The Instigator
drosenbloom18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Marijuana should be legalized in the United States

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 5 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 487 times Debate No: 61835
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

drosenbloom18

Pro

I will open my argument with two main contentions.

Contention One: The resources used to enforce Marijuana are wasteful. "According to Miron, legalization will reduce the need for prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and police resource spending by approximately $7.7 billion " $13.7 billion per year." Far too many people go to jail for marijuana possession, a victimless crime.

Contention Two: Legalizing marijuana would benefit society. Aside from the money that would be saved, legalizing marijuana could generate 8.7 billion dollars in government revenue. This would also provide jobs, and significantly reduce the amount of people in prison, adding to the workforce.

http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org...
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for instigating this highly unique and interesting debate topic. I hope we can reach an understanding we have never reached before.

Now, onto my main point against the resolution.

My opponent has no laid out any definitions, so I shall take it upon myself to define what needs defining.

The only thing that really needs to be defined is the word should. The definition is "used in auxiliary function to express futurity from a point of view in the past." [1]

What it implies is that theres a course of action that can be taken which has not yet been taken. So if something should be done, then it cannot have already happened, because the course of action is not something that applies to the future and is not an action that can at present be taken.

I'd also like to point out that in the United States just implies that this course of action should happen in the United States of America.

Onto my main point: It should not happen, because it already has.

Marijuana is completely legal in Colorado and Washington.

It's decriminalized in Nebraska, Mississippi, Ohio, and North Carolina.

[2]

Therefore, it does not apply to the future, since in the United States, Marijuana has been legalized.

Thus, the resolution does not stand.

Thank you for reading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
drosenbloom18

Pro

I apologize that I did not clarify that this would apply nationwide. Should we continue this debate?
Jonbonbon

Con

Yes you did.

Now that you've basically conceded, we're probably done here.
Debate Round No. 2
drosenbloom18

Pro

drosenbloom18 forfeited this round.
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I would be all for that if they were to shut down any program that would treat them on taxpayer expense.Legal also should carry personal responsibility.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by a_mysterious_stranger 2 years ago
a_mysterious_stranger
drosenbloom18JonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, conceded, and had no sources. Con had sources, organized their argument, and had more of a convincing argument.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
drosenbloom18JonbonbonTied
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: concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
drosenbloom18JonbonbonTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
drosenbloom18JonbonbonTied
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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. For this I must award points to Con. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major mistakes in terms of spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Con was able to show the issues with Pro's contentions while also showing the fault with the resolution as a whole. Pro failed to provide rebuttals to the challenges raised by Con and thereby failed to maintain the BOP. For this, I award these points to Con. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources throughout this debate. Overall, this was a solid win for Con.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
drosenbloom18JonbonbonTied
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 am confused here, I do not think the debaters agreed to a tie, if they did please inform me, and I shall remove my vote. Pro had the burden of proof here, as he is both affirming the resolution, and takes the Proposition point of view. I do not think that Con's argument of truism stands because when it is said: A, it is implied all A. However seeing how Pro never stated that I give arguments to Con. I would give Conduct to Pro, but he forfeited the debate which ties this regard to say the least. Happy to clarify this rfd.