The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
jamccartney
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Medical Marijuana

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...
WilliamsP
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/1/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 53836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

I have already debated jamccartney on this very issue. However, my defeat was justified. I was on vacation, had horrible internet, and thus my argument was horrible. I am now ready to try again. I challenge my good friend jamccartney to this debate.

This debate will follow a judge voting system. Each debater has 72 hours to present his argument. There will be four total rounds.

In the first round, my opponent will simply accept this debate. In the second round, my opponent and I will present our main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round. In the third round, my opponent and I will offer rebuttals and any final arguments. In the fourth and final round, we will offer final rebuttals and write conclusions, which will summarize the debate.

All sources will be cited using the MLA format. Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization will be used. There will be no forfeiture or concession. This debate will be rational, mature, logical, and factual. Opinions will only be stated when supported by facts.

I look forward to this debate and await my opponent's acceptance.

jamccartney

Con

I will gladly accept this debate challenge by WilliamsP and I accept all his rules. I believe MLA format makes the debate look cleaner than simply adding the website, and I believe the spelling and grammar will also help. However, I wish to lay out one additional rule:

In the event of a forfeiture, the voter will award the opposing opponent a 7-point victory.

I also accept my opponent's statement about opinions. They shall only be used when supported by factual evidence. I look forward to this debate with WilliamsP and hope is turns out well.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking jamccartney for choosing to debate this topic with me once again. In our last debate ( http://www.debate.org... ) there were external factors that caused it to not be a very sophisticated debate. I was on vacation. The motel had horrible internet. Now after that debate has been completed, and our opinions have strengthened and we have matured, we can debate this again. I thank jamccartney again for accepting.

Main Argument

As you know, I am a supporter of marijuana usage for medical purposes. My opponent is not. Even after the last debate, I still do not understand how he can oppose it. My opinions have strengthened since then and I hope to persuade my opponent, the viewers, and the judges that my stance is the correct one.

I will begin by defining what marijuana is. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, marijuana is "[t]
he cannabis plant" or "[a] preparation made from the dried flower clusters and leaves of the cannabis plant, usually smoked or eaten to induce euphoria." We will utilize both definitions in this debate. Why is this? Well, medical marijuana comes in all shapes and forms. It can be smoked, injected, eaten, or otherwise consumed by drinking or other methods.

Marijuana can be used to successfully treat the following things:

"1. Treatment for symptoms of AIDS

2. Glaucoma

3. Neuropathy (diseases affecting the nerves or nerve cells) Ex. epilepsy

4. Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy

5. Pain caused by structural or psycho-physiological disorders

6. Muscular spasticity and limb pain (multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury)

7. Symptoms of movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, Tourette’s syndrome

8. Appetite stimulant for diseases of malnutrition (cachexia or starvation)

9. Nausea and vomiting (general)

10. Migraine headaches"

Now, I believe my opponent is aware that marijuana is a drug not commonly connected with overdoses. I do not believe he has ever heard of an overdose of medical marijuana or addiction to it because neither have I or most people on this Earth. If he believes it is unsafe, he is not aware of the facts. My source says, "[t]he Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not approved smoked cannabis for medical reasons. Although some aruge that this is a political decision, rather than a medical or scientific decision based on research and analysi, the FDA has approved two drugs, Marinol and Cesamet, for therapeutic uses in the U.S. These drugs contain active ingredients that are present in botanical marijuana but come in the form of a pill. Nonetheless, that the FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease seems rather short-sighted."

One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums, and other forms of medications, but medical marijuana is rarely a substance that is addicted to. I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging, but you are aware that medical marijuana overdoses and addictions are virtually unheard of, yes? In my previous debate about this topic, I said, "[h]owever, medical marijuana is the only known medicine today that can successfully diagnose epilepsy. [M]odern epilepsy medicines often fail and cannabis is often the better choice. It is virtually unheard of that there is a thing such as a marijuana overdose. It does not simply occur. However, overdoses can easily occur when taking pills, tablets, or serums."

Marijuana, when abused and overused, will be termination instead of salvation. I argue, however, that medical marijuana can be salvation for victims of epilepsy and other such conditions when used properly. Marijuana, like other plants, of course, can be bred in order to have certain traits. Recreational marijuana makes you high and has no health benefits for the user. However, marijuana can be bred to have a low percentage of chemicals that cause you to be high and a high percentage of chemicals that affect the desired parts of the body in question. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures.THC is what causes one to be high. Breeding marijuana to have low THC and high CBD will be effective. This, along with other genetic modifications, will make marijuana a safe treatment.

