The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!
Debate Rounds (5)
DO NOT state that if we completely ban all of them that people will still find ways to take them, because this debate covers their existence and not illegalization of them.
Thanks for beginning the challenge. It's greatly appreciated.
The first reason I gave was relating in how when you give some people an easier way to doom, than they are likely to take it. If people are allowed to simply "drug up" on cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, heroin, crack, and more, than they will be sucked into an addiction that will only hurt them. Most drug addicts become addicted from stress, insecurity, and especially peer pressure. When someone's friends smoke, than they will likely smoke because they want to fit in with their friends. Did you know that almost 70% of all smokers want to quit, but never do? http://www.drugfree.org....... This is because of the addiction, and the hate they receive from others. People don't want to help them, and they think it is their fault only. It is clearly not, and they need our help too.
The adicts are often unable to quit easily, and this is created by the drugs giving them a false sense of security and relaxation. Weed may make you relax, but it gives you extreme headaches and can cause brain damage. This isn't something to be taken so lightly. And I won't even begin on the effects of tobacco, so you can just see how horrible it is in this trusty online article http://tobaccofreeca.com...... .
It will give you several facts on cigarettes and how they are extremely harmful. These drugs are simply bad in all ways, and to think that it is allowed or accepted for some drugs to be used is just stupid. Why have more death, injury, and lowered esteem for some silly drug that is basically pointless. Try to name a way that they can HELP US. I bet you can't, because they simply don't.
The exploit of the drug business, whether legal or not, is just immoral and wrong. The amounts of deaths and injuries every year in the U.S. are insane. And think about how all of this madness is for PROFIT! Some greedy pigs think that it is ok to endanger and kill millions of people for money. Would you kill millions of people every year and injure many more just for some extra cash. I know owning a business is cool and all, but that's just morbid. So don't suport drugs saying we have a right to hurt ourselves and especially let other careless idiots with no regard to safety or the environment profit.
Don't think they can benefit, if all they really do is hurt. Sure you could say that people will have a right to take them, but that is basically saying to steal something because you won't get in trouble that day. But the consequences will whiplash and only fiends will benefit if they deserve to or not.
I would like to also point out that you spelled a couple words wrong, like "addicts" (2nd informative paragraph), and "support." Also, you have a couple of punctuation errors. Forgive me if I seem like a grammar Nazi to you, but I want to point out these things to the judges.
Your first contention/point was showing the judges and I how addicting drugs can be. First of all, I would like to address the source that you gave. I was unable to find the info that you were referring to, despite searching for it for awhile. Could you please give me the specific link to it in your next speech? Also, I would like to quote you on one of your statements: "Most drug addicts become addicted from stress, insecurity, and especially peer pressure." Actually, the thing that makes them addicted is the levels of dopamine in their body, not stress or that other stuff. Just saying. (Source: https://teens.drugabuse.gov...) Also, I would like to state that with today's tech, people determined enough to quit can easily quit. One of these products is known as Pondera. This revolutionary product reduces addiction from drugs; you may have heard of it. It reduced an average of 95% drug cases that it was tested on. (Website of Pondera) The drug addicts might not be able to get rid of the addiction themselves, but if they are determined enough and have a little help from these products, they might have hope. Lastly, you have said that their friends (or people) "don't want to help them, and they think it is their fault only." But have you seen how many people are willing to help a drug addict? Try searching up "get rid of drug addiction." (I'm sure that you know where this source comes from)There are over a million search results, and at least 75% of these results come from people willing to help a drug addict. Complete strangers want to help, and why not the people you know? Therefore, non-prescription drugs are not a bad thing to our society. Lots of people actually do want to help, despite what you said. There is also an incredibly high chance that you will have your addiction reduced, if not completely gone. The threats that drugs once posed are gone.
Contention 2 Rebuttal:
Once again, I would like to say that drug addiction can easily be reduced by the products of today. If the drug addicts want security and relaxation, get a security camera and a bed. There are lots of non-harmful (and not as costly) ways to relax properly. (Source: Life-Hacker is BAE) If you look on the source, it provides you with a lot of easy ways to provide yourself with relaxation. Best of all, you don't have to suffer from headaches or brain damage. Also, the source that you mentioned isn't an article, it's a video. Videos? Ain't nobody got time for that. You can't blame the drug itself just because it is relaxing. You should be blaming the person who is unable to find the easy way to find rest and relaxation.
Contention 3 Rebuttal:
For your third informational paragraph, I would like to say that people that do drugs do it at their own risk. They've been trained all their life to not do drugs, yet they still do it. On the bottom of every cigarette pack, there is a warning which explains the risks of doing drugs.(Not knowing from experience, of course) The "millions of people" that you talk about know the risks, so it's not the dealer's fault. You might as well blame the government for not shutting down major brands of drugs.
