The Instigator
debateit
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Chicken
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Stopping supply/demand for ecstasy

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 3 votes the winner is...
Chicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,474 times Debate No: 30602
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

debateit

Pro

I'm hopping would stop the supply/demand for ecstasy and I will let my opponent go first on how they think why we should keep ecstasy around
Chicken

Con

Hello everyone, before we begin, I believe a few ground rules should be set.

Resolutional Analysis:

1- The Burden of Proof is on PRO. Con will present his case first as requested, but Pro must give a case as well.

2- Definitions- The instigator, Pro, has failed to give definitions. Con will therefore provide the definitions to be debated on.

Ecstasy is defined as a state of exalted delight, joy. [1]

Supply is defined as to make available for use. [2]

Demand is defined as a seeking or state of being sought after [3]


Contention 1- Happiness establishes existence

Happiness establishes existence through identity. We as human being's are non-existent without happiness. Our race as a whole established it's identity through our thoughts and emotions. Stopping the Supply/Demand for ecstasy essentially denies our existence and our identity as human beings.

Contention 2- Joy is not a bad thing

Analytically speaking, we can see happiness and joy are commonly associated with good deeds and consequences, rather than evil and vile actions. There is no reason to stop the supply/demand for such a product, unless it is proven to be evil a majority of the time (which we can see, is simply untrue).

Contention 3- Joyful thoughts and actions extend lifespans

Joyful thoughts and actions, such as laughter, lower blood pressure, keep blood vessels elastic, and increase bloodflow. This in turn extends the average lifespan by years on average. Joy also decreases the risk of a heartattack and boosts your immune system, making contracting a virus or disease far less common. [4] [5]

For now, I'll send it back to Pro.

Resources:

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.examiner.com...
[5] http://www.inquisitr.com...




Debate Round No. 1
debateit

Pro

I'm hopping would stop the supply/demand for ecstasy and I will let my opponent go first on how they think why we should keep ecstasy around. and what i mena by ecstasy is the drug MDMA this drug is affecting the lives of many people in the US
Chicken

Con

"I'm hopping would stop the supply/demand for ecstasy and I will let my opponent go first on how they think why we should keep ecstasy around. and what i mena by ecstasy is the drug MDMA this drug is affecting the lives of many people in the US"

1st- This is not a case. Remember, the BOP lies on Pro. Vote con until pro gives a case.

2nd- Shifting Advocacies- As stated in R1, Ecstasy is defined as a state of exalted delight, joy. Pro has yet to argue through with this definition. Don't let Pro try to shift advocacies now, we are halfway through the debate already.

3rd- Mena- This is not a eord

4th- Completely unwarranted, how is joy affecting the lives of many people in the US in a bad way? I only assume my opponent is referring to some sort of negativitiy associated with joy, or else this argument is for con.

5th- I already presented a case, Pro is just rambling at this point.

Debate Round No. 2
debateit

Pro

sorry about the beginning part I accidentally left the beginning in there but I'm talking about the deadly drug not delight or joy which is a part of why people take this dangerous drug but after a while of taking it you could end up in a padded room if u don't end early enough. your fingers and lips turn blue and you have hallucinations thinking you are going to die. also ecstasy is the #1 cause of rapes. I don't think it is going to be an awesome feeling when you wake up depressed after taking this drug you can only get worse and worse.
Chicken

Con

VOTERS:

1- Resolutional Analysis- Pro fails to actually abide by the definition, and does not give a case in the 2nd round. The 3rd round is not the round for new arguments, which pro clearly brings up.

2nd- Counter Definition- Even if my definition is not favorited, it is to be voted on based off the sole fact that Pro doesn't give a source/warrant for his definition.

3rd- New Arguments- Pro gives a case in the 3rd round, but the 3rd round is for rebuttals. Do not accept any of these arguments.

4th- Pro doesn't give us any warrants or sources for these claims. Don't buy anything he says.

5th- Con Case- This was the only actual case in the round, therefore it is the only offense in the round.

6th- Topicality- Pro is completely untopical, going off on a tangent.

7th- Grammar- Spelling and Grammar to Con

8th- Sources- Con was the only one with sources

9th- Conduct- Only Con abides by the rules of this debate

FOR THESE REASONS, VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AlbinoBunny 4 years ago
AlbinoBunny
Debsteit didn't really put up a fight and Chicken whooped his azz for it, very funny.

I do want to see a real debate on this though, whatever the case Pro was trying to make actually being put forward.
Posted by debateit 4 years ago
debateit
this is a good question right here i wonder who could actually make a con to this
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
debateitChickenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: countering wolfman, qopel and myself.
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
debateitChickenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct speaks for itself
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
debateitChickenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Do I need to put a reason?