The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

The DEA is ineffective and must be replaced

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,992 times Debate No: 23654
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I am for the termination of the DEA
1st round is for acceptance
my terms are simply you must agree that the DEA was designed to lower crime by apprehending people in possession of drugs before they can commit other crimes.


Thanks for the debate, Nos.

== Burden of Proof ==

Any resolution with the conjunction "and" in it requires that the Pro side prove both the statement that precedes the "and" and the statement that follows the "and." So for the statement "The DEA is ineffective AND must be replaced" to be proven true, Pro must prove BOTH that 1) the DEA is ineffective and 2) that the DEA should be replaced.

They are separate burdens. The failure to prove either of those two statements results in a loss for Pro.

I will prove that 1) the DEA does a good job of arresting people and interdicting drugs, but that the failure of drug policy in stopping crime is due to other factors, like supply and demand and therefore, 2) the DEA should instead be abolished and drugs legalized or decriminalized.

My opponent supposedly sets the burden for himself to prove that there is something intrinsically wrong with the DEA that a similar agency would remedy. For example, he would need to prove that the head of the DEA is lazy or corrupt and that a replacement would do better. Otherwise, replacing the DEA with another agency would result in a name-change only.

Make sure that my opponent explains in-depth how a new agency solves ALL of the problems that he presents. If he can't explain how the new agency would solve a problem, then the problem is irrelevant to the debate since it doesn't prove that the "DEA must be replaced."

I accept Pro's stipulation that one of the goals of the DEA is to prevent broader crime categories by interrupting the drug trade. I don't necessarily accept that interrupting the drug trade is completely ineffective - a great deal of research shows that ending the crack cocaine epidemic led to the recent two decade crime decline in the United States. However, legalizing drugs would accomplish the same goal by decoupling drugs from criminal syndicates.

I now open the floor to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


Nosaj5q forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


burden of proof #2 the DEA should be replaced. accepted by both sides. now what you are looking to prove is that the DEA should be abolished and drugs legalized or decriminalized I have already caught you in one sense considering that an abolished of the DEA would in fact be a replacement in the sense that the implementation of the DEA would cease and a different set of rules such as none at all or decriminalization by definition decriminalization is not necessarily without penalty's therefore a new system would be in place. you couldn't agree with me more!

the DEA may be good at arresting people that does not make the organization effective in it's Maine goal to lower crime by removing drug users from society or penalize them before they can commit a crime. the goal of the DEA is to better society by removing hazardous people.

as a people we should learn from past mistakes/experiments one said mistake was the alcohol prohibition 1920-1933
this was an attempt the cleanse society reduce crime and corruption and also to improve general health during the depression of 21 alcohol consumption was at an all time low then it began to rise in 22. the prohibition was supposed to reduce crime and corruption instead every local cop was taking bribes from bootleggers and moon shiners all the prohibition caused was more crime. the prohibition added to the problem it tried to solve. the same thing is happening today with drug cartel's and the criminal justice system The DEA does the exact same things that were done during the prohibition and does not in fact aid society.


Thanks for the response.

==Burden of proof==

I thought the word "replace" was fairly straightforward and did not need defining. Apparently I was wrong.

From Webster's, "replace" means "to assume the function of; substitute for."

The resolution clearly meant that a new agency would be created to assume the functions of the DEA. If drugs were legalized, there would be no need to create a replacement drug enforcement agency.

So my opponent's attempt at semantics failed. You cannot "replace" the DEA with drug legalization since drug legalization doesn't assume the functions of the DEA.

==Is the DEA effective?==

The DEA is effective at its job, which is locking up drug offenders and seizing stockpiles of drugs. The DEA arrests between 30 and 40 thousand people each year; last year, they seized 30,000 kilograms of cocaine, 722,000 kilograms of marijuana, 2,000 kilograms of meth, and 2.5 million doses of hallucinogens.

Half of the federal prison population is incarcerated on drug charges. So if the goal of the criminal justice system is incapacitation, meaning keeping criminals in jail so they cannot commit crimes, then the DEA does a good job because HALF of all federal inmates are locked up on drug charges, and thus cannot commit crime.

==Alcohol Prohibition==

My opponent basically agrees that Prohibition fails and merely increases criminal activity. So I win. He fails to show how replacing the DEA with a new agency would solve this problem.

A report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy found that the same is true of drugs. The drug war has failed to decrease drug usage and has instead fueled massive criminal syndicates in a variety of different countries. The relatively conservative group recommended drug legalization to solve drug violence in places like Afghanistan, Honduras, and Mexico.

Supposedly another main goal of the DEA is to decrease drug usage. They have failed. However, decriminalizing drugs and treating addiction as a public health issue does solve. Portugal decreased drug usage by 50% be decriminalizing and urging addicts to seek help.

Debate Round No. 3


i find myself agreeing with you more often than not making this debate somewhat moot. I happily give this debate to my opponent i would also like to apologize for missing the second round, i don't have internet at home and am only able to get on at school. i would also like to request that the commentators get there heads out of there asses thank con!


Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
Noob snipe...
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
go ahead and accept guys, he FF's every debate and never finishes, its an easy win
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
*likes the below comment*
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
I almost want to accept this debate on the basis that I don't think the DEA should be replaced but simply abolished :P
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
DEA was made to control drugs, not lower crime.
Posted by Tetraneutrons 4 years ago
I would strongly recommend nobody takes this debate under these terms. This was not what the DEA was designed to do.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
I've been saying that for months.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
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: Pro to Con concession due to overwhelming persuasiveness.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
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: This was super hard to judge