I believe I have made my point. I did rush this argument a little for I did not have much time, but I believe my argument is sufficient. I now close my argument and allow my opponent to commence his statements.



Bibliography


"Cannabis (drug)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 2 May. 2014. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana/>.

Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition ed. : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. Print.


"Top 10 medical uses for marijuana ." . Addiction Blog, 8 Feb. 2011. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://drug.addictionblog.org...;.







jamccartney

Con

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for proffering this debate to me. It is a controversial topic and shall be an interesting one.

Arguments

Facts: Here is a list of things medical marijuana is used for:

1. AIDS treatment

2. Glaucoma

3. Nausea and vomiting

4. Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy

5. Pain caused by certain physiological disorders

6. Treatment of multiple sclerosis

7. Symptoms of Parkinson’s disease

8. Appetite stimulant for malnutrition

9. Treatment of epilepsy

10. Migraine headaches



Why it should not be used: However, according to webmd.com, "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system", "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse", "marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]", and "it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD)." Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes:

Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center).

As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal.
Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person.

Conclusion

In conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis. I patiently await my opponent's rebuttals.


Works Cited

"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD." WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.webmd.com...;.

"Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana." Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his argument. I personally believe his case was weak. I intend to prove that in my rebuttals below. I hope the judges consider all of this information when choosing the winner.

Rebuttals

My opponent begins by stating what medical marijuana can be used for, as I did. He quoted webmd.com, which said "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system." The key word here is 'can'. It does not necessarily mean it will. Next, the source says, "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse." Again, there is a key word that must be acknowledged: 'long-term'. Not all patients will take medical cannabis for the long-term. I do not believe this to be a sufficient argument against medical marijuana. Also, my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can be consumed by drinking, eating, injecting, et cetera. I hope my opponent acknowledges this and addresses this in his rebuttals.

He also states potential side effects medical marijuana may cause. They are, according to his source, "[d]rowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety." These side effects, when you truly think about it, are minor. I urge my opponent, the viewers, and the judges to compare the potential side effects of medical marijuana to its potential and highl likely benefits.

My opponent states, "[a]s you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person." This statement and, really, my opponent's entire argument is not sufficient. I urge the viewers and judges to carefully consider this.

My opponent makes arguments that are proven false by mine. I would like to point out an aspect of this debate he ignored fully. I said and sourced, "[m]arijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures.THC is what causes one to be high. Breeding marijuana to have low THC and high CBD will be effective. This, along with other genetic modifications, will make marijuana a safe treatment. " My opponent fully ignored this statement. He has ignored the fact that marijuana can be bred to have certain traits. He is arguing about traditional marijuana while I am arguing about marijuana in general, whether it is traditional or bred. This one fact refutes his entire argument. I hope he and the judges acknowledge that.

There is another aspect my opponent has chosen to ignore. I made the following statement: "One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums, and other forms of medications, but medical marijuana is rarely a substance that is addicted to. I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging, but you are aware that medical marijuana overdoses and addictions are virtually unheard of, yes?" This means that traditional medicine may not be the best choice. This means that marijuana is a very, very safe alternative drug to treat certain conditions and diseases. This has been fully ignored by my opponent. I want him to address this in his refutations.

My opponent states, "[i]n conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis." My opponent, again, ignored key aspects of my argument. For certain conditions, there are no successful treatments yet. Now, I adore science and I know a lot about it, so I do know that safer treatments will be found in the future. However, for now, marijuana is the safest alternative to addictive pills and tablets.

Conclusion
In my opponent's rebuttals, I hope to see a sufficient defense of his arguments as well as relevant, factual refutations of my argument, which I do not believe he or anyone else can do. I do wish him good luck, but he will have to work hard in order to win this debate. Jamccartney is a very close friend of mine and I know him very well. He is a determined, intelligent individual. However, I do not believe he has shown this in this debate. I hope this changes.

Bibliography
I have no sources for this particular round. I believe my sources already are more reliable than my opponent's and I want the judges to consider this. Sources are not required here. Common sense and logic is one of the many weapons in my arsenal. I have facts - solid facts, which I have presented efficiently - that prove marijuana for medical purposes is beneficial. I do not require sources now.


jamccartney

Con

Introduction

I would like to thank my opponent for laying out his rebuttals against my arguments. I will begin my rebuttals now.

