Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use
Debate Rounds (5)
Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
This is how the debate will be layed out:
1st round: Acceptence only (anything more will be an automatic forfeit)!
2nd round: Opening argument / statement
3rd round: first round of counterarguments
4th round: Final counterarguments and closeing statement
Any violation to the setup will result in an automatic forfeit.
1. Logic: We already have far more dangerous drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol legalized. Did you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to consume a marijuana overdose? It, however, IS POSSIBLE to consume a dangerous alcohol or tobacco overdose. And if those two drugs are legalized and are more dangerous, and marijuana is banned, what kind of logic is that? If marijuana is not legal then neither should be many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana and are legal anyway.
2. Profit: When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone!
3. Choice: We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?
4. Prisons: Check out this data table:
- See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org......
As you can see, many people are being arrested for possesion of marijuana which is a NONVIOLENT crime. Isint prison a place for people who commited violent crimes? Why are we putting people in jail for doing something that is only going to be harmful for themselves in the long run - and not for innocent bystanders?
I rest my case for now and I am looking forward to your follow-up arguments ~ Sara :)
1. Marijuana, or cannabis, is a drug known by many to bring about feelings of relaxation and freedom from troubles. While this may be beneficial for medicinal use, the legalization of this drug can have drastic effects, both short-term and long-term, on the population of our society. While some of these issues may seem manageable, the detrimental influence they have on the life of a person as a whole are too great for the national government to overlook. Some of the physical effects of marijuana are listed below.
Short term effects:
- Distortion of the senses
- Impaired short-term memory
- Panic and anxiety attacks and feelings of paranoia
- Poor coordination and reduced reaction time
- Increased risk of cardiac problems due to increasing of heart rate
- Irritation of the throat and lungs
- Overall impaired sense of judgment
Long term effects:
- Increased susceptibility to illnesses which could prove to be fatal
- High risk of developing a form of mental illness, including but not limited to depression, schizophrenia, and psychosis
- Strongly reduces libido and the production of sex hormones, thus decreasing the ability to conceive
- Overall reduced motivation and impaired ability to focus on, organize, and learn/retain information
- Destruction of lung fibers and the formation of lesions on the brain
- Growth disorders of the user or fetus inside a pregnant female user
I again emphasize that, although these symptoms of marijuana use may appear to be tolerable to some users, frequent use of the drug poses immense risks to each individual user. While use of marijuana will not lead to overdose or direct death, the consequences of using this drug can pose serious threats to the lives of users and others.
2. Among these threats is the unfortunate destruction of an individual's capacity to learn. Whether in school or on the job, learning is an integral part of life that helps to ensure our well-roundedness. Though the government may appreciate increased revenue due to a tax on marijuana sales, it would be unfortunate for the investment it puts into public education to go to waste due to ineffectiveness in marijuana users. This is not to say that every student who attends a public institution uses or will use marijuana; however, with its legalization, the increased access to it could be tempting for curious teens to experiment with. These teens will become the adults of tomorrow, the leaders who set an example for future generations; should many lack the motivation to create a better world, it is not only the individual users but society as a whole that will be affected by their choices.
In addition, in the workforce, oftentimes new regulations, processes, etc. are implemented that must be known and carried out in order to complete work appropriately and successfully. Should a frequent cannabis user arrive at work unable to comprehend/carry out these new implementations, depending upon the type of work, this could pose dangers for the clientele and coworkers, or the user him/herself, who could be laid off. This on a grander scale, as a result, would lead to a potential increase in the national unemployment rate, an event that the government would not like to see happen. A point to note: imagine you are in need of a crucial surgery and decide to have the operation done by a trusted, licensed surgeon. What if the surgeon went outside smoke some weed during the day and eventually returned to complete your surgery high and uncoordinated? Although this is a very specific situation, the moral behind this example can be applied in many a situation.
3. Although addiction to marijuana is not as common as is for other drugs (say, heroin or nicotine), it can not be deemed impossible. According to a 2013 study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, marijuana use accounted for an approximate 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million cases of drug dependency in the United States. So even if you, your buddies, or any other cannabis user you know has never been addicted, these statistics show irrefutable evidence that addiction has a likeliness to occur. And it is true that other such harmful drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legally sold and can benefit the economy, among all other products that are sold for economic profit. However, it is not unheard of for dependency on these drugs to lead users astray, which in some cases can lead to the destruction of relationships and loss of self-worth and happiness. It is human nature to look out for those close to us, and seeing what may occur as a result of using this substance, it is sensible for the government to want to protect its people from any impending harm.
