The Instigator
AdventurerExplorer
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Marijuana should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 3 votes the winner is...
usernamesareannoying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,137 times Debate No: 76265
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

AdventurerExplorer

Pro

I hope to have a fun and a knowledgeable debate with anyone who is willing to debate me on this issue. First round will be acceptance of the debate and the 2nd round will be the beginning arguments. Good Luck! :)
usernamesareannoying

Con

I accept. Please begin with your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
AdventurerExplorer

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate :).
I will give a list of reasons why marijuana should be legalized and then explain then later on in my argument
So Number 1: It Restricts Personal Freedom
One of the fundamental human rights is the right to do what you want with your own body and using drugs in no exception to that right. The Government people live under is judged on how it governs its citizenry and a number 1 indicator that a government is turning tyrannical and bad is that it starts going after personal liberty's that the common human gets to enjoy. In the land of the free the government should not be going after choices that people make with there own lives like smoking a plant. Going after choices the citizen wants to do and restricting it is a sign of tyranny and bad government meddling in peoples lives.
Number 2: Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal
Marijuana has been proven by numerous scientific study's to be way less harmful then cigarettes or alcohol
Here are some articles that talk about it
http://themindunleashed.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.iflscience.com...
Why should the government allow drugs that are worse and more deadly but strictly control something that isnt as deadly?
Number 2: Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse
Like all of the prohibitions before it the drug prohibition has been a complete disaster , has destroyed many family's and lives, destroyed many freedoms humans used to be able to enjoy. History is repeating itself, We tried to prohibit alcohol (Which is worse than marijunana) and look what happened? the same things we see today. Rise in use of illegal drugs http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Rise in organized crime and criminal gangs
http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Also legalizing would hurt these drug cartels and lower crime in general
https://news.vice.com...
and many other effects that were also a result from the alcohol prohibition which can be found at the link below http://www.patheos.com...
Thank you for going over my arguments, cant wait to see the reply :). Good Luck!
usernamesareannoying

Con

Prologue

I thank my opponent for instigating this argument. I believe that Pro has the full burden of proof, as he is making a claim against the status quo. However, I will provide contentions of my own. And just to prevent unwanted semantics, I will provide a denotation for 'marijuana':

"
the dried leaves and female flowers of the hemp plant, used in cigarette form as a narcotic or hallucinogen." (1)

NEG
C1 Cancer

Scientific studies have come to the consensus that marijuana is a carcinogen viz. it causes cancer. It has proven to be a difficult assertion to conclude, however Cancer Research UK have deduced that it modifies the p53 gene. Please observe:

"One of these carcinogens is benzyprene. Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene
. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers." (2)
Moreover, Jann Gumbiner, Ph.D., who is a licensed psychologist and clinical professor at the University of California (3) came to a similar rendition:

"one of the most potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke, benzo(α)pyrene, is present in even greater amounts in marijuana smoke"

These two sources are ratified by (5)(6)(7).

All in all, I have presented a preponderance of evidence that marijuana causes cancer.


C1 Health Detriments

Not only does marijuana cause cancer, it also causes countless health detriments.

"research shows that approximately 20% of regular pot smokers (and it only takes 3 to 4 joints a day) complain of chronic bronchitis, coughing and excess mucus" (8)

In comparison to smoking, marijuana smokers inhale "5 times the amount of absorption of carbon monoxide and four to five times more tar being retained in the lungs." (4)

It modifies the brain: " studies show structural changes in brain regions such as the nucleus accumbens after exposure to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabino" (9)

