The Instigator
cathrynvclark
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized

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...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 68122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

cathrynvclark

Pro

Illegal drugs should be legalized what do you think?
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, cathrynvclark, for instigating this debate.


The resolution pertains to the legalising of all illegal drugs, hence “Should illegal drugs be legalised”. With this in mind, my job as negation is to provide an example of an illegal drug and argue that it should not be legalised. Again, conversely, my opponent’s burden of proof to show that all illegal drugs should be legalised.



I await my opponent's opening round of arguments.

Debate Round No. 1
cathrynvclark

Pro

cathrynvclark forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Negation Case



P1: Ricin is an illegal drug


The drug I will showcase here is Ricin. Ricin is illegal, as indicated by this article where a student was arrested for making the substance [2] Officially, Ricin is: "...considered both a chemical and biological weapon and is explicitly prohibited by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention" [5]. According to dictionary.com:


Drug: any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or anyfunction of the body of humans or other animals [1].


So, Ricin is an illegal drug because you are not allowed to make it in a part of the world, plus it is intended to affect structure or any function of the body of humans.




A1: Some drugs, for example Ricin, are too brutal to be legal


Why is Ricin too brutal? According to Anthony Sabella, "a dose of purified ricin powder the size of a few grains of table salt can kill an adult human" [3]. Now, this in itself might not seem too brutal yet pretty dangerous, because a lot of drugs in small doses can kill like this. However, please also consider that Ricin in mist or food cannot be seen or smelled [4]. As mentioned before, this drug is considered a biological weapon. You could sprinkle this diificult to detect (in a forensice lad, mind you) [6] substance in some of this in someone's water whilst they're not looking and the person could be dead within 3 days. The combination of the factors above leave this substance with a kind of potency that is absolutely brutal, and in all honesty, should not be made legal.


This is one of the many drugs that are too brutal for the public. I could understand a debate about the legalisation of marijuna, but Ricin is far too brutal to be legalised.


References

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[3] "What Makes Ricin So Deadly - What Makes Ricin So Deadly". Anthony Sabella
[4] http://www.cdph.ca.gov...
[5] http://chemistry.about.com...
[6] http://cir.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
cathrynvclark

Pro

cathrynvclark forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Woohoo =)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
cathrynvclarkZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited all remaining rounds and thus failed to meet their BoP. While Con outlined an argument supported by sources.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
cathrynvclarkZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited nearly every round. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar where applied. I would, however, warn Pro to make sure to practice proper grammar, as a missing comma could be marked against you grammar-wise. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to present any arguments whatsoever, whereas Con presented multiple. Due to Con left standing unchallenged, and Pro's failure to present any arguments, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize any sources within this debate whereas Con did. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
cathrynvclarkZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
cathrynvclarkZarroetteTied
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: FF, and no contest.