The Instigator
Udel
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
LatinaGirl8894
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Marijuana should be fully legalized

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...
Udel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 319 times Debate No: 92072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Udel

Pro

I will begin my arguments in the next round. Thanks and good luck.
LatinaGirl8894

Con

I think that marijuana should stay illegal. Arguments will be presented in the nest round.
Debate Round No. 1
Udel

Pro

The government recognizes a woman's right to choose when it comes to her own body, so it should recognize a person's right to smoke pot if they so choose. Smoking pot causes minimal harm and only affect one's self. If one smokes pot from a vaporizer, virtually all physical harm is eliminated.

http://www.iflscience.com...

Marijuana is safer than alcohol which is legal. Alcohol causes more destruction to the self and has worse repercussions for society. Driving while intoxicated from alcohol is worse than driving under the influence of marijuana.

https://www.mpp.org...

In fact marijuana is known to have peaceful effects, not harmful or violent effects.

http://bigthink.com...

If someone does not harm another person, their actions should be legal. Criminalizing pot smokers gives people an arrest record which costs them thousands of dollars in legal fees, and interferes with their ability to find jobs. A lot of people smoke pot and these people do not deserve to be criminals. Police arrest someone for pot once every 51 seconds. These laws do not deter smokers because smokers know it is not harmful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Pot has a lot of medicinal and social benefits. It reduces pain and anxiety, and helps people be more creative and social.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://greenflowermedia.com...

http://herb.co...

The effects of pot don't last long and do not impair people significantly.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Legalizing pot would add so much revenue to government funds. Taxing pot and legalizing the sale has generated billions of dollars in states where it has been legalized, without throwing society into chaos or danger.

http://norml.org...

In fact Colorado raised more tax money from weed than alcohol, which was part toward a lot of helpful government programs like schools.

http://time.com...
LatinaGirl8894

Con

People who smoke pot are indeed hurting people. Themselves. Should we make it easier to harm themselves? That just seems stupid to me.
Debate Round No. 2
Udel

Pro

Con has not proven that people who smoke pot are hurting themselves. I explained that you can minimize most of the physical harms, and I have also shown that pot has a lot of medicinal benefits that help them as well.

Con says we should not make it easy for people to harm themselves. People can harm themselves and their health by eating junk food. Obesity is on the rise and killing people but we do not criminalize junk food.

http://www.cdc.gov...

Con's opinion does not matter in this debate. She has to use facts and so far she has not.
LatinaGirl8894

Con

LatinaGirl8894 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
My RFD: Pro's arguments were about marijuana is safer than alcohol, which is legal, so it should be legal too, and many other arguments, and provided lot's of sources. Con does not rebuttal any of this, the only thing he says is, "People who smoke pot are indeed hurting people. Themselves. Should we make it easier to harm themselves? That just seems stupid to me." Pro rebuts by saying you can minimize most harms by his argument on it, and that junk food, and many other things can harm you, not only marijuana. This rebuts Con's arguments. Con fails to even touch Pro's arguments, and forfeits. Therefore, arguments to Pro, and conduct to Pro because of the forfeit. Vote Pro/
Posted by corporealbeing 12 months ago
corporealbeing
This is something I can totally agree with.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
UdelLatinaGirl8894Tied
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 Checkmark1 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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by bearski 11 months ago
bearski
UdelLatinaGirl8894Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Better conduct: Pro wins this by default as Con forfeits the final round. More convincing argument and Most Reliable Sources: I will put these together. Pro wins both of them. Pro presents a number of solid arguments and backs them up well with links to sources. Pro makes good arguments but it was not without its flaws. Several of the linked sources are questionable as to their objectivity and Pro could have made more compelling arguments in my opinion. But and this is important Con fails to challenge any of it Con posts merely a vague general statement opposing pot on the grounds it harms people. But fails to offer anything to support it. I closing Con fails not only to support her own position but fails to challenge several flaws in Pro's argument This is not part of my decision as it would not have been in Con's interest to bring it up but I thought Pro might have had a more compelling analogy with tobacco than the one used with alcohol