"We collected high-resolution MRI scans on young adult recreational marijuana users and nonusing controls and conducted three independent analyses of morphometry in these structures: (1) gray matter density using voxel-based morphometry, (2) volume (total brain and regional volumes), and (3) shape (surface morphometry). Gray matter density analyses revealed greater gray matter density in marijuana users than in control participants in the left nucleus accumbens extending to subcallosal cortex, hypothalamus, sublenticular extended amygdala, and left amygdala, even after controlling for age, sex, alcohol use, and cigarette smoking. Trend-level effects were observed for a volume increase in the left nucleus accumbens only. Significant shape differences were detected in the left nucleus accumbens and right amygdala. The left nucleus accumbens showed salient exposure-dependent alterations across all three measures and an altered multimodal relationship across measures in the marijuana group. These data suggest that marijuana exposure, even in young recreational users, is associated with exposure-dependent alterations of the neural matrix of core reward structures and is consistent with animal studies of changes in dendritic arborization. "(9)

Marijuana is known to cause:

"rapid heart beat, disorientation, lack of physical coordination, often followed by depression or sleepiness. Some users suffer panic attacks or anxiety." (10)

High potency cannabis contributes to phsychosis (11).

It can cause depression: "an association exists between early exposure coupled with continued use into adult life and increased incidence of MDD in adulthood."(12)

"Marijuana overactivates parts of the brain that contain the highest number of these receptors. This causes the "high" that users feel. Other effects include:
  • altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
  • altered sense of time
  • changes in mood
  • impaired body movement
  • difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
  • impaired memory" (13) (14)

s://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net...; alt="Image of a cross section of the brain with marked areas that are affected by THC." />

It lowers the IQ of children: "people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing cannabis use disorder lost an average of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities did not fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults." (15)

Users also report less academic and career success. For example, marijuana use is linked to a higher likelihood of dropping out of school (16). It is also linked to more job absences, accidents, and injuries. (17)


Conclusion

I have displayed that marijuana causes cancer, and poses as a serious health detriment to its users. I have presented a cumbersome amount of evidence why marijuana posits bad health effects, and why it should remain banned is axiomatic. I ask voters to keep in perspective that Pro is the one to show that despite these health risks marijuana should be legalized.

AFF
A1 Restricts personal freedom

We could argue that all laws restrict personal freedom, and that no laws should remain. My opponent argues that governments become tyrannical by restricting the people's freedom, but this logic could be used to eradicate virtually all laws in existence.

A2 Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal
The first source my adversary uses to corroborate this assertion commits the "appeal to extremes fallacy". It deduces that:
"when it comes to the likelihood of a person dying due to consuming a lethal dose". Therefore, marijuana is only safer in special situations -- when a person consumes too much of either substance, alcohol is more dangerous. This is an appeal to extremes fallacy, as it is only synthesized upon a person consuming too much... Bare in mind, too much of anything is bad.

The second source constructs its pretenses upon the: "lethality of the recreational use of 10 common drugs". Lethality is only one variable. I have shown marijuana to pose serious health detriments to its users.

Likewise, the third source does the same: "Using a novel method to measure the risk of mortality associated..." Mortality is only one variable.

Nevertheless, even if Pro's affirmations are correct in every possible aspect, he presents a false dichotomy. His logic is that the only outcome should be that if marijuana is safer than other drugs, then it should be legalized. No. This isn't the only possible rendition. His logic could equally present an argument in which marijuana is still illegal, but he is trying to make the other drugs illegal. He must present why the first outcome takes precedence.

A3 Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse
How so? Pro's logic is that because marijuana is often purchased illegally then it should be legalized to reduce illegal purchasing. That logic can be used to legalize every illicit drug, including cocaine, methamphetamine etc.

He opines that legalizing it would "hurt these drug cartels and lower crime in general". I agree, it would hurt drug cartels. But notice, it wouldn't completely eradicate them. They would still exist. Marijuana is only one drug that they sell, along with many others. And as far as crime goes, only one source you presented mentioned it, and it says: "“Prohibition made the gangster not just well paid, but well liked,” McWilliams said. It took significant organization to bootleg the quantities of alcohol people desired. The result was organized crime, which didn’t differentiate between petty crimes like transporting liquor and real crimes like violence, murder, and theft." This doesn't really conclude that legalizing marijuana would create a safer environment for people.





