The Instigator
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Xera
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

TBD: To Be decided by Con.

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: 7/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,332 times Debate No: 4701
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (10)

 

CiRrO

Pro

Ok, since I can't think of a topic, and based on ideological lines, you, Xera are somewhat close to me, except on a few issues. Therefore, I will let you pick the topic. Plz let it center around politics, or philosophy. You seem like a very good debater, and I believe I've debated your daughter. So, ty, if you do indeed take my challenge. Good luck also. I look forward to an excellent debate. If needed, you can look on my issues part of my profile if u need to see my stances.

*I purposely did 4 rounds so you can tell me what topic u want, then on the 2nd round we can state our arguments, and your 1st rebuttal.

Thank you Xera
Xera

Con

Thank you, CiRro, for offering me this opportunity. I accept (obviously) your challenge. I also have had some difficulty thinking of debate topics recently. I am very much against yet another debate on atheism/Christianity; abortion, gay rights, and gun control, as these seem to be pretty much the only topics being discussed at the moment. This limits me I know so I will list a few topics as I can think of them, and see what we can come up with. I looked, and there are not any items that you and I disagree on that I feel strongly about, so I am mentioning some of those areas where we do disagree, as well as a couple of other issues that I just feel strongly about.

1.NCLB (No Child Left Behind) is beneficial to our schools and students

2.George W Bush, as President, usually acts in a moral manner

3.Cancer patience should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms

4. Politicians should be allowed to collect however much a donor wishes to contribute to their campaign fund.

5.Profiling by police does not constitute police enacted racism.

All of these naturally have you in the PRO and me in the CON category.

I know you said politics or philosophy, and most of these are politics, however there are two in there that I had planned on stating as a resolution in a first come debate at some point in the near future anyway. I look forward to debating you CiRro, as I am sure you are going to 1) show up to the debate (which will be a nice change of pace) and 2) make me work for every point. :D Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrO

Pro

I affirm (Resolved): Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms.

Definitions

Cancer patients: someone undergoing cancer

Smoke: to inhale and exhale smoke

Marijuana: the most commonly available psychoactive drug originating from the cannabis plant.

Relieve: provide physical relief

Symptoms: observable or internal changes in the mental, emotional, and physical condition of a person

Contentions:

I. Cancer patients have the right to take marijuana in the form of a pill rather then the right to smoke.

A) Effective - According to the Department of Health, marijuana in the form of a pill is more effective then in the form of smoke. Reason: The marijuana gets digested rather then put through the lungs and then into the blood stream. Therefore, more symptoms are relieved.

B) No negative side effects - Smoking marijuana can actually cause more harm to the patient because all the negative side effects that come with it are there. E.g. A more intense physical high. Important note: The high is not what relieves the pain. In pill form, the negative side effects do not occur, because it is digested. In essence, its only duty is to relieve pain not cause a high.

C) Crime Prevention - According to the FBI, making marijuana in the form of a smoke for cancer patients would increase the amount of illegal weed on the streets. Therefore, keeping the marijuana in the form of a pill would reduce the amount of illegal weed on the streets.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Xera

Con

I negate: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms.

In other words, I intend to show that cancer patients /should/ be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms.

First I will refute my opponent's case then I will present my own.

I accept all definitions exactly as written.

Pro Said: Cancer patients have the right to take marijuana in the form of a pill rather then the right to smoke."

CON: Sure they have that right, but they have the right also to the better and less expensive cigarette version of marijuana. One right does not cancel out the other in this case.

Pro claimed: A)Effective

Rebut: "Marinol, a pill made up of marijuana's most psychoactive ingredient, THC, is available by prescription. For some patients, Marinol works. But for others, this highly potent synthetic drug is too much, "knocking out" many patients shortly after taking the pill. Marinol also does not stimulate appetite as well as whole marijuana commonly does. Marinol is also expensive -- as much as $30,000 a year for one patient's prescription!" http://www.wamm.org...

As we can see from this source, THC in the form of a pill is not as effective as you would hope for cancer patients in need of anti-nausea treatment. Furthermore, this story shows this form of marijuana is not always effective for cancer patients. http://articles.latimes.com...

Further, it takes significantly longer to feel the benefits as a pill than it does to smoke. It is simple; it takes longer to digest than to breathe.

I could go on and on; as soon as I began searching for "medical marijuana pill" I found link after link of sites dedicated to describing the Ineffectiveness of Marinol.

Clearly the pill form of THC is not as effective as my opponent would like you to believe.