Rebuttals

"I believe my opponent is aware that marijuana is a drug not commonly connected with overdoses."
I am aware.
"I do not believe he has ever heard of an overdose of medical marijuana or addiction to it because neither have I or most people on this Earth."
That is right, I have not.

My opponent then gave a long quote about how the FDA approves medical marijuana but not recreational marijuana. It is true that they do this, however it does not mean medical marijuana is safe. It simply means medical marijuana is the only known method of treating the certain disease or disorder.

"One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums, and other forms of medications, but medical marijuana is rarely a substance that is addicted to. I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging, but you are aware that medical marijuana overdoses and addictions are virtually unheard of, yes?"
I am aware, yes, however, as I stated in my previous argument, I said nil about addictions. I have been talking about the dangerous side effects of medical marijuana. My opponent seems to be aware of these side effects when he said "I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging."

"Marijuana, when abused and overused, will be termination instead of salvation."
I concur.
"I argue, however, that medical marijuana can be salvation for victims of epilepsy and other such conditions when used properly."
Is my opponent aware that it doesn't always work and that it had more unfortunate side effects than relief?
"However, marijuana can be bred to have a low percentage of chemicals that cause you to be high and a high percentage of chemicals that affect the desired parts of the body in question. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD."
I am aware of this, however it is still not the point I am getting at. I am not talking about the dangers of recreational marijuana, I am speaking of the undeniable side effects of medical marijuana, even when bred a certain way.

"He quoted webmd.com, which said "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system." The key word here is 'can'. It does not necessarily mean it will."
Indeed, however the percentage makes it more of a 'will' than a 'can'.
"Next, the source says, "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse." Again, there is a key word that must be acknowledged: 'long-term'. Not all patients will take medical cannabis for the long-term."
Not all will take it long-term, but most will. Things like epilepsy take a long time to cure.
"Also, my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that marijuana does not need to be smoked."
I have not denied this, but have expressed and accepted it clearly.
"He also states potential side effects medical marijuana may cause. They are, according to his source, "[d]rowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety." These side effects, when you truly think about it, are minor."
Minor? Since when are respiratory issues, hunger, and giddiness minor problems?

My opponent quoted my statement: "As you can see, it can be used to help people, but ... is different depending on the person." He then said this: "This statement and, really, my opponent's entire argument is not sufficient. I urge the viewers and judges to carefully consider this."
How is my statement not sufficient? I am clearly stating the undeniable dangers of medical marijuana use.

"My opponent makes arguments that are proven false by mine. I would like to point out an aspect of this debate he ignored fully. I said and sourced, "[m]arijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures.THC is what causes one to be high. Breeding marijuana to have low THC and high CBD will be effective. This, along with other genetic modifications, will make marijuana a safe treatment. " My opponent fully ignored this statement."
Um... Why would I not 'ignore this statemtent' when it was not yet time for rebuttals? I was simply following my opponent's rules. I have already refuted this anyway, so there is no reason to do it again.

"There is another aspect my opponent has chosen to ignore. I made the following statement: "One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums..."
Again, it was not time for rebuttals.
"This means that traditional medicine may not be the best choice. This means that marijuana is a very, very safe alternative drug to treat certain conditions and diseases. This has been fully ignored by my opponent. I want him to address this in his refutations."
I did not ignore it, I simply did not wish to break the rules. Secondly, the only reason we do not use the traditional medicine is because we have not discovered it. Instead, we are using a dangerous alternative. We should focus out research on finding safer alternatives.
"My opponent, again, ignored key aspects of my argument. For certain conditions, there are no successful treatments yet. Now, I adore science and I know a lot about it, so I do know that safer treatments will be found in the future. However, for now, marijuana is the safest alternative to addictive pills and tablets."
Yes, it is the safest, but not safe. It has serious problems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and have proven them incorrect. I patently await my opponent's final rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding. However, I believe he misunderstood my argument. I feel he rushed his argument, did not thoroughly read my statements, and simply did not put enough effort into understanding my stance. I am entitled to a few final rebuttals - my opponent is as well - and then I will write my conclusion and review of the debate.