Sources in comments

Debate Round No. 2
AdventurerExplorer

Pro

It Seems to me that the main reasons my opponent wants to keep the status quo of keeping marijuana criminalized and his reasons as he states, are that it affects the mental/physical health of the user. To demonstrate why this logic fails i will provide a few reason's why we need to ban Alcohol, Tobacco, or anything that might cause danger to the person or to the people around him. As we know these things are legal and as i demonstrate before some are even worse than marijuana for example in this website herehttps://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com... which shows whats in a marijuana smoke and a cigarette smoke and compares them and it shows that cigarettes are worse.
As we all know anything we do has negative side effects, So by my opponents logic should we ban everything? I think everyone will say that's illogical. Now, unlike some things that are legal and have negative side effects
here are some things that marijuana does not do
1. It is less additive then most other drugs and is less addictive then alcohol a legal drug!. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
2. marijuana has a WAY less death rate than any other drug plus in the video i send which is below the links below it tells more on the "Death rate" of marijuana
http://archive.saferchoice.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://healthimpactnews.com...
Here is also a video on marijuana which i think you might enjoy
https://www.youtube.com...
Also Marijuana has many... wait for it. Health Benefits!.
http://www.businessinsider.com...

So i might concede that some studies show that marijuana does cause some health problems which i can agree with but i say that the drugs we have legal now are worse than this new plant that we are going to legalize.

Next i am going to use some of Con's logic to argue for to make alcohol and tobacco illegal
We know that these two drugs are bad and as i pointed out worse than marijuana but here is the evidence
http://www.marksdailyapple.com...
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...
http://girlshealth.gov...
Keep in mind these things are legalized!. I'm sure most people have taken a drink once in a while and have never got problems and they drink responsibly and the amount that do get addicted get worse than someone who somehow gets addicted to marijuana. Im pretty sure all of you voters who have drank aren't real criminals and you were just doing it for fun and most of you aren't dependent on alcohol right?

I will also bring out more arguments for the legalization of marijuana and the determent's of the "Drug war"
First of all many articles explain a lot of effects that the drug war has in general and i will go into detail on one or two of them depending if i can write more before the character limit
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.tni.org...
http://www.alternet.org...
The Major thing i want to add for the legalization of marijuana is the rise in prison effects and how we are making the situation even worse than it already is
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.drugwarfacts.org...
http://law.jrank.org...
I find it funny that in order for the government to save the people from doing something to themselves and ruining there lives, we will throw them in jail! then we will save there lives.... oh wait!. Also as the Con side showed the main reason to keep it illegal is because of the health effects and we need to save people from themselves but we need to ruin there lives with criminal chargers which will make them, not get a job, get inspected more by police, cast into prison, etc etc where he could be exposed to more lethal drugs and not getting a job or getting a criminal record leads to more drug use which makes the situation worse than it already was and makes the goal of the whole "war of drugs" pointless. Rising prison populations are now creating huge financial burdens to the united states and it even shows in the articles above, that states spend more on prisons than they do on higher education. Now what stops people from trying drugs in the first place? Threat of force and imprisonment? which makes it exciting to teenagers to use since there in there rebellious phase? or education where we talk to them and show them the effects and what they might bring if they try the drugs.