Pro Claimed: B) No negative side effects -

Rebut: According to the Mayo Clinic "The prescription form, dronabinol (The active ingredient in Marinol), also may produce psychological side effects that make it inappropriate for some older people."

Marinol is More Psychoactive Than Natural Cannabis http://norml.org...

Marinol is a synthetic creation of pure THC. Marijuana has over 400 chemical components to it. THC is the one that is psychotropic, or mind altering. The drug companies failed. They confused the beneficial properties with the feel good properties. What they gave our ill citizens? A drug that does little of what it should, while needlessly altering the mind of the patient.

This clearly refutes my opponent's stance that there are NO negative side effects. Obviously there are psychological side effects, which are clearly negative.

My opponent also mentioned lung damage. Studies have shown that smoking marijuana does not in fact lead to lung cancer. There is no need to fear. http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Pro Claimed: C) Crime Prevention - According to the FBI, making marijuana in the form of a smoke for cancer patients would increase the amount of illegal weed on the streets. Therefore, keeping the marijuana in the form of a pill would reduce the amount of illegal weed on the streets.

Rebut: I'm just copying this one straight from the source, because there is no way I could word it better.

"The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana examined the question whether the medical use of marijuana would lead to an increase of marijuana use in the general population and concluded that, "At this point there are no convincing data to support this concern. The existing data are consistent with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse potential." The report also noted that, "this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."
http://www.drugwarfacts.org...

Further, I would like to see some proof that allowing cancer patients to have marijuana cigarettes will increase the street supply? The fact is, marijuana is one of the simplest drugs to get on the street. I'm not sure it /can/ be made easier to get short of tossing out the windows like tickers in a ticker tape parade.

My case:

It is important to recall the main use of marijuana in cancer patients- to relieve nausea and vomiting. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of patients undergoing chemotherapy experience nausea and vomiting. http://www.thecancerblog.com.... It is somewhat counter productive to give a pill that will decrease the likelihood of vomiting to someone that is likely to vomit it up before it can be effective!

Additionally, one of the most prohibitive factors to patients purchasing manufactured marijuana pills: the cost

http://www.drugstore.com...

With so many of my previous sources explaining the need to take anywhere from 2-5 at a time to get any relief, a months supply could cost as much as $3500. That would buy 150 10mg capsules that's 1500 mg or 1.5 grams total. Even in its illegal state, one can purchase marijuana for smoking at $288 an ounce http://norml.org... which is 28 grams. That is 18 times more, for less than 1/10 the cost!

Cancer is a horrible illness. In many cases the treatments cause more harm than help. Some of that harm is nausea and vomiting. There is a natural plant that will relieve those symptoms. My opponent is proposing that rather than aid the patient, we should charge him or her more than ten times as much to get him/her high and leave him/her nauseated. I say no, make them better.

http://marijuana-as-medicine.org...

Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrO

Pro

"Sure they have that right, but they have the right also to the better and less expensive cigarette version of marijuana. One right does not cancel out the other in this case."

My Response: My opponents essential thesis is flawed because smoking marijuana is illegal. It would be beneficial to make LSD laced with codeine to relieve the pain of a cancer patient, but that's illegal. Everyone should be seen as equal with the law, even Cancer patients.

My opponent then says that marinol knocks people out. I would say that this is a positive thing. One reason for morphine is because for some people it knocks them out. This gives very strong reliever of pain. Thus marinol relieves more pain. She then goes on to say that marinol is too expensive. This is indeed false. According to the US department of Health, marinol, used for cancer patients cost at the most $200. And could be even cheaper if insurance pays for it.

My opponent then says its not effective for this reason. Marinol lasts longer because it's digested, thus more pain is relieved in comparison to smoking it. Thus, it is indeed more effective because it relieves pain.

I concede my opponents point about side effects. I was not aware, thank you Xera. However, it doesn't really matter because most of these side effects help in the pain relieving process. Also, I never mentioned damaging lungs.

My oppoent then cites a source refuting my crime prevention point. This is falwed because never before has smoking been used. Thus, there is no line of reference if it would go up or down. My FBI point is not a stat (Should have said before). The FBI is just using logic. If smoking marijuana is available by hospitals. Criminals would somehow get a hold of them Thus more marijuana is available. Furthermore, a lot of deadly crimes are committed over drugs, if the supply increases then more people would be looking, and more crime would occur.

Her case:

My Response: This is a valid point. However, most hospitals would induce depressants on the patient to temporarily stop vomiting. This would give them time to give them the pill and time for it to start digesting. Thus, you can drop my opponents point.

