The Instigator
efp1109
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Marijuana should be at disposal for all.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 332 times Debate No: 84521
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

efp1109

Con

Marijuana should not be legalized for disposal of all. I say this because we would have a world of crazy people running around delirious trying to do harmful things. We have enough issues already with DUI. We can't enable people to do worse. Marijuana has long-term and short-term effects. It's addictive, it's not a one time thing. However, Marijuana should be medically legalized in every state and only be at disposal to medical professionals. If it helps people, let's do it. If it hurts people, let's trash it. Marijuana does both. Therefore, should be legal, but managed by qualified professionals.
Thank You!
Hayd

Pro

Since this is only one round, I will rebut my opponent's arguments, and provide my own.

My opponent says that if it was disposable for all, people would become crazy and commit harm.

This is false because it assumes that usage would increase if it was legalized. It has been shown that usage will not increase if legalized [1], thus the argument is null.

If anything, making it legal would reduce this by teaching citizens to be more responsible. If it can be used for all, health guides can be made to help people use it responsibly, parents can teach their children, etc.

Con says that marijuana has short and long-term effects, this argument goes unwarranted and therefore has no impact.

Con then says that marijuana is addictive, but does not explain why this is bad. This is a good thing in many aspects such as boosting the cannibis industry, creating jobs and buisnesses out of the manufactuaring of cannibis, and when its addictive, this industry booms.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: pimpmaster// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con offered nothing. pro needed to do little to win here, but did more than little. Con no sources, only opinion and vague words like crazy. Pro is correct in assertion of who is to benefit from addiction :)

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is unexplained. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to examine specific arguments made by both sides to come to a decision. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side had sources while the other didn't is not enough.
************************************************************************
Posted by moneystacker 1 year ago
moneystacker
I never get the logic behind usage not increasing even a little bit from legalization. I know there can be restraints and income taxes maybe on certain products but I never get how it happens without decreasing demand. I lost to an argument like this in real debate and on this website.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
What DK said
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
One round debates should be banned....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by moneystacker 1 year ago
moneystacker
efp1109HaydTied
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: I wish this was more then one round. Grammar was good on both sides but Pro argued better and presented as source while con had none. I guess he had one round of debate established because he was expecting a regular opinion based answer or no time to do more.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
efp1109HaydTied
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: Pro is the only one who used sources, so I have no choice, but to give the points to him there. As for arguments, Con goes into the debate making far fetched claims that people will "go crazy" and "commit harm" though that would be nice to believe, Con didn't provide any sources on it to actually back it up. Pro countered with a source that shows otherwise as he negated a great deal of Con's arguments. Con makes some grammatical errors, but it isn't enough to warrent me giving the points to Pro. I have no choice, but to give the debate to Pro as the resolution stands.