I will lastly counter the points he made to my arguments

1. Saying that the only freedom we can have is without any laws is ludicrous we are social animals and as a group we sacrifice some rights for the benefit of the group but the real question is how many rights should we sacrifice in order to make a happy society? If we go by Con's logic we should restrict everything and become fascist in order to maintain a good society even though all of the things that get banned are done in the black market and always create more real crime and create more gangs and it is not regulated at all.
2. It seems to me that Con thinks that people cant smoke marijuana as responsible adults and if you take a little bit of something like alcohol it can have some health benefits and as i showed earlier marijuana if used properly does have medical benefits as well. and Con might say (despite marijuana being more safe than alcohol) What if they take a lot? and i would say back the same logic, What about taking too much alcohol which i showed before causes more harm to the user and the community around him, So should we ban alcohol? No we shouldn't and we have before and it failed and made the situation even worse and history is repeating itself with this "Drug War" I'm not saying all drugs should be illegal in fact most drugs should be legal but the question is, Is it worth the damages it brings? and as we learned from trying to ban alcohol no it wasn't worth it and we now realize that we made a mistake in trying to prohibit marijuana
3. The number of drugs cartels use is 30% marijuana http://www.insightcrime.org... Now a case might be made that as markets change they might switch to something more in demand and legal but the reason why cartels use marijuana is because there's a demand for them mostly because marijuana is the 3rd most popular drug in america http://norml.org... and as we see around us cartels are bringing the violence and rise in organized crime and creating a bigger violent crime rate because of this but you don't see another al capone buying out politicians and creating street gang wars and you know why? because alcohol is legal!.

Thank you for reading over my debate :), cant wait for the response!
usernamesareannoying

Con

Neg
Pro drops all contentions I have presented.


My opponent's argument can be depicted with the following syllogism:

P1: If marijuana is safer than already legal drugs, then it should be legal
P2: Marijuana is safer than already legal drugs
C: Marijuana should be legal

I will contend that:
1) This doesn't properly affirm the resolution
2) Pro has not proven the syllogism to be sound

This doesn't properly affirm the resolution

Pro takes a false stance; if alcohol etc. is as bad as Pro postulates, then it should be banned; it should not be an indicator that marijuana (a drug that causes phsychosis, depression, cancer, changes in brain formation etc.) should be legal. It should be an indicator that the substances that are more harmful than marijuana should be illegal as well. This is under the pretense that a person's health is in our best interests viz. we should illegalize harmful substances rather than allow the public to have more access to harmful substances.

This contention is synthesized upon a possibility that the syllogism is sound.

Pro has not proven this syllogism to be sound

Pro postulates the following: " As we know these things are legal and as I demonstrate before some are even worse than marijuana for example in this website herehttps://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com...... which shows what's in a marijuana smoke and a cigarette smoke and compares them and it shows that cigarettes are worse."

He states that his source concludes that cigarette smoke is worse? I disagree. What the source really says is that: "Marijuana does contain more tar than tobacco". Nowhere else in the source is there a comparison. Although, if Pro wants to compare smoke, this source states: "Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke." and "One major research study reported that a single cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five regular cigarettes smoked one after another." (1)

Ergo, Pro has not demonstrated that marijuana is safer than cigarettes.

He opines that it is less addictive than other drugs, which I am fine with. I'd say that RPG launchers are 'less addictive' than alcohol, ergo, the public should be free to purchase them whenever they want.

He says that marijuana has a lower death rate than already legal drugs. This is concluded under misleading pretenses; the studies cited compare marijuana to deaths caused by 'overdosing'. Overdosing on something is due to carelessness of the consumer; if we were to compare the average detriments of each, you would find that marijuana poses more of a risk. They also compare annual deaths of each, this is misleading as in comparison there is a vast difference in average users. Remember, marijuana is an illicit drug and there is an infinitesimal amount of users in comparison to regular alcohol drinkers. This is a poor comparison as numbers are too spread out, which only leads to a conclusion of low cogency and poor veracity.

The next source my opponent cites only lists reasons for medical benefits, which would be more suited to a specific resolution; this is debate is broad and infers legalization for everyone. Not just under specific circumstances.

Pro then returns to justify that marijuana is safer than tobacco and alcohol let's examine the sources:

The first source's negatives were mainly based upon heavy drinkers... It was a balanced report which recommended users to drink in moderation because of the vast health benefits. It's up to the voters whether they believe this matches to the dropped accounts of sheer health detriments that I proposed earlier.