She then goes on to bring the costs. My oppoent first of all is not inclusing the following:

A) Insurance
B) Type of Illness
C) Government help

These 3 factors decrease the cost significantly. As I brought up before, sometimes less then $200.
===============================================================================
My Case

Contention I. Pill form (Marinol)

Links up above

Contention II. Liquid form marijuana.

A new form of marijuana that has started in Britain is moving to the US. Its marijuana taken through a dipper. I.e. a needle attached to a machine that drips a liquid into the blood stream. Or taken as a Spray through the mouth. It has also been approved in Canada. This new method takes the pros of pill marijuana and smoking marijuana. It has all the benefits, with limited side effects. It is also cost efficient. It beats pill and smoke on: Cost, efficiency, etc.

Conclusion: These 2 methods MUST be used instead of the illegal smoking marijuana. The pill form is available in the US now, and the liquid version is being made by US pharmaceutical companies, with the help of Britain. Both of these methods are more efficient, and cost effective. AND THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL.

Thus I urge an affirmation of the resolution.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Xera

Con

PRO: My opponents essential thesis is flawed because smoking cannabis is illegal. […]

CON : All prescription medicines are illegal without a prescription. Using your logic we should ban all prescription drugs.

There's precedent. And who has allowed ill patients to smoke cannabis? Why the federal government of course. Not only allowed it, they PROVIDED it. http://www.alternet.org.... This program was killed in the 90's as AIDS patients began flooding the government with requests for compassionate use.

PRO: My opponent then says that marinol knocks people out. […] This gives very strong reliever of pain. Thus marinol relieves more pain.

CON : The primary purpose of cannabis for cancer patients is it's affects on nausea, not pain. There are several drugs available that more adequately provide pain relief than cannabis. http://www.marinol.com.... Pro's opinion not withstanding, the side effect of being knocked out and relieving more pain is mute in that the PURPOSE of the medication is to relieve NAUSEA, which is done better by joint than pill.

PRO: She then goes on to say that marinol is too expensive. This is indeed false. According to the US department of Health, marinol, used for cancer patients cost at the most $200.

CON : My source was a pharmacy that actually sells the product, not a publication about what it SHOULD cost. I showed proof of what the drug actually costs to real people. PRO fails to rebut the actual, rather than projected, cost of the medication. My point stands up to $3,500 per month.

PRO says: My opponent then says its not effective for this reason. Marinol lasts longer because it's digested, thus more pain is relieved in comparison to smoking it. Thus, it is indeed more effective because it relieves pain.

CON : I said it was less effective because every person questioned that had taken both said that the pill was less effective. What I said was that it was slower to act because it must be digested- slower to act is not less effective, though it is difficult for one suffering to wait on relief.

I concede my opponents point about side effects. I was not aware, thank you Xera.

You are most welcome :D

PRO: However, it doesn't really matter because most of these side effects help in the pain relieving process. Also, I never mentioned damaging lungs.

CON : I apologize for putting words into your mouth.

However, PRO's defense of the pain relieving qualities of Marinol only show he is either intentionally misleading the audience, or has done insufficient research to understand this issue. The primary purpose of Marinol and medical cannabis is nausea and vomiting, not pain.

PRO: My opponent then cites a source refuting my crime prevention point. This is flawed because never before has smoking been used.

CON : The method of medication administration is irrelevant. According to this logic, we should ban all forms of medication that are new and innovative. I will point out; that ‘smoking' per se has not been used before, but inhaling solutions has, Xopenex for asthma patients for example. Pretty much the same theories would apply.

PRO: My FBI point is not a stat[…]. The FBI is just using logic. If smoking cannabis is available by hospitals. Criminals would somehow get a hold of them Thus more cannabis is available.

CON : Cannabis is easier to grow than steal. Why would anyone want to steal what is already very common and easy to grow? I have an anecdote about this I will share later in comments.

PRO: Furthermore, a lot of deadly crimes are committed over drugs, if the supply increases then more people would be looking, and more crime would occur.

CON : Drug crimes are bad. I know in my community Xanex has caused the police a lot of trouble, likewise for OxyContin. http://www.webmd.com.... So what?

Again I repeat, "this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of cannabis or cannabinoids." Link above. The fact that some might misuse the drug is no cause to deny it to those in need.

Think about this carefully: PRO is basically saying we should allow hoodlums of society (drug dealers) to decide what medications we allow our ill to be given.

