The Instigator
Hano
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Marijuana should be legal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 15723
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

Hano

Pro

Studies has shown that smoking marijuana doesn't harm you as much as alcohol. We still see teenagers holding a bottle of vodka passed out of their minds and looking the other way we see two people sharing some marijuana, the two people are relaxed and has not crossed the precipice of where you are wasted out of your mind, the teenager holding a vodka is sleeping on the sidewalk, the teenagers precipice was crossed when he/she started to drink.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

My opponent claims that Marijuana "Should" be legal; should indicates an ideological change to the status quo; i.e. "You should go to bed" or "the other canidate should have won" Point being that the only burden of proof I have is to show why my opponent is wrong, I do no need to make a case for why marijuana is bad or shoud be Illegall

That said, let us examine my opponent's argument;
First; My opponent makes no clarification of the realm of legality that marijuana will be legal. Are we to assume then that we will be allowing kindergarten children to now legally smoke marijuana dunring recess?

Second; My opponent tries to make marijuana seem good by making it sound less harmful than another vice (Alcohol) however we already know that alcohol is bad, thus he really makes no positive case for marijuana and we have no reason to legalize it.

Finally; my opponent paint this scene that all teenager are raging alcoholics; this is strictly untrue, especially since my opponent provides no evidence to prove this thus they lose any and all imopact to their claim

Vote Con :D
Debate Round No. 1
Hano

Pro

Okay, first of all I know for a fact that there is a lot of teenagers drinking but I have not said that they are raging alcoholics, I have also not said that we should let kindergarten children to smoke weed, I am merely pointing out that if we as a society allow people to drink alcohol why not let the people smoke weed too? I paint this scene because I have seen it with my own eyes.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for his responses!

As of round two-

First; There is still no warrant be it logical or empirical;

Second; my opponent relies entirely on pathos based appeals, which have no place in this kind of debate.

Third; the extent of my opponent' reasoning is his personal experience. Thus it is invalid as it can neither be proven, and it will be biased towards his own opinion

Fourth; the moment my opponent paints the scene of teenagers being raging alcoholics, he considers then thus, and by attempting to retract this statement, he completely and utterly loses all impact any impact he could have hoped for.

Thus I conclude this round in the same way as prior, you have no reason to vote Pro; thus you must vote Con.

Thank you, Vote Con please :D
Back to pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Hano

Pro

You have to be more realistic, right now what you are saying is surreal, teenagers smoke weed, teenagers drink. Only one of them are legal at the right age.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Still no warrant, or empirical evidence from my opponent to prove their claim!
Vote Con, as pro has give no reason to vote or them!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by System113 6 years ago
System113
Well it's sure made for an exciting debate.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Debate i better than that.
Posted by System113 6 years ago
System113
Haha, what better than mindless bickering?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
With-out having aburden of proof, there is no arguing; it's only mindless bickering.
Posted by System113 6 years ago
System113
I hate this burden of proof crap. Just have an argument, honestly.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
This should be a good debate hello-orange is an awesome debater, so I hope that it is interesting
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't even try to refute con's points
Vote Placed by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I did not believe it could be within the realm of possibility to lose a debate on drug legalization, since every single study and statistic ever compiled on the matter always shows that those who are for legalization are right. However, I have been proven wrong.
Vote Placed by lliwill 6 years ago
lliwill
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: No matter how much i'm swayed on way or another, Hano, that was a bad, bad debate, I wish someone else had done this debate and actually put up a fight.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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: "I have also not said that we should let kindergarten children to smoke weed" - I am pretty sure that at least one did. This was a slaughter. "my opponent paint this scene that all teenager are raging alcoholics" - only the fun ones
Vote Placed by PervRat 6 years ago
PervRat
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made few arguments, but at least his grammar wasn't as bad as Con's. The debate was not even clearly defined (legal as in completely unregulated? or just allowed with restrictions like cigarettes or alcohol?)
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never provided an actual argument, nor sources. The style of argument that Pro provided seems like it would be better suited on the forums, than a limited round debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought no logical or empirical evidence to show that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and also did not show that even if marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol that that means it should be legal.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No warrants from aff, thus I default neg
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Lack of warrants and effort from pro.
Vote Placed by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
HanoBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Con because Pro provided no warrants at all, just "I know for a fact." That is not evidence and mustn't be evaluated.