All of the negatives asserted in the second source are synthesized whether a user "drinks too much" viz. the problems will be avoided if one does not overindulge in it. As said previously, this would be an appeal to extremes fallacy it is a person's own foolishness that would cause them to consume so much alcohol to even begin to have the problems listed.

The third source targets tobacco (I am very much against tobacco nonetheless). I will summarise the negatives:
  • Causes gum disease
  • Causes respiratory problems
  • Causes dry, yellow skin
  • Increases heart rate and pressure
  • Nicotine is very addictive
  • Makes your muscles ache
  • Causes lung cancer

Almost all of these problems also occur in marijuana, and even more: phsychosis, deformation of the brain, lowers IQ, causes a higher likelihood of dropping out of school, laziness, mood swings, impaired memory, depression, panic attacks and anxiety, consumes 5 times more carbon monoxide and tar than cigs and many of the bullet pointed information.


Which drug causes more problems is evident.

Pro still fails to demonstrate that marijuana is safer than already legal drugs.

Ergo, I have shown that Pro's has not proven his argument to be sound, and I have demonstrated that even if it is, it is a strawman of the resolution.

Aff

Misc

"As we all know anything we do has negative side effects, So by my opponents logic should we ban everything?"

I am using alcohol and tobacco as a benchmark or 'the bar' so to speak to compare marijuana to. My logic is that, if it poses to have more negatives than positives, it should remain illegal.

"Next I am going to use some of Con's logic to argue for to make alcohol and tobacco illegal"

Whether the two should be illegal is irrelevant to this resolution. You say this as if making either illegal is an unfounded, preposterous idea maybe they should?


A1 Restricts personal freedom

Pro states that his logic is not cogent, but "the real question is how many rights we should sacrifice in order to make a happy society". I am not sure, although this is not my burden to fulfill. You cannot make an exception when it's a law that you want legalized. Freedom is a red herring to this debate.



A2 Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal

Pro makes a dubious claim saying that marijuana has medical benefits (which it does) but only in special circumstances. Circumstances which the average person would not have diseases like glaucoma, Alzheimer's etc. the rest has been refuted elsewhere in my response.


A3 Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse

Pro coins the notion that cartels sell marijuana 30% of the time. No evidence has been proposed how the legality would burden these cartels, nor decrease crime rate.


A4 War on Drugs

My opponent effectively states that the war on drugs exacerbates numerous problems, and that prisons are already overcrowded.

"I find it funny that in order for the government to save the people from doing something to themselves and ruining there lives, we will throw them in jail!"

I don't see the irony. Pro makes an incongruous claim stating that it is prudent to legalize marijuana, because it is unfair on the people who are arrested from selling and consuming the illicit drug illegally. Such an interesting stance, although if the logic were to be applied elsewhere, it would be deemed as ludicrous and unfeasible. They chose to break the law. Just because prisons are overcrowded we should not give leeway to those who decide to break the law. While we are at it, we should legalize theft, rape and murder; that ought to tackle prison overcrowding.

"but we need to ruin there lives with criminal chargers which will make them, not get a job, get inspected more by police, cast into prison"

The chose to take that risk when they sell or consume something that is illegal. Should we give sympathy to those who steal, rape or murder as well?

" which makes it exciting to teenagers to use since there in there rebellious phase?"

If teenagers feel as if they can break the law, then they ought to feel the repercussions of breaking the law as well.

(1) http://www.drugfreeworld.org...



Debate Round No. 3
AdventurerExplorer

Pro

This is a concluding statement which i will summarize my arguments and debunk some points my opponent makes to counter me.
One thing i will say is that i agree with Con that taking dangerous stuff in your life should be avoided, I have not ever smoked any drugs and i have never drank before however some people choose different life choices, Why should we outlaw different life choices? Should we ban Gay marriage? Sources indicate that having anal sex causes more STD's in fact having sex at all can cause STD's a health problem, And health is Con's only argument against the legalization of marijuana so should we ban sex?. He still fails as too why certain things that are bad to us are legal and some aren't and i make the point that marijuana is safer than alcohol or cigarettes which i send sources on other link's earlier in this debate. To make it easier for Con i know of a unbiased health video which looks at the data and "Should Marijuana be legal"?
https://www.youtube.com...
This video shows why marijuana is less harmful than the drugs already legal which is what Con wanted since he said my points aren't valid until it is so here it is.