PRO: This is a valid point. However, most hospitals would induce depressants on the patient to temporarily stop vomiting. This would give them time to give them the pill and time for it to start digesting. Thus, you can drop my opponents point.

CON : This IS the medication that is supposed to stop the body from vomiting. There are others to use instead, but then patients wouldn't need Marinol. My point stands http://www3.interscience.wiley.com...

PRO: My opponent first of all is not including the following:
A) Insurance
B) Type of Illness
C) Government help
These 3 factors decrease the cost significantly. As I brought up before, sometimes less then $200.

CON : I have already rebutted the cost of the medication. PRO is free to shop around and find an actual pharmacy that sells it cheaper.

As for PRO's issues only two of those need be addressed as the type of illness is cancer, it's in the resolution.

Insurance- Not everyone in the US has insurance. 22% of working adults lacked health insurance for at least part of 2007; 14% were uninsured for over a year.
http://www.medscape.com....

I don't know about the rest of the states, but in Oklahoma there is no government help for adults between the ages of 19-65 with ANY disease unless they are permanently disabled or qualify for TANF (temporary assistance to needy families – a welfare check.)

Neither of the contentions PRO makes actually shows that there is hope to reduce the cost of expensive medications. My point stands.

Contention I.

Con: already refuted above.

PRO: Contention II. Liquid form cannabis.

A new form of cannabis that has started in Britain is moving to the US. Its cannabis taken through a dipper. I.e. a needle attached to a machine that drips a liquid into the blood stream. Or taken as a Spray through the mouth. It has also been approved in Canada. This new method takes the pros of pill cannabis and smoking cannabis. It has all the benefits, with limited side effects. It is also cost efficient. It beats pill and smoke on: Cost, efficiency, etc.

CON : This is only be tested to relieve pain- not the primary purpose of cannabis, hence no results were shown regarding the drugs effectiveness in treating nausea. http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com...

One of the side effects of this drug? Nausea. Kind of defeats the purpose don't you think?

Additionally, there is no evidence that this drug will be cheaper, I have looked and been completely unable to find any pharmacy, even in Canada, that offers this drug for sale that has the price listed on the internet. If PRO is going to claim this will be cheaper I would like to see his source, considering that the source he used for the Marinol was so far off, I think I would like to review this myself.

Conclusion:

By his own evidence Pro proved that cannabis has medical benefits. He has, in fact conceded that cannabis usage in cancer patients is justifiable. Our only argument seems to be method of delivery. The government & pharmaceutical companies have tried to emulate what nature already does. What is the purpose of offering medications to the seriously ill that can be bought easier and cheaper in its most natural state? The only benefit I see from these methods of delivery is that drug companies will make a LOT of money off of something that /could/ be grown in a closet with a black light and a coke bottle.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time and patience.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
CiRrO

Pro

Ok, instead of going line by line, I'm gonna break down the main ideas.

1) Central Thesis

Opponents thesis: Sure they have that right, but they have the right also to the better and less expensive cigarette version of marijuana. One right does not cancel out the other in this case.

My First response: My opponents essential thesis is flawed because smoking marijuana is illegal. It would be beneficial to make LSD laced with codeine to relieve the pain of a cancer patient, but that's illegal. Everyone should be seen as equal with the law, even Cancer patients.

Her response: All prescription medicines are illegal without a prescription. Using your logic we should ban all prescription drugs.

My Response: Key words - illegal without prescription. Marijuana-Cannabis is not FDA approved because its so spasmodic with it's results. That's why Marinol is used instead. However, since Marijuana-Cannabis is illegal NOW, then my previous attack stands. My opponents central thesis is falwed.

2) Cost

My Response: My opponent gives an example where you can buy Marinol for like $1,000. However, this site is if your buying DIRECTLY through that company. The 3 factors I have given brought the cost down to about $200 (According to the US Health Department) Thus you can drop her cost argument.

3) Nausea

My Response: Ok, me and my opponent are arriving at 2 different endpoints. She wants to stop the nausea of a cancer patient. However, I believe there is a bigger issue. The PAIN a cancer patient goes through. My opponent says my 2 alternatives: A)Pill (Marinol) and B) Liquid for Marijuana should not be used because it doesn't treat nausea entirely. This may be true. However, whats more important, making sure the patient is in less pain, or that they stop vomiting? The Affirmative's side decreases pain and suffering rather then just vomiting. Thus I urge that you look at my side rather then the Con.

