The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
MWorley
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

Politicians should be required to take random drug tests

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,821 times Debate No: 380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (25)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

This is a no brainer

they require many others to take drug tests

they are in important positions of power and make life and death decisions

I think alot of them are on drugs and make poor decisions

they should be drug tested

In general I am against drug tests, but I think making politicans taken them would make them more circumpsect about making others do the same.
MWorley

Con

This is completely unnecessary. If a politician is doing drugs, the only negative consequence that effects the American people would be that politician is falling behind in their work. If that is the case, the voters have the freedom to discharge them from their office. This is called Democracy. If their performance in office is below par, they are voted out. That is it. Introducing any tests of this kind would only burden our politicians and add to the inefficiency of our government.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

you said

If their performance in office is below par, they are voted out. That is it.

thats only true for republicans - democrats can get away with anything

I think as long as they can require others to take them, they should have to

thats my argument
MWorley

Con

The difference between bureaucrats and politicians is the means of accountability to which they are held.
Bureaucrats are held accountable by the hierarchy of our federal government. This hierarchy is made up of employed workers, some of which are directly employed by the President.
Politicians on the other hand are held accountable by the electorate directly. This is the major difference. Drug testing's purpose is to insure that bureaucrats are performing their "public service" competently. The test itself holds these employees accountable.
This is not the way our elected officials are, or should be held accountable. If a politician is performing poorly the people vote them out of office.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

you said

If a politician is performing poorly the people vote them out of office.

How about Marion Barry ?

Convicted on tape by the FBI of smoking crack- reelected

how about Jefferson (D, La) - indicted on 22 counts by the Feds , caught on tape taking a 90K bribe - reelected, protected by his democrat colleagues

how about supreme court justices and other judges- appointed for life?

I am really taking ther devils advocate here as I am for legalization of drugs and against drug tests in general

I think that if we could force the politicians to show how they are on prozac and cocaine, etc they would be more motivated to take the legalization question seriously

I DO THINK that alot of politicans (esp demcorats like Kennedy for example) have DRINKING PROBLEMS and DRUG PROBLEMS

cheers
MWorley

Con

Your plan erodes the importance of the electorate and perpetuates a lack of trust in the people.

First, let's talk about Marion Barry. His re-election occurred for one simple reason: the people he represents love him. According to the New York Times on September 17th, 1992, Barry's won his election with over %70 of the vote in his favor. That's a landslide. Political pundits have speculated that Barry's ethnicity played heavily in his re-election, and not necessarily his record. I find this to be a mute point. If a heavy minority community wants to elect a minority politician to office because they feel they can identify with him or her, that's called Democracy. His re-election was Democracy in action. Despite his drug use, it seems the people of the 8th Ward in Washington DC identified closet with the ideals of Barry, and that's freedom.

Now let's discuss William Jefferson, a black democrat from Louisiana. He wasn't even involved in any drug related crime, so I don't even know why he was mentioned. His crime involved financial corruption, the trademark of our favorite Republican scandals such as Bush's friends at Enron (who contributed $736,800 to his 2000 campaign) or Jack Abramoff and friends at Tyco.

I'm guessing the point your trying to make has to do with black, criminal democrats "getting away" and getting re-elected. First of all, both Barry and Jefferson spent their due time in jail and went through the court system like any other American. They didn't enjoy a Scooter Libby style pardon. After serving their prison sentence, they had the legal ability to be re-elected if they chose to run again.

It was the choice of a free electorate to decide if these gentlemen deserved another term. If we question the electorate, we question Democracy itself. I'm not ready to do that.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Hahaha. I don't even believe you are serious. These posts are way too over the top and ridiculous.

I conclude that Solarman1969 is a fake profile by someone who doesn't actually believe any of the stuff that's posted. OR maybe it's really Ann Coulter.

This statement alone proves it. "lies are boring the truth is interesting"

Can anyone actually believe that?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
artC your could not be more wrong or backward

liberals only use lies and invective and irrelevant personal attack and innuendo

Conservatives ALWAYS focus on legitimate issues of law, ethics, principles belief and character

just listen to conservative talk radio or airhead america and you will get a clear as day picture of what I am saying

thats why liberals cant make it on talk radio

lies are boring the truth is interesting

i will be happy to debate this subject with you if you care

you will lost the debate hands down and win the vote becuase even though you will be dead wrong the liberal kids will team up on me like the always do

cheers and Merry Christmas

solarman
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Why is it that when conservatives attack liberals it's mostly name calling and making fun. But when liberals disagree with conservatives they actually have real reasons?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Liberals are so stupid as to be funny

OMIGOD! Valerie Plame ! Impeach Bush! Scooter Libby should be put away for life because Richard armitage told Robert Novak that Wilson, the liar, had an old lady in the CIA who wasnt a current OP who sent him over there to get disinfo

Bush Lied ! People Died!