4. Finally, as a part of my introductory argument, I believe that as Americans, we do have the right to choose what becomes of ourselves and what we believe is right and wrong. As a result, I accept all opinions and arguments from either side of this debate. I would just like to note that one of the main reasons our national government has prohibited legal marijuana use for all this time has been because it, in this sense, cares about the health and well-being of our people, as aforementioned. Although there are many citizens who could use marijuana responsibly and/or be lucky enough to suffer from no ill effects (the odds of which are not likely), there runs a great risk in legalizing a substance such as this which poses such consequences to the health, well-being, and character of the people and, as a result, the structure of our society - it is our choices today that influence the world tomorrow.
I too look forward to the rest of this debate. Again, I respect any and all opinions and do not mean to offend anyone with my views or presented data from trustworthy sources. Thanks!
Rebuttal for your reason 1) You left out all the good physical and health benefits of marijuana: It can be used to treat Glaucoma, It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health, It can help control epileptic seizures, It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome, A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, It may decrease anxiety, THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease,The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too, It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases, It relieves arthritis discomfort, It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism, It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder,While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain, Marijuana might be able to help with Crohn's disease,Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease, Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD, Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke, It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma, It can help eliminate nightmares, Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite, Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. ~BuisnessInsider.
Rebuttal for reason 2) When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone! We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?
Rebuttal for reason 3) But only 9% of people who experiment with marijuana before addicted.
Rebuttal for reason 4) Refer back to by first rebuttal in this round.
In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug.
As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse.
In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits.
It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to "promote the general Welfare" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as "the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who "promise it doesn't affect them."
Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :)
Thank you as well - I am fully aware that this is a debate about recreational marijuana. You make some very good points as well.
(Rebuttal for your first paragraph): I am fully aware of that. According to this map: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Hawaii are the only four states so far to legalize recreational marijuana. Pennyslvania, which is the state currently pending for legalization - used to not have it allowed at all. States such as: New York, Nevada, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Deleware, Conneticut, Rhode Island, and Massachussetts; all have marijuana decriminalized. Most other states have marijuana legal in some form or for a certain purpose. The only states who outright ban marijuana completely are: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Wyoming, Kansas, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennyslvania. That means that only 11/50 states are in SUPPORT of marijuana in some way, shape, or form. And many more states in 2015 are pending for legalization such as California and Pennsylvania (as mentioned). The point I am trying to make is that most states are in suppport of marijuana, and it is not just a random group of people who support it somewhere in the united states. "As Gallup shows, support for legalization is at 62 percent among adults under 30, 56 percent among those aged 30 to 49." This piece of evidence means that a majority of adults beliebe marijuana should be legalized.
(Rebuttal for second paragraph): While that may be true - over the counter drugs actually cause more fatalities then (more dangerous) drugs you have mentioned. I understand that this debate souly focuses on marijuana but take a look at this statistic:
This statistic shows how perscription drugs kill more people then a drug like marijuana would (you cannot overdose on marijuana, but it does kill like any other drug, when hollucinating and driving especially). Making marijuana legal would give people an OPTION to use it very often or not so, THE SAME CHOICE people make with prescription drugs. So what are we going to do? Ban over the counter drugs now? No, we cannot do that, and neither can we keep this from people as a choice (you stated how this argument was not for medical purposes, but this paragraph you mentioned was on that topic - I am becoming confused).
(Rebuttal for "responce to second rebuttal"): "In 2014, Colorado retailers sold $386 million of medical marijuana and $313 million for purely recreational purposes. The two segments of the market generated $63 million in tax revenue, with an additional $13 million collected in licenses and fees." ` so far from Colorado's legalization of the drug, they already made MILLIONS of dollars in sales of the drug - a tax profit of $76 million total. THAT IS ONE STATE ALONE. For theoretical purposes, lets pretend that all 50 states had it legalized and all made a $76 million dollar profit. That would generate a three billion eight hundred million dollar tax revenue to go towards drug rebab etc. This would COMPLETELY outweigh the cost needed for drug rehab - and the government will still make a profit in the end.