4) Conclusion

"By his own evidence Pro proved that cannabis has medical benefits. He has, in fact conceded that cannabis usage in cancer patients is justifiable. Our only argument seems to be method of delivery. The government & pharmaceutical companies have tried to emulate what nature already does. What is the purpose of offering medications to the seriously ill that can be bought easier and cheaper in its most natural state? The only benefit I see from these methods of delivery is that drug companies will make a LOT of money off of something that /could/ be grown in a closet with a black light and a coke bottle."

My Response: Yes, Cannabis does have some medical benefits. However, its extremely spasmodic. That's why the FDA wont approve of it. Making an artificial version would be much more effective. I.e. Pills and Liquid form. Also, expanding artificial marijuana use would open more jobs. =) Just wnated to through that in there.

My Case:

I. Marinol Pills

A) Reduces pain and suffering
B) Lasts longer
C) Approved by the FDA

II. Liquid Form Marijuana

A) Reduces pain and suffering
B) Lasts longer
C) Approved in Britain
D) Cost effective

Conclusion: Both of these alternatives beat the use of marijuana smoking. Both last longer, reduce more pain, and isn't illegal. This evidence is enough to affirm the resolution: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Very good debate Xera
Xera

Con

I'm going to refute all the statements made by opponent and then mention all the points he failed to refute that I offered. I extend all those arguments. I am going to go line by line. I know this makes it larger and more likely to unread, but I don't want to miss any points.

PRO said: Marijuana-Cannabis is not FDA approved because its so spasmodic with it's results. That's why Marinol is used instead. However, since Marijuana-Cannabis is illegal NOW, then my previous attack stands. My opponents central thesis is falwed.

CON rebuts: Two points on this issue:
a.The issue of this debate is /should/, meaning that the burden here is to show that the FDA shouldn't allow this form of medication. Using the fact that they don't to justify that they /shouldn't/ is illogical.
b.My opponent has not shown any evidence of the ‘spasmodic' qualities of marijuana, simply making the statement that it is thus does not make it so

PRO said: My opponent gives an example where you can buy Marinol for like $1,000. However, this site is if your buying DIRECTLY through that company. The 3 factors I have given brought the cost down to about $200 (According to the US Health Department) Thus you can drop her cost argument.

CON rebuts: I refuted each of his arguments which were insurance- not all Americans have insurance, governmental assistance- most adults between 19-65 don't qualify, and type of disease already quantified as cancer in the resolution. My argument stands.

PRO said: She wants to stop the nausea of a cancer patient. However, I believe there is a bigger issue. The PAIN a cancer patient goes through. My opponent says my 2 alternatives: A)Pill (Marinol) and B) Liquid for Marijuana should not be used because it doesn't treat nausea entirely.

This is important to note. I provided the link to Marinol's website proving that the intended PUPROSE of the medication was to relieve nausea. It doesn't really matter what my opponent or I would LIKE to see relieved, smoked cannabis does the job Marinol is SUPPOSED to do better. Because of this fact the rest of his statement does not matter.

PRO said (re: Marinol does a poorer job of relieving nausea than does inhaled cannabis): This may be true.

CON rebuts: that, in my opinion counts as a concession.

PRO said: Cannabis does have some medical benefits. However, it's extremely spasmodic. That's why the FDA won't approve of it.

The FDA can't approve the use of Marijuana because the DEA has it listed as a schedule 1 drug with no medicinal uses. The AMA strongly fought against this classification in 1937 http://blogs.salon.com.... The FDA can not allow medical trials of the drug because of this classification. Due to the fact that PRO has conceded that there is in fact medical value to marijuana and that the lack of inclusion by the FDA is more related to the ‘war on drugs' than on competent testing that resulted in proof of ‘spasmodic' properties. The fact is that the FDA has absolutely no say in this issue until congress repeals the law classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug.

PRO said: Making an artificial version would be much more effective. I.e. Pills and Liquid form. Also, expanding artificial marijuana use would open more jobs. =) Just wanted to through that in there.

CON rebuts: it provides jobs at the expense of the patients receiving necessary medication.

PRO's contention I: Marinol Pills, (a)Reduces pain and suffering, (b)Lasts longer, (c)Approved by the FDA

CON rebuts A) irrelevant as that is not it's purpose (B) countered by the length of time it takes to take effect, basically this is one not a point for either side as it depends on what one would prefer, quick or long lasting (C) Irrelevant in a /should/ debate.

In other words everything is a non issue.

