The Instigator
MadMomma
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cathaystewie
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should Marijuana be legallized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
cathaystewie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 77415
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

MadMomma

Pro

I think it should be legalized. Out of all the drugs out there, do you ever hear something bad about smoking it?
cathaystewie

Con

Thank you to the PRO side for instating this debate. Since PRO has not defined any terms of laid down any ground rules or any debate structure, I shall take the liberty to do that for in.

Rules:

1. No semantics
2. Should one forfeit, please give a reason to justify the forfeiture
3. No new arguments in the last two rounds
4. Maintain a civilised and decorous atmosphere
5. Violation of any of the following rules warrants a loss

Definitions

Marijuana: a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared. [1]
Legalise: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. [2]

Structure

R1 - Acceptance
R2 - Opening arguments
R3 - Developed/additional arguments + rebuttals
R4 - Rebuttals + defenses
R5 - Concluding statements + clash analysis

Once again, big thanks to PRO for starting this debate, audience members and to-be voters, and I anticipate a fruitful and interesting exchange of words!
Debate Round No. 1
MadMomma

Pro

MadMomma forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Con

Seeing that I have been busy for the past few days and that I will be occupied during the upcoming few days, I will adjourn my arguments and await Pro's response. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Debate Round No. 2
MadMomma

Pro

MadMomma forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Con

It is disappointing that PRO has once again forfeited. I will keep this round short by delivering my arguments. First off, rebuttals.

REBUTTALS

R1) "Do you ever hear something bad about smoking it?"

This is not so much a constructive argument as it is an anecdotal generalisation. One cannot base their judgement off of what they "have heard about" since what one is aware of is never comprehensive enough to encompass every single detail and facet of the issue in question. This is ignoring the fact that there have been conflicting studies that have either eulogised marijuana for its medicinal benefits, defended marijuana against any health-related accusations, and condemned marijuana for the threats it poses to physical and mental health. Thus, this point by PRO does not stand.

ARGUMENTS

P1) The health repercussions of marijuana are still very much a nebulous matter

Given that PRO talks about the health-related impacts of marijuana, whether that be positive or negative, we shall be addressing his/her criterion of health. This is because many of said studies sample subjects who often are hooked onto other drugs in addition to marijuana, hence making it difficult for researches to precisely pinpoint which of the benefits/detriments that the subjects experience can be attributed to that of marijuana [1]. Taking into consideration the fact that there have been studies that demonstrate the health benefits and detriments of marijuana, it is only logical that the judiciary play safe in case marijuana really is more harmful than beneficial.

Seeing that PRO has not defined any geographical scope for this debate, it gives all the more reason to be prudent and not legalise marijuana as this is a policy of global magnitude which may potentially and theoretically negatively impact all of Earth's human population. Legalising marijuana based off of conflicting evidence and the knowledge that marijuana could possibly be lethal for many is irresponsible on part of the government and a blatant violation of the government's role which is, hypothetically, to act in the best interest of the people.

Please bear in mind that I am not trying to disregard the possibiility of marijuana being beneficial in terms of physical and mental health. I am simply stating that until this is confirmed to be a certainty, legalising marijuana is a risky and ignorant course of action to take.

Thank you. I anticipate PRO's response.

SOURCES USED

[1] http://www.theguardian.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
MadMomma

Pro

MadMomma forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Con

After scanning through PRO's profile, I've learned that his/her profile is obsolete and has been deserted for two weeks. I will not be posting any arguments in this round, and unless PRO responds in the next round, I will not be posting any content for that round either.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
MadMomma

Pro

MadMomma forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Con

Extend. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Apologies, the semicolon at the end of the link to my source in my third round renders the link malfunctional. Here it is again:

http://www.theguardian.com...
Posted by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Apologies, here are the sources for the definitions:

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.vocabulary.com...
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Extend debate time to 3 days and I'll accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
MadMommacathaystewieTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
MadMommacathaystewieTied
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: Forfeiture. Con actually had sources.