While that may be true, as you have mention, nuclear weapons are illegal because they can KILL soo many people if given to the wrong hands. They can affect INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. But marijuana cannot do that, it only effects the person consuming the drug and IN RARE CASES some of their peers - not killing hundreds of people at once for someone else's mistake. That is why the government has banned those kinds of weapons. As you have mentioned, the USA IS A FREE COUNTRY; and with freedom, comes freedom of choice. Think of ammendments such as 1, 11, etc. with freedom laws;(http://constitution.findlaw.com...).
(Rebuttal for final paragraph): Only 9% of people who try marijuana become addicted - that is a SMALL percentage compared to the 91% who do not get hooked. Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now. That is because the goverment is not going around making commertials saying; "Marijuana is soo cool, you should try it!" etc. The government would simply be dicriminalizing the drug and making it legal and NOT PROMOTING it in ANY WAY. Even though the government wants to protect us the best they can, we all know they cannot protect us from EVERYTHING, that is just common sense and logic. But giving people freedom of choice in another form (because there are so many in this country already), in my opinon, would be something to be thankful, happy, grateful, and supportive of (as you have mentioned yourself).
Now, to the rebuttals. The information you provide is interesting, yet given your data you mention that over-the-counter drugs cause more fatalities than some more highly lethal drugs, such as amphetamines. However, your data statistic proceeds to show that prescription drugs provoke more deaths than the listed street drugs. While this may contradict your first statement, I would also like to emphasize that medical marijuana itself, where legalized, is utilized as a prescription drug. If it were to comply with your data, this would make the drug more likely to cause death due to abuse than the listed illicit amphetamines.
In compliance with the central focus of this debate, however, I move onto my next rebuttal. You indicate in your argument that marijuana, when legalized and has a tax imposed upon it, would make revenue for the government nonetheless (in spite of your theoretical example). However, it's well-known that some of us as Americans at times aren't particularly fond of taxes. Consider the fact that, in the states that have currently legalized the recreational use of marijuana, the black markets are still currently thriving. In order to evade the tax imposed by legal sales, many drug dealers are continuing their business behind the backs of the laws. I invite you to read the following article, featured in the Colorado Springs-based Gazette:
Should these unauthorized sales continue, the legal economic foundation for recreational marijuana could topple, thus wasting efforts to secure and sell marijuana lawfully. As I have discussed in each of my previous arguments, there are far more feasible and fail-safe ways to ensure taxation, limit the breaking of law, and increase our government revenue - including those ways which are not harmful to our citizens.
I would also like to highlight a note from your argument that I found to be deeply concerning. It seems that from your stance the ability to pay completely for drug rehabilitation is of more importance than the prevention of people's needing of rehabilitation. As you noted yourself, marijuana use can absolutely lead to the need for drug rehabilitation. But if the main concern is not preventing the need, but paying for it, what has America come to in valuing the lives of its citizens?
This, precisely, is another reason why our government has not legalized cannabis on a national scale. Not only has the U.S. Food and Drug Administration not approved of marijuana as a safe substance, but given the undeniable consequences this drug has the potential to cause (which extend far beyond the user - think of their families, their friends, and all those who would be devastated by the injury, derangement, or death of a user), America has its right to take a stand to protect its citizens. Indeed, our country was founded on the basis of freedom; however, let us not forget that the creation of our first laws put the care and well-being of our citizens first. What would we be as a country if we did not watch out for one another? Do we want to risk everything that is at stake? As I have made clear, this issue affects people beyond the user in ways more than physical, and therefore the prohibition of legalizing this drug shows that our country cares about the lives and futures of our citizens, no matter who decides or how many people choose to use this drug. In backing this statement, I would also like to present to you this article, discussing the vulnerability of what you may refer to as "innocent bystanders"... young children who have no way of controlling the actions of their elders and therefore what they are exposed to.
These children are the next generation of our incredible society. When no choice is presented to them over what they are exposed to and therefore endangered by, this calls into serious question again whether marijuana influences only those who make the choice to use it.