Duh!

Clinton, inc. got away with murder (Ron Brown, Vince Foster, others) Treason (selling nuke secrets to China) and numerous other felonies- he lied under oath (a felony) denied it anyway- and then has defender fools like Lindsay who continue to parrot the DNC line (its all about sex so lets just forget it)

BDS is prevalent throughout the democrat ranks and the companion disorder (CAS- Clinton Apologist Syndrome) commonly is held as well.

Until the loser democrats can get a clue and some kind of policy, they will continue to lose, and have 12 % ratings.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Another liberal argument from MCC - Even though people can use drugs to no negative effect, and you could never know, we should violate their 4th amendment rights and subject them to search without probable cause. After all, our dictators have made unconstitutional laws against drugs, and even if no one is hurt, we should not tolerate them because our dictators have told us so!

Wow, 1984.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
I agree that drug testing should be performed on our politicians. How else would you know if they did drugs or not? A lot of politicians can hide the truth very well. Who is to say that they are not hiding drug use. Yes we vote them in but we vote them in under the presumptions that they are able to be good leaders and hold themselves in high regards. How can we kick them out of office if we do not know that they are doing something illegal?

Mworley, you said, "If a politician is doing drugs, the only negative consequence that effects the American people would be that politician is falling behind in their work."

I for one do not do drugs but i do know some people that do. You would never suspect some of these people of doing drugs because they are so used to hiding the effects. The fact is, drugs are illegal and should not be tolerated, especially amongst our leaders. What does this say to our children if they see our leaders getting away with doing drugs? I mean look at Major League Baseball and the steroid scandal. A lot of young peoples heroes have been busted on the issue.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Aww, poor Solarman, Mr. "Graduated from Berkeley" and Mr. "1600" on his SAT is losing to a HIGH SCHOOLER because he is so uninformed, brainwashed, and ignorant on important issues....

....reading Solarman's ridiculous and outlandish debates brings such amusement to my day.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
MWorley so obviously won this debate. Solarman, do you even know who Scooter Libby is? IF you did, you wouldn't have made such an unintelligent remark about how Republicans get in trouble while Democrats don't.

TALK ABOUT BEING UNPATRIOTIC--leaking on a an AMERICAN CIA agent, and NOT getting some serious consequences?? Nice try scooting it under the rug, Bush. The American people know that Valerie Plame's life has been turned upside down, and completely ruined by her own country's government. When will these croneys stand up and admit all of the deceit, fraud, and CORRUPTION that has been going on during this JOKE of a presidency?!
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
solarman, you continue to amuse me.

"If their performance in office is below par, they are voted out. That is it. thats only true for republicans - democrats can get away with anything"

If this statement held any amount of truth, then Bill Clinton would have been off the hook for getting oral sex from an intern, and we would have impeached President Bush by now. You are so ignorant, it's hilarious.

Clinton=Dem
Dubya=GOP

Clinton screwed an intern. Bush screwed a country.

Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction.

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE PRESIDENT BUSH A BLOW JOB SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM?????
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I agree that politicians should take random drug tests, just as I agree global warming is a hoax, but the logic and facts to back it up were not presented by solarman.

He has coined this "Bush Hating Disorder" or whatever, but then he engages in the exact same tactics. Take a look at some of these points:

"If their performance in office is below par, they are voted out. That is it. thats only true for republicans - democrats can get away with anything"

See Cynthia McKinney. She couldn't get away with anything.

Also, you imply that politicians make people take drug tests? Who do they make take drugs tests? Then you say you're against drug tests in general. Does that mean if I own a business I shouldn't be able to make my employees take a drug test? If so, that's a very liberal view. If I own the business, I should be able to make my employees do anything that isn't excluded by contract.

Personally, I would support drug tests for elected officials, but no penalty other than exposure. Because I, like solarman, believe drugs should be legal. If drug use were grounds for dismissal from office, then the case for legalization would be drastically hurt. But no politician should be able to get away with voting for unconstitutional federal drug laws and then smoking crack himself!
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ccdem 9 years ago
ccdem
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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 
Vote Placed by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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 
Vote Placed by wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by jh64487 9 years ago
jh64487
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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 
Vote Placed by GMan 9 years ago
GMan
Solarman1969MWorleyTied
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