PRO's contention II: Liquid Form Marijuana A) Reduces pain and suffering B) Lasts longer C) Approved in Britain D) Cost effective

CON rebuts: A) does nothing for nausea; b)see Ib c)irrelevant D) unproven. I asked PRO to provide a price list whereby we could determine the actual cost of the product. He did not do so; therefore his claim of reduced price is unsubstantiated and can not be counted.

Points for CON that have gone unrefuted:

I.The US government has provided cannabis to those in need in the past, and only stopped when the requests became so large as to be unsustainable for the government.
II.My cost analysis of actually ordering the product stands as PRO was unable to prove there were lower cost options available to ALL cancer patients.
III.Allowing marijuana to be available by prescription to cancer patients would not increase crime, nor is that a just consideration in determining the benefits of a medication.
IV.Sativex does nothing to relieve the nausea and vomiting of cancer patients.

Ladies and Gentlemen I would refer you back to the resolution: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms

I have shown 2 related symptoms, nausea and vomiting, which PRO admits CAN be relieved by the smoking of marijuana. I have also shown that these patients SHOULD have inhalation as an option of delivery method for 3 reasons:

1.it is more effective
2.It costs less
3.it acts faster
My opponent has failed to rebut several of my points, and has failed to provide the evidence needed to make his case (ie cost of savitex, lower cost of marinol). In light of PRO's inability to defend his case with proof, and CON's ability to provide source information on every contention made, a CON vote is clearly the logical choice.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
but did not disallow nausea and vomiting and as the resolution did not specify pain, nausea and vomiting are symptoms in need of relief. You did not prove that cancer patients did not deserve releif from nausea and vomiting.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
Hmm, however as a after side note: My bottom A, B, C points about Marinol and liquid weren't irrelevant, because my definition of symptoms included pain.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
LOL, dont worry about it. I enjoyed this debate thoroughly. Hardest I would have to say so far. Very good. =) Can't wait to debate you another time.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
Well this is done. I apologize for those times when my tone became harsh, all I can say is it was necessary for the content of the debate. I'm really not that hard line in most areas. Before this debate I was really more of a fence sitter on this issue anyway :D
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
That's a very wise way of looking at it. Personally, im on the right, and I do usually only agree with republicans/conservatives. I don't think I could ever vote for a liberal >.>
Posted by lorca 9 years ago
lorca
Maybe I have a bad habit of supporting Arkansas governors for president, however I feel that while he was the most capable person to be president of those that ran. I'm not the type of person that feels that I must align myself with the candidate for president that most matches my views on the issues. Instead, I look at their ability to guide the nation in a direction that is most desirable. I feel the best leaders are those that are most effectively able to persuade their follows to reach a common goal. The way I decide to vote for president and governor is different than it is how I vote for congressmen/women. I feel that the people I vote for in congress are the people that should be aligned with my opinions, since they are the ones that represent me in congress.

I should note that I was intending to support John Edwards prior to all of his family stresses.

I am a democrat because most of my political views are aligned with that political party. I'm also a Democrat because in Oklahoma, you can only participate in primary elections if you are registered with a political party, and only two parties are represented. Finally, I think it's wrong to vote straight ticket, and feel that the straight ticket box should be eliminated from ballots.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
Huckabee was actually my first choice, then Romney. I was pretty disappointing with the nomination of John McCain. but o well.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
Lorca is my current. My ex is one of those Bush/Cheney fan club types.

I'll have Lorca explain his Huckabee choice. Personally I don't like him, he's kind of down on women, guess he forgot that we got the vote.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
Lol, xera, could u ask your EX y he supports Mike Huckabee but it says he is a democrat?
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
Nah, my guy is short, skinny, and looks like a pedophile........He is overall creepy. He looks like a rat too. Oh right your a teacher. Hmm, your Ex seems rather immature. I love star wars, but I wouldn't go that far. However I had a friend awhile ago who would have done that.... Revan owns all sith. ^^
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by scarrig 9 years ago
scarrig
CiRrOXeraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by jmlandf 9 years ago
jmlandf
CiRrOXeraTied
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 Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
CiRrOXeraTied
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 Karoz 9 years ago
Karoz
CiRrOXeraTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
CiRrOXeraTied
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 dark_faery_gyrl 9 years ago
dark_faery_gyrl
CiRrOXeraTied
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 Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
CiRrOXeraTied
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 Puck 9 years ago
Puck
CiRrOXeraTied
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 Xera 9 years ago
Xera
CiRrOXeraTied
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 lorca 9 years ago
lorca
CiRrOXeraTied
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