Next Con doesn't seem to be afraid of people drinking yet as i showed it has less health benefits than marijuana
http://www.businessinsider.com... Where as alcohol has NONE, zip benefits to health and yet millions of people drink regulatory and responsibly. Con has failed to show that alcohol which can cause serious effects ought be banned but marijuana which has health benefits and people can use responsibly like alcohol ought be kept illegal. Here is something comparing alcohol to marijuana http://www.mpp.org... But yet NO ONE is calling for making alcohol illegal, and im pretty sure the millions if not billions of people who use alcohol aren't criminals? Or, according to con "maybe they should?".

Now im betting the only thing Con can say which he hinted at earlier is that, Why not ban every single drug? i can say lets ban junk food with that logic but i wont. Instead i will note that we tried banning alcohol before... AND IT BACKFIRED. So as we don't learn from the past, the prohibition or the modern day "war on drugs" is giving us the same effects as prohibition. Here are some links showing why going after marijuana is doing more harm than good.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.patheos.com...
http://www.pbs.org...

Now Con has still failed to show why millions of innocent people should be locked up for many years of there life, They broke a law? They might of hurt themselves? (even though marijuana might even help them) and if they take marijuana we will throw them into prison where there health will really get worse (So much for the health argument Con brought up).

Also Con has failed to show arguments against why the mere health or "Dangers" of it which i have shown to be little to almost none should be outlawed, Why should health be a factor to it? and further he needs to provide why certain acts of freedom need to be suppressed in this society. As i have shown the criminal hunt for marijuana users has done more damage to society than weed has in general and Con has said that people sacrifice freedoms in order to live in a society because there behavior causes a determent to that society but now with data showing how it is worse to go on with this "Drug war" than to just make it legal the question shows. Why should we keep keeping this drug illegal?. Plus Con has to show why freedom is less relevant than the mere health of society. Some libertarians argue that freedom is the most important thing and that the only thing the government is there for is to maintain order and that's it. Why not go after that political philosophy, what is so bad about it? Con needs to show why that certain political view point shouldn't be followed.

Now he is arguing that it is fair to lock up people for doing a victim less crime (Which he needs to provide why we need to keep victim less crimes illegal) Prisoners are there to keep people who will harm other people and keep them from acting on it again, it is not there to put people there just because they decided to do something to their own body. Now the logic Con brings up is that it was illegal and since they broke the law they deserve to be thrown in prisons, This holds the assumption that anything done against the law is immoral this is a dangerous philosophy known as "Legalism" which permits governments to do what they want to the people basically and Con needs to show why doing things against the law justifies putting them in prison. What if freedom of speech is outlawed? can you protest? or do you just let the government do what they want to you.

To summarize what i think should happen. Marijuana should be legal, regulated and taxed just like the drugs that are already legal. It will be put under the same restrictions as the drugs already are, (18+, No Smoking while driving, etc). Legalize Marijuana and Vote Pro for freedom and a common sense and better way to tackle drug use.
"The number one tool to fix something is education" Common sense education and help centers are how we are going to defeat this drug problem!
So vote Pro!
usernamesareannoying

Con

Neg

The Syllogism

Last round I presented a syllogism that asserts the following:
  1. Pro's argument is irrelevant to the resolution (cannot in any circumstance fulfill his burden of proof)
  2. Even if it did complete the first point, he hasn't done it correctly.

The first point was completely dropped. Ergo, Pro concedes its veracity. By not attempting to refute this syllogism, I need not touch upon Pro's argument at all, as Pro assumes the whole burden of proof, and Pro effectively just stated that he cannot fulfill it.

