Should drugs be legalized?
Debate Rounds (3)
Surviving Latin literature consists almost entirely of Classical Latin in its broadest definition. It includes a polished and sometimes highly stylized literary language sometimes termed Golden Latin, which spans the 1st century BC and the early years of the 1st century AD. However, throughout the history of ancient Rome the spoken language differed in both grammar and vocabulary from that of literature, and is referred to as Vulgar Latin. In addition to Latin, Greek was often spoken by the well-educated elite, who studied it in school and acquired Greek tutors from among the influx of enslaved educated Greek prisoners of war. In the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which became the Byzantine Empire, the Greek Koine of Hellenism remained current and was never replaced by Latin.
However, I disagree.
Isaac Newton said this:
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Thus, no drugs should not be legalized.
This is my first debate, and unfortunately I didn't read the opening argument before I accepted the challenge. When I read the argument it seemed a little too journalistic, so I copied the first paragraph and googled it. Apparently my opponent just copied and pasted the first two paragraphs of the "History of Latin" wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) then quoted Isaac Newton when he was speaking about how there is much more to learn than even HE discovered at the time (ironically, one of the many quotes that persuaded me to take up debate as a hobby). While it may be difficult to actually debate with my opponent, I think I'll still use this as a platform to put my opinions under scrutiny.
All drugs should be legalized and regulated (ie. labeling of strength and contents, licensing required to buy, no history of meaningful mental issues etc)
Basis for Opinion
Who is anyone to say what I can and can't do with my body? If I want to ingest any drug and I know the consequences of said drug than why can't I? Right now, I can go walk down to the local recruitment office for the US Army and risk my life for my country, but I can't drop acid on a weekend? I can go jump out of an airplane as much as I want, but I can't smoke a joint on New Years Eve? How backwards is that? I could understand not including heroine or meth in the legalization of drugs since they can change how your brain works fundamentally, but if you know that it's going to change how your brain functions and you don't care, then why can't you do it?
I apologise that my rebuttal is short, but it's hard to respond to the plagiarism of a wikipedia article and an out of context Isaac Newton quote. If my opponent doesn't respond I'm open to taking a challenge from anyone. Also, any constructive criticism in the comments would be great.
Point by Point Response
"drugs can do many harmful effects to the body."
Yes, they can. But if you're aware of these effects and don't care, then why does it matter? If someone wants to get fat and live off McDonald's for the rest of their life, then they can because that's their choice. If I want to smoke marijuana and drop acid and I'm aware of the adverse effects it may take on my body, then why can't I? It's my choice, my body. But just saying "harmful effects" isn't very in depth. Water can kill you when too much of it is ingested.
"You seemingly age faster..."
This is a major blanket statement, since many drugs don't cause any effects on your appearance. Drugs like nicotine or meth can do that, but many others don't. Again, this can be tacked onto my previous argument of personal choice.
"your social life will surely change..."
This isn't always a bad thing and has little to no correlation with drug use. You can use drugs and keep your usual friends, as long as they aren't against your use.
"and it is an addiction."
Not all drugs are physically addictive. Apologies for being boring, but this is once again part of my original argument. If you know something is possibly addictive and you still use it regardless, then why does it matter?
Hopefully my opponent will actually comment on something I've said this time, and not just state their feelings in two sentences.
I believe drugs should be legalized, but in a numberly sense, you can only use [drug] [number] times a day.
Going back to what you said, 'Right now, I can go walk down to the local recruitment office for the US Army and risk my life for my country, but I can't drop acid on a weekend?', I agree, but also have something to say, if we can refurnish that sentence, though, aren't you stating that drugs are actually risking your life? We might as well legalize suicide. (No I am not saying that all drugs kill) I just want a limit on them.
Point By Point Response
"I believe drugs should be legalized, but in a numberly sense, you can only use [drug] [number] times a day."
This would be nice, but how would the government enforce such a law? Would we restrict how many drugs someone can buy per day? Then someone could just buy drugs every day and stock pile them. All of this aside, it would simply flood the court system with thousands of misdemeanor drug crime cases.
"... if we can refurnish that sentence, though, aren't you stating that drugs are actually risking your life?"
[In response to my point of military recruitment and prohibition of drug use]
Yes, using drugs is a risk to your life. So is stepping outside in the rain, going for a car drive, or climbing a ladder. The point I was trying to make was, if I can make a decision that endangers my life then why can't I endanger my life in a different way? It's my choice after all, isn't it?
"We might as well legalize suicide. (No I am not saying that all drugs kill) I just want a limit on them."
Can I bring my snowboard so I can ride down your slippery slope? If you aren't saying that all drugs kill, then why did you say we might as well legalize suicide? Obviously drugs aren't the same as suicide because drugs don't guarantee death, like you said. I don't understand this point since you refute it in the very next sentence.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear win for PRO. PRO gets the conduct point because CON chose to plagiarize. CON, in the future, you need to link and cite your sources within the debate. It also helps to have them be relevant. CON's sole contention was that drugs can harm your body. PRO counters by pointing out that this a product of choice and compares it to unhealthy eating styles. CON drops this rebuttal. PRO goes on to point out other life-threatening activities which are perfectly legal. CON essentially concedes this point. His rebuttal, that PRO thereby admits drugs are life-threatening, is insufficient because PRO's argument centered around choice. Lastly, PRO also points out how different drugs have different effects, and not all of them are even life-threatening. PRO wins the argument points. Spelling and grammar, as well as sources, were even, as both sides wrote well and neither side used sources to support their arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.