On a closing note, I would also like to pinpoint one particular statement made in your final paragraph: "Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now." I would have to argue against this statement by bringing up the point that increased accessibility to the drug will in turn lead to more users getting their hands on it; with this increase comes the chance that more users will become addicted, thus influencing not only the statistic but also the amount of unfortunate repercussions that result on the population - both users and non-users, whether physically, mentally, spiritually, or in any afflictive way.
As I understand that in your set guidelines this debate is to consist of four rounds, I would like to rest my case with thanks to the Debate.org community for their listening ears (or reading eyes!) and to my opponent for an intriguing debate. I once again would like to say that I respect all opinions and have no personal bias on this matter - it is my goal, however, to educate the people on the true and often hidden negative outcomes that result from illicit drug use. For some people, they may seem "cool" to use or give you "a good time" - but there is so much more to life than wasting it away. Thank you!
Citations (including the earlier presented articles):
(rebuttal for "impacts americans"): If you are so strongly against the use of this drug because it effects other people - please explain how you jumped to that conclusion. If you are trying to say that it impacts innocent bystanders on the road for example if the person is driving stoned, you have a point. HOWEVER, then why is alcohol legal? Alcohol kills more people on the road then marijuana does - so unless you are willing to give up drinks then do not be so willing to ban marijuana when it is actually LESS DANGEROUS then drugs ALREADY LEGAL.
(rebuttal for "over the counter"): Techinaclly not, I reffered to over the counter drugs as prescription drugs for people that are ill or have issues. Marijuana does not fall into that category - legal or not. Marijuana does not kill people - it is IMPOSSIBLE to die from taking it yourself because it is IMPOSSIBLE to consume an overdose. So before you jump conclusions - prove to the viewers of this debate that marijuana is "utilized as a prescription drug," because it is not.
(rebuttal for "tax"): But how does what you presented have anything to do with this debate? It does not matter than some Americans are not fond of taxes because that is just the way our economy works - we buy something, we are taxed. That is COMPLETELY different subject, you might as well want to debate if we should ban taxes or not if you want to pull that card. There will be drug dealers either way - with marijuana legal or not legal. There will always be some type of drug that is not allowed and people sell illegally. That is just the world we live in - of course drug dealers are continuing to go behind the backs of our government. Becausr that is just what they do - wheither this drug is legal or not, there will always be a black market and illegal sales. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you will not make that argument again in a future debate.
(rebuttal for "rehabilitation"): I will not take back what I have stated because it does not contradict any of my arguments. America is suppost to be LAND OF THE FREE, A FREE COUNTRY. One of our freedoms is to CHOOSE what we want to do with OUR OWN BODIES. Why should the government try to stop us from making decisions that could effect us - they should just let us face the consequences. And even though America wants to protect its citizens - there are some things the country can just not protect us from - and drugs are one of them. If someone is addicted to a certain drug, he/she will find a way to get that drug weither it is legal or not legal - that is just the way it is. And currently you are not addressing the people who are already addicted to illegal drugs - making the drug legal or harder to get will NOT STOP THEM. If someone is addicted, they will do ANYTHING to obtain their craving/needs. So why go through all the trouble when the people with just get what they want in the end? It is a waste of time and money to keep funding people to stop others from consuming or selling / having possesion of the drug/s.
(rebuttal for "accessibility"): I will like to include a quote from J. Wesley Boyd, Harvard University, he answered the question: If marijuana is legalized, will addiction rates rise. Here was a PROFFESSIONAL'S responce: "I believe the answer is no. Despite these legitimate concerns, thus far there are no compelling data to suggest that drug use has increased in Colorado where recreational cannabis is currently legal. Even though it’s only recently that Colorado legalized marijuana, I don’t expect this to change going forward."
(Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate the effort you put into this debate as well).
Should this have been an honest mistake, I understand, and I will continue to provide my rebuttals to this bring this debate to a close.
First of all, I would like to begin with a response to your question: "If you are so strongly against the use of this drug because it affects other people - please explain how you jumped to that conclusion." Since this is a personal question, I will answer based on my opinion - to put it simply, I have a general care and concern for other people. It is my belief that each and every individual has a life worth valuing, and to watch out for and support others is a matter of utmost respect. I personally find it to be devastating when one person's use or misuse of a substance leads to the demise of themselves or another. Although this is my own personal belief which I do not mean to impose upon others, I answer your question with this response. This is why I have chosen to defend America's decision to watch out for its citizens - including said "innocent bystanders" - and therefore join in this debate.
