make it worthwhile. 'This would not help the war on drugs' this WOULD help the war on drugs and it would reduce massively the access to kids. Given the fact it would be as restricted as alcohol and tobacco, much harder for a kid to find. It is currently not restricted to kids as dealers don't care who they sell to. This would be different if it was regulated the same as tobacco and alcohol.
My opponent then has a go at me for using youtube video to back my claims (as evidence). I'm allowed to do this, infact debate.org supports this feature to embed youtube videos and has been used as a feature on numerous debates. YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO IN MY DEBATE you had the option of choosing the debate so you must accept the rules used.
'I could post a thousand youtube videos against this but i dont' go on then, i await the proof of such a claim. That would be if we were to assume such anumber were against it. Well from my searching there doesn't appear to be that many against those in favour.
I can cut and paste stuff to use from the internet as it's far more likely to be factually approved and used as evidence on my side. Something, you have not done very well with your poor argument about getting high off a 80 page hemp notebook. Con needs to prove this to be te case and no just by his word, let's see some evidence for once Con.
'I am sorry that me pointing out your mistakes is arrogance' it's not that which is bad conduct it's that you so said 'I would like to thank pro for winning this debate for me.' This claim is far from the truth and you know that so you still try to be cheeky and rude because your own argument lacks facts, points, evidence/proof. If you think you can succeed in a debate by making notice to a typo or grammar mistake etc. that you have automatically win. This is not the case sorry Con, you lack a truthful argument on your behalf.
'Vote con, and next pro needs to argue, not youtube.' well i did i just used youtube as a primary source for two of my points and this is fair, I AM allowed to do this so there's no need to get upset.
Please vote Pro as overall I contributed more factually and convincingly also reliable evidence in my argument, not just made small weak disagreeements with a word or two which were wrong in the debate. My original argument outweighed Con's rebutttal as he only made small weak unsupported points of his own claim as a response and not even did he respond to all my points. So I fail to see how he thinks he deserves a win. (don't answer that)
Vote Pro, thank you audience.
Also marijuana has been linked to causing cancer, kills brain cells, effects perception and coordination, and increases the chance of a heart attack by four times. This is not a drug we should ingest into our bodies.
Also my concern with the paper industry is that you want to replace the production of paper from trees to hemp. So that is obviously going to hurt to paper industry. Also you said that the national forest where being destroyed and i presented evidence against that, and since you did not respond that argument of yours is dismissed. You give all these percentages about how the paper industry is growing but you want to replace paper with hemp, this will cause the wood industry to decline
In your opinion this regulated distribution would keep drugs away from kids, but we use the same system as alcohol and kids still drink it on a regular basis, so this would not necessarily be the case. And i could care less if you disapprove of me calling marijuana a drug. Because it is a drug. It is known as a drug by both sides of this national debate, the only issue is if the drug is a good or bad one, and it is a bad drug!
And i do have truth in my debate, I have never contradicted my self like you pro has. that was not a simple typo he was wrong and does not want to admit it. I bring this up again because it shows that all he does is copy and paste form a website, that is not a debate!
"(a pathetic attempt by Con to try and win)." THis was the comment made by pro before i thanked him for winning the debate for me, If he wants to win votes by calling me cheeky and rude i will do the same thing, however this is not how this debate should be conducted it has been a main point in all of pros arguments.
And yes he does have the right to use sources, but he does not have the right to just copy and paste. If you handed that in as a paper at school would it be accepted? NO! you have to bring your own ideas to the table and put articles in your own words, this is why pro contradicts himself.
And i will respond to that pro, thank you. I did not contradict all of the points because some of the points he made i conceded to. Like all the hemp facts i conceded to be true, except the one where he said it had NO THC, but i did debate all other of his points which concerned legalization. Just because it was the strongest corlike material does not mean it needs to be legalized.
Also con also did not refute some of my arguments made
So here is how i see this debate,
1. poorly organized by pro
2. very disorganized
3. He cuts and pastes
4. He contradicted himself on the MAIN issue of this debate and if you reread it, it was not a mistype but he was very confident that Hemp did not have THC. If he doesnt even know the facts we should not vote pro
5.Pro has had to backtrack this entire debate because he screwed up and he knows it.
Vote con and show him he is wrong
|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:||0||4|