Final Rebuttals
I would like to refute my opponent's most crucial rebuttals. He writes, "I am aware of this, however it is still not the point I am getting at. I am not talking about the dangers of recreational marijuana, I am speaking of the undeniable side effects of medical marijuana, even when bred a certain way." I do not deny the side effects of recreational marijuana but, again, marijuana can be bred to have certain traits. Genetic modifications will reduce or possibly even eliminate the side effects. This marijuana - which will be used for medical purposes - will be beneficial.

My opponent writes, "[m]inor? Since when are respiratory issues, hunger, and giddiness minor problems?" Perhaps I utilized the wrong terminology. The point I was trying to make was that the side effects are nothing in comparison to the benefits.

My opponent claims, "[h]ow is my statement not sufficient? I am clearly stating the undeniable dangers of medical marijuana use." I acknowledge the potential, yet very unlikely, dangers of medical marijuana. However, it is currently the safest drug to treat epilepsy and other such conditions and diseases.

"Um... Why would I not 'ignore this statemtent' when it was not yet time for rebuttals? I was simply following my opponent's rules. I have already refuted this anyway, so there is no reason to do it again." No, my opponent has not refuted this. Marijuana can be bred, not only to have low THC and high CBD, but also to have reduced or eliminated side effects. It is a matter of genetics. Genetics experts can make the necessary modifications for marijuana to be 100% safe. Marijuana right now, actually, is close to 100% safe when used safely and carefully.

"I did not ignore it, I simply did not wish to break the rules. Secondly, the only reason we do not use the traditional medicine is because we have not discovered it. Instead, we are using a dangerous alternative. We should focus out research on finding safer alternatives." While we research and try to find cures and deny individuals to use medical marijuana, people are dying. I do not deny that safer alternatives can and will be found in the future, but for now, marijuana is the safest treatment for certain conditions and illnesses. While we wait for that perfect treatment to be discovered, and people are not utilizing the positive effects of medical marijuana, death is occuring because of this. My opponent, as well as the judges, should consider that.

I have now completed my final rebuttals and I will now conclude the debate with the following conclusion paragraph:

Conclusion
This debate was rather enjoyable. However, I believe my opponent misunderstood and misinterpreted my arguments. I feel he has not put enough effort into this debate. But ultimately, the outcome of the debate is not the decision of my opponent or I. The judges will decide. I wish my opponent good luck and we shall see what the outcome is.
jamccartney

Con

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me his final arguments. I will now begin mine. Because this round can be utilized mainly for conclusions, it is what I will use it for. However, I have a few last rebuttals to give. I would also like to go over why I think the judges should choose a Con-vote.
Throughout this debate, both my opponent and I have given sufficient, viable arguments to our sides. However, I believe my points weigh out his. Looking at my list of medical marijuana symptoms, I believe medical marijuana generally makes conditions worse. Because of this, my opponent cannot simply deny the dangers. Looking at his arguments, he has not, however he seems to not understand the pensiveness of the side effects. I will go over this again in my rebuttals.

Rebuttals

"Perhaps I utilized the wrong terminology. The point I was trying to make was that the side effects are nothing in comparison to the benefits."
If one were to look at my list of side effects, they would see that the side effects overwhelm the benefits.

"I acknowledge the potential, yet very unlikely, dangers of medical marijuana. However, it is currently the safest drug to treat epilepsy and other such conditions and diseases."
Unlikely? The dangers are very likely. I do not know how my opponent can possibly deny this.

"No, my opponent has not refuted this. Marijuana can be bred, not only to have low THC and high CBD, but also to have reduced or eliminated side effects. It is a matter of genetics."
I did refute it, actually. Here is the quote to prove it: "I am speaking of the undeniable side effects of medical marijuana, even when bred a certain way." In that statement, I said that breeding has not done much to the side effects. Furthermore, have we ever bred it to have no side effects? No, we have not.

"While we research and try to find cures and deny individuals to use medical marijuana, people are dying. I do not deny that safer alternatives can and will be found in the future, but for now, marijuana is the safest treatment for certain conditions and illnesses. While we wait for that perfect treatment to be discovered, and people are not utilizing the positive effects of medical marijuana, death is occurring because of this."

Let's think about the scenarios for a moment:
1. A person dies from epilepsy.
or
2. A person dies from drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety.
Hmm... I am simply thinking about the consequences of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has the capacity to make it much worse. Why even try marijuana as a cure?

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have enjoyed this debate. I look forward to the judges voting and I have one thing to say: Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
Pro initially asserts the possible conditions that marijuana can be used to treat, and addressed some of the concerns with regards to overdose and addiction, pointing to the lack of overdose associated, and the similar addiction possibilities of other medication. He continues with other facts about it, making his overall point on the benefits of MM.