Although, I will refute the rest of Pro's argument regardless out of decency. :)

Aff

A1 Restricts personal freedom

"Why should we outlaw different life choices? Should we ban Gay marriage? Sources indicate that having anal sex causes more STD's in fact having sex at all can cause STD's a health problem, And health is Con's only argument against the legalization of marijuana so should we ban sex?"


This is unsourced material, and in pragmatic reality, it does not affirm what Pro thinks it does. Gay marriage does not necessarily entail sex. Sex does not cause STD's you can catch diseases from having sex. Not all sex entails one getting STDs. This is an invalid analogy on many levels.

"He still fails as too why certain things that are bad to us are legal and some aren't and i make the point that marijuana is safer than alcohol or cigarettes which i send sources on other link's earlier in this debate."


This is moving the goalposts. This was never my argument at all. Pro is the debater which must prove that despite the health risks of marijuana, it should be legal. I must not defend the decision that it is already illegal only prove that Pro doesn't have enough tangible evidence to prove that marijauna should be legal.

" Some libertarians argue that freedom is the most important thing and that the only thing the government is there for is to maintain order and that's it. Why not go after that political philosophy, what is so bad about it? Con needs to show why that certain political view point shouldn't be followed."


If you believe personal freedom is "the most important thing" you must explain why that is. You cannot ask the opposer to refute it for you; this is shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

A2 Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal

Pro opines that this source supersedes the countless sources posted by myself in the opening round. The YouTube video presents some pros and cons for the drug, and it does not come to the consensus that it is safer than the already legalized drugs. It does not mention a copious sum of the aforementioned health detriments that I demonstrated marijuana to have. Since this plethora was not touched upon in the video, it only conveys that the source has poor rectitude. Hence, this source does not indicate that marijuana is safer than already legalized drugs.

"Next Con doesn't seem to be afraid of people drinking yet as i showed it has less health benefits than marijuana"


Pro posts the exact same source as he used last round. I already mentioned that the medical benefits it proposes is only for people with rare conditions, like: MS, alzheimer's, glaucoma etc. and it only posits very basic health benefits for the average person e.g. "eliminates nightmares", "keeps you skinny" etc. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have nightmares more frequently and have a lower metabolism, then get: cancer, depression, anxiety, brain deformations etc.

" Where as alcohol has NONE, zip benefits to health and yet millions of people drink regulatory and responsibly."


That's untrue. Last round, Pro posted a source that proves the opposite to this point. It actually recommends people to drink responsibly because of the health benefits.

Anyway, let me list some benefits of my own:

  • It Can Lower Your Risk Of Cardiovascular Disease
  • It Can Lengthen Your Life
  • Helps fight against erectile dysfunction
  • It Helps Prevent Against the Common Cold
  • It Can Decrease Chances Of Developing Dementia
  • It Can Reduce The Risk Of Gallstones
  • Lowers The Chance Of Diabetes (1)

I just cited several benefits from drinking alcohol. Pro originally stated that there wasn't any.

Pro continues to present a strawman argument. Alcohol should be irrelevant he states that I need to prove that alcohol should be banned as well... Pro has not proven marijauna to be safer, and even if it was, it is not my job to say that alcohol should be banned as well. It's moving the goalposts.


A3 Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse

The illegality of marijuana is already the status quo so Pro's point about trying to illegalize alcohol backfires, as that was an action against the status quo.

A4 War on Drugs

"Now Con has still failed to show why millions of innocent people should be locked up for many years of there life, They broke a law?"

Pro cites an oxymoron; they're not "innocent" if they broke a law they're criminals.

"They might of hurt themselves? (even though marijuana might even help them) and if they take marijuana we will throw them into prison where there health will really get worse (So much for the health argument Con brought up)."


If it's illegal don't take it. Or if you do, one should not complain when they face the legal rammifications for doing so. They deserve to get penalized if they break the law that's why we have the law in the first place.