As for the legality of alcohol, its imposition has been in place since the birth of the United States with a temporary pause during the Prohibition era from 1920-1933. It is common knowledge that direct alcohol overdose can be fatal, unlike marijuana; however, both can prove to be equally deadly in the indirect sense. We as a country have already experimented with the removal of alcohol from legality during those thirteen years of Prohibition, an affair that led to the repealing of the eighteenth amendment through the implementation of the twenty-first amendment of the Constitution. As history proves, the population did not respond well to the removal of a harmful and potentially addictive substance from legal acquisition. We can view Prohibition as a lesson, however, that when a substance so controlling and powerful is legalized, we could have a very difficult time reversing our actions should nationalized legalization create significant problems on a wider scale. Also, while alcohol may pose risks as a drug, adding marijuana to the list of potentially toxic substances lawfully available to the public will not resolve any problems in the health and lives of our citizens. Therefore, it is sensible to withhold the legalization of recreational cannabis use so as to not add to the current drug problem we have as a nation, rather than legalizing it just because "it is actually LESS DANGEROUS than drugs ALREADY LEGAL."
Also, although this strays from our central focus, I would like to remind you that over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription drugs are different types of pharmaceuticals with names that can not be used interchangeably. While OTC drugs can be purchased at one"s own will, prescription drugs require written consent from a medical doctor to be obtained - much like medical marijuana, which can only be obtained from a pharmacy with certified recommendation. If you"d like more distinction, feel free to explore this link: http://www.fda.gov...
It is through these solid facts that I "jump to my conclusions."
In response to your rebuttal on the tax issue, one could wonder, when following this debate closely, how the information I have presented is irrelevant to this debate. For those who did read through the article published by the Colorado Springs Gazette, they could have gained some insight in the sense that taxation on marijuana may not have so much a desired effect as you proposed in Round 4. If you think this is an unrelated "card I want to pull," you have the right to believe that, yet I believe it backs my statements appropriately.
In addition, I would like to invite you to refer back to my previous rebuttals in which I firmly state that yes, America is indeed a country founded upon the basis of freedom - even yet, however, this country cares for all citizens, including those afflicted by others" drug use. The government may not be able to protect us from all harm, that is true, but it will do whatever it can in its power to ensure our welfare. This governmental body will not jeopardize this right to protect its people; after all, I repeat, it is not only the users of this drug who face its negative repercussions. Call to mind again the "innocent bystanders" - including, but not limited to, the victims of vehicular crashes instigated by hallucinating marijuana users; the young children of cannabis users with no control over what they are exposed to; the emotionally traumatized friends and family of deranged users; and all others impacted by the free use of cannabis by people other than themselves. Yes, this may be what you consider "freedom," but I believe the idea of personal freedom you have in mind contrasts starkly with that of the Founding Fathers, whose ideals of freedom rested with assurance that all citizens should have the right to life. So, in response to your question of "Why should the government try to stop us from making decisions that could affect us - they should just let us face the consequences," I continue to stand firm in my response that this is not what we stand for as an American nation. Again, I reassure you that it is not only the direct users of this drug who are afflicted by its use, and the government does not wish to add to the problem by jeopardizing its people even more than currently so.
On a further note, it is interesting to hear about this one, single professional who believes that addiction rates would not rise should marijuana be legalized nationally. Not only is this intriguing because this one man, whose quote was unfairly taken without a cited source, is so confident in his views, which could very well be true; however, it is also fascinating, as one man"s views do not reflect the entirety of a population of experts who may believe otherwise. In addition, I invite you to take a look at this article that questions the trustworthiness of the very professional you have quoted, J. Wesley Boyd: http://www.thecrimson.com...
Now that our final rebuttals have been made, it is once again time for me to express my thanks and leave those following this debate with one final task - to give their vote. I welcome any and all feedback you would like to give - I truly appreciate it! Thanks so much, and here's to our great nation. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, who has been known to plagerize, has plagerised a large portion of her 3rd round argument from here (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4) Which mind you, wasn't cited. As a result Pro automatically forfeits all 7 points to Con!
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.