Con rebuts in R2 with a list of side effects, and asserts that for some it may help and for others it wont. He furthermore contends that there are better ways to treat patients, but doesn't specify. He ignores several of the most important points above.

Pro's R3 rebuts Con's R2 efficiently, rebutting key aspects of the side effects listed by Con and arguing that they are minor by comparison. Pro further points out what he argued in his R2, that MM can be made safer to use, thus reducing these side effects.

Pro's R3 doesn't seem to address several of the outstanding contentions made by Pro. Instead it seems to be overly focused on side effects of marijuana use, which isn't a significant enough issue to be a deciding factor due to Pro's uncontested assertion regarding making MM safer. The rest of the round was hard to follow because it was mostly unorganized arguments. At this point in the debate, Pro is winning due to the arguments of potential benefit of MM, potentially safer MM and relatively minor side effects that wasn't sufficiently refuted by Con.

The concluding round summarizes the above, and doesn't do enough to change that conclusion. Con gives it a decent attempt, but doesn't do anything to assert what was his final point, that the side effects like giddiness and dry mouth are a worse condition to die from than an attempt to use MM as a cure for epilepsy.

Good job by both debaters, but ultimately, Con doesn't effectively refute the major point by Pro: Potential for treatment of major conditions with minimal negative effects, especially with further development of MM.

Kudos to both debaters
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I would like to thank CJKAllstar and Dennybug for their votes. I appreciate them greatly.
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
RFD:

WilliamsP firstly proved that there are benefits to medical medication, and that there are medicinal uses. Con here now had to prove that these weren't true, or that the side effects or negative aspects of marijuana outweigh the positives. The former would have made for a stronger argument, but Con conceded the benefits. Once this has happened, BOP switches to Con to prove that benefits outweigh the positives. Con argued well that there were positives. That is all he did and that would be enough to fulfil an equal BOP, but the moment Pro's positives were conceded it changed, so automatically it failed to stand. His other points were that it is not fully tested, that there are better methods. The latter is the fallacy of relative privation and the former could have been a good point if he'd explained how this meant it should not be used.

Basically, jamccartney, you did not win because your arguments were too shallow. You had the notion that somehow your arguments were self-explicitly right. Having more negatives does not equal a worse state unless you can justify that. The actual negatives may or may not be bad and it is up to you to show how these beat the positives. Even if it is cancer or something serious. To say there are better methods does not prove why we can still have medical marijuana. To say it is not fully tested is not enough. You have to explain what this means. This debate in general was a bit lacking in this, but nothing in a debate is every intrinsically right or ever self-explanatory. Every point you put out you have to answer why it matters, why this is true and why it is relevant and important.

Although some of WilliamsP points were a bit lacking too, he said there were benefits which you conceded so you had the BOP, and he managed to negate enough points to have the slight advantage. Both of you remember however the three questions for each claim you make. Why is it matters, why it is true, and why it is relevant/important.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I want the judges to consider both sides and their arguments. However, in the end, one is correct. In my view, I am right. But I have great pride in the judges I myself nominated and they shall make the right choice.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
WilliamsPjamccartney
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
WilliamsPjamccartney
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demonstrated that medical marijuana can be used to treat certain illnesses. Con showed that it does have some harmful side-effects, especially over the long-term. I had to conclude that Pro won this debate. He was more effective in making his case. Though marijuana isn't the best treatment for certain diseases and afflictions out there, it does provide relief. As of right now marijuana needs to be better researched, but it clearly has medical uses at this time.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
WilliamsPjamccartney
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Hey guys, I'd like to thank Peyton for the nomination, I have to say although I am against medical Marijuana usage for various reasons. Pro provided a stronger argument for this debate and Con tried to trivialize the effects of MM. Instead of pushing on points like it being more of a relief, for which there are better more effective treatments for. And that the high often causes depression even if a percentage of THC is reduced. Also a lot of patients start suffering from depersonalization. Con essentially tried to brush off Pro's arguments, Which is what caused me to vote Pro, I believe that Con could have easily won by presenting some arguments of his own. Both debaters did great. Pro provided a slightly cleaner format, Both were very easy to follow but Pro won that by a hair. So final decision is Pro. Even though I agree with Con. And believe he can develop his arguments.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
WilliamsPjamccartney
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.