"Also Con has failed to show arguments against why the mere health or "Dangers" of it which i have shown to be little to almost none should be outlawed"


You have the burden of proof, not me. I merely cited the serious health effects it causes. You are the one to prove that despite this, it should be legalized anyway.


"Why should health be a factor to it? and further he needs to provide why certain acts of freedom need to be suppressed in this society."


Moving the goalposts...


"Now he is arguing that it is fair to lock up people for doing a victim less crime (Which he needs to provide why we need to keep victim less crimes illegal)"


Fairness is irrelevant. A law is a law, and if you break it, you are sent to jail or you are fined.

" Now the logic Con brings up is that it was illegal and since they broke the law they deserve to be thrown in prisons"


Exactly. That's what the law and prisons are there for.


"This holds the assumption that anything done against the law is immoral this is a dangerous philosophy known as "Legalism" which permits governments to do what they want to the people basically and Con needs to show why doing things against the law justifies putting them in prison."


Not necessarily. What if I were to say that morality is not an issue? What if I were to state that the law would protect the citizens? It would keep well being in mind, but that doesn't necessarily pertain to morality. Moral nihilists could abide by the law, because they could feel that the penalties of committing the crime outweighs their 'need' or 'ought' to commit it.

Conclusion

Pro brings an interesting argument, but it does not suffice he is affirming another resolution. My contentions were completely dropped, and since Pro did this, he concedes that his argument is irrelevant. Pro spent most of his argument postulating that marijauna is safer than alcohol, but I have proven that this wasn't successfully demonstrated. Pro brought freedom into the mix, but that logic can be used to completely eradicate the entire legal system. Pro tries to avoid this by special pleading he can use this logic to legalize marijauna, but keep all the existing laws. Pragmatically, Pro has not shown that marijauna needs to be legalized.

Pro has not fulfilled his BoP, hence I negate the resolution. I thank my opponent for a thought provoking debate.


(1) http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
****************************************************************************************
>Reported vote: Go4thegold // Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] The debate doesn't require an RFD. In the debate settings, the instigator has a choice whether to make RFD's required. If they choose "no," we don't moderate RFDs on those debates. Contenders are aware of this when they accept the debate. They will specifically be told "Members voting on this debate are not required to provide comments for their vote."
****************************************************************************************************
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
This was a good debate, this has inspired me to do a debate just like this.
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
AdventurerExplorer
It was a nice debate :), Thanks for the debate
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Thanks for the debate.
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
AdventurerExplorer
Thank you! and good luck to you as well i had a fun time debating :)
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Thanks! Great to hear. There's always room for improvement tho haha, good luck in the debate. :)
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
AdventurerExplorer
You are one of the best debaters on this site i think xD. Seriously, You debate really well good job :)
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
A rather fun argument to debate.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
I only put my sources in the comments because I needed extra characters to compose my rebuttal.
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
AdventurerExplorer
Misspelled some things and mis worded some bit of it but i think its good :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
AdventurerExplorerusernamesareannoyingTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Go4thegold 1 year ago
Go4thegold
AdventurerExplorerusernamesareannoyingTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
AdventurerExplorerusernamesareannoyingTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Although I agree with pro I must vote on the arguments at hand. In doing so I came to the conclusion that Con is the victor. Pro spent a lot of time saying that marijuana was not any worse than other drugs in the Status Quo (SQ), I cannot consider this argument because you have an unstated premise. You state, 'marijuana should be legal because drugs of more lethality are legal'...so what? you need to get to the root of the issue, why does the fact that we allow drugs in the SQ necessarily mean we should legalize this one? Your argument is that because the the American Government evaluates drugs on a basis that would allow marijuana, that marijuana SHOULD be legal, but this argument is to say that if the American Government does something, then it SHOULD be done as a rule, which is unfounded. Thus con reiterates that all he must defend is reasons for which marijuana should not be legal, human health is a universally accepted reason, and thus we should vote on it, I chose that. good gam