The Instigator
Welcome2JurassicPark
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OreosAreCool
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide

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 4 votes the winner is...
OreosAreCool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 88105
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Welcome2JurassicPark

Pro

Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.
OreosAreCool

Con

So I'll just be rebutting Pro's arguments since he needs to prove why every state in the U.S should outlaw marijuana.

Major problem in schools (?)
Pro didn't provide any examples of these so called problems related to marijuana in school, not to mention the lack of sources to back up his claim. He says that marijuana is causing major problems, but fails to outline what those problems are, and how they are related to marijuana.

Tax Revenue
Pro pretty much negates his own resolution here, by conceding that significant and necessary amounts of tax revenue are able to be generated through the legalization of marijuana. By conceding that some area(s) do generate most, or all of their tax revenue from marijuana, he also concedes that those areas would not be able to collect the necessary taxes if the substance was illegal. Then, he goes on to say 'This is disgraceful." Which is pretty weird given that the fact that the tax revenue generated would be an argument for the legalization of marijuana, not against it.

Pro's entire argument is based on the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, where he simply rejects a proposition based on how absurd it sounds, without really providing any reasons as to why it is absurd.
Debate Round No. 1
Welcome2JurassicPark

Pro

Welcome2JurassicPark forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Welcome2JurassicPark

Pro

Welcome2JurassicPark forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Shrekoning// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: No one resorted to name calling, so conduct is tied. No immediate spelling or grammar issues come to me, so that is also tied. Con made actual arguments, so he gets convincing arguments points. No sources were used, so that is tied. Pro made little effort to argue here. He simply gave a personal story about it, which is not fact or credible for a debate.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: forfeit.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

Conduct -- Pro forfeits twice (or two-thirds of the debate). By convention, conduct to Con.

S&G -- There were no significant disparities in S&G sufficient to justify the awarding of one-seventh of the whole victory. The S&G point should not be awarded except in the rare case when a person's overall structure and/or grammatical errors make their arguments unreadable, or severely hurt readability. Overall, structuring in this debate was fine, and neither side made enough errors to warrant this point being awarded to the other side.

Arguments -- This is a clear win for Con based on the arguments. Pro opens this debate arguing that marijuana causes "extreme problems," and that it is "disgraceful" for the government to gain tax money from marijuana use. Neither of these arguments is clearly explained. Debaters have an obligation to explain arguments clearly, such that a lay judge would understand. Judges have to act as "tabula rasa" to whatever extent that is possible (while I understand it is an impossible obligation, or an illusory one, to *fully* maintain except in rare cases). As a judge, I am obligated to discredit arguments that aren't explained sufficiently enough. Pro doesn't explain what the extreme problems are, how they are connected to marijuana, and doesn't warrant their argument. Pro also doesn't explain how "disgrace" is sufficient to fulfill their burden of persuasion, or how tax money from marijuana is a disgrace. On the contrary, Con manages to fully fulfill their BOP in upholding their case and refuting Pro's arguments. Con argues that the tax revenue from marijuana provides a good net benefit to government, and refutes Con's arguments by showing how both points are insufficiently explained. Pro drops the rest of Con's case due to forfeiture.

Sources -- Neither side used any sources, so it would be incoherent to deem any one side's sources as "more reliable" than the other's.

Con wins on arguments and conduct.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
How does Pro reconcile the fact that alcohol is legal and alcohol causes more damage in high school than marijuana? Also, marijuana consumption has gone down since legalization http://www.usnews.com...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Welcome2JurassicParkOreosAreCoolTied
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: forfeit.
Vote Placed by Shrekoning 1 year ago
Shrekoning
Welcome2JurassicParkOreosAreCoolTied
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: No one resorted to name calling, so conduct is tied. No immediate spelling or grammar issues come to me, so that is also tied. Con made actual arguments, so he gets convincing arguments points. No sources were used, so that is tied. Pro made little effort to argue here. He simply gave a personal story about it, which is not fact or credible for a debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Welcome2JurassicParkOreosAreCoolTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Welcome2JurassicParkOreosAreCoolTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.