First of all, I would like to say that the people who do drugs know the risks, as I have already said. "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy." (Source:http://www.cdc.gov...) This is the label on the bottom of the cigarette pack. It is not the drug's fault for all the crime and deaths caused across the world. It is the consciousness of the drug addicts fault, because they are the ones who do it. If you wanted to make the debate even more one-sided, you should have put: "The existence of drug addicts is harmful to our society." And as if the labels weren't warning you enough, think about your school. I am willing to bet that you have heard the term "don't do drugs, kids," at least once in your life. The schools are supposed to teach the harm of drugs and alcohol. If they still don't listen to these rules, maybe there's a reason why they still take drugs. Don't talk to me about the fact that drug cases come from peer pressure; it is not true. The person that was under peer pressure knew what would happen if they did drugs, but they did it anyway. Given the chance, most people would want to live a long and healthy life, rather than to keep the crappy friends that have such high expectations.
Secondly, I would like to say that the people that don't follow the expectations of the government shouldn't be complaining about their crappy lives because of drugs. They chose the lifestyle, and they will pay for it. If people die from drug abuse, so be it. They know fully of the consequences. Forgive me if I sound hardhearted to you, but the drug addicts had a choice, and they took the bad one. If the druggies never listen to the law, they deserve to die. We are just separating the wheat from the chaff: the ones who obey live, and the ones who don't pay the consequences.
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Rebuttal/clarification 1."First of all, I would like to address the source that you gave. I was unable to find the info that you were referring to, despite searching for it for awhile. Could you please give me the specific link to it in your next speech? "
I kid you not, but the link had a lot of good statistics, and I clicked on it, but it didn't bring me to the exact website I cited. I apologize for the mistake, so here is the true link to my actual source. http://www.drugfree.org... . I have no idea why my last source didn't work, and this technically not a rebuttal so I will now get into that part of the debate.
Rebuttal 2." Also, I would like to quote you on one of your statements: "Most drug addicts become addicted from stress, insecurity, and especially peer pressure." Actually, the thing that makes them addicted is the levels of dopamine in their body, not stress or that other stuff. Just saying."
I may have used the incorrect terminology of "peer pressure". A better term would be peer influence. The peers are not directly pressuring, but may be influencing the other person to do so. This article is all about peer influence on children, and when you start drugs young (which is becoming more common) the effects and addiction become stronger. It also covers why children will be so much more susceptible to influence because of developing social connections. http://www.eurekalert.org... . I read your article on dopamine, and it makes a lot of sense. Although, it only really covers the topic of how addictions are kept, and how they worsen over time. I may have not been clear in stating that peer pressure/influence can help start an addiction. I did not include the start part, so my apologies for that. And the article backs up my claims on insecurity and stress starting addictions, but not about adding to a current addiction. That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up.
Rebuttal 3." Also, the source that you mentioned isn't an article, it's a video. Videos? Ain't nobody got time for that."
My source was not the video, it was the entire website. You had to sort of look around, and I didn't want to direct you to a certain page, because I wanted you to look at the entire website. You should definitely look it over, because the site gives lots of information on how smoking is very harmful to society and the environment. And the video was helpful in a way, so ain't nobody got time for that rebuttal of yours!
Rebuttal 4." On the bottom of every cigarette pack, there is a warning which explains the risks of doing drugs.(Not knowing from experience, of course) The "millions of people" that you talk about know the risks, so it's not the dealer's fault. You might as well blame the government for not shutting down major brands of drugs."
It may not be the dealer's entire fault, but the business is still immoral and meant for crooks. The people still may know the facts, but as many people will say experience and understanding is much more vital than facts and knowledge. These new smokers don't have the experience (just like you said yourself, so this contradicts your argument), so they are more likely to fall into the pit trap these capitalists make to gain profit. You can't ignore the statistics, and whether it is the consumer's or producer's faults it is still a very horrible problem. Use the analogy of taking the position of the head of one of these tobacco and alcohol companies. You could see how your products are killing so many people, and it happens no matter whose fault it is. The drug business is morally wrong, and is harmful no matter who takes the blame. I do believe that governments should outright ban it, but that does not relate to the debate so I didn't mention it.
Rebuttal 5." "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy." (Source:http://www.cdc.gov......) This is the label on the bottom of the cigarette pack. It is not the drug's fault for all the crime and deaths caused across the world. It is the consciousness of the drug addicts fault, because they are the ones who do it."
I have decided to use evidence from your own cited article to support my debate. (The irony!)
"Warning labels on cigarette packages in the United States are weaker and less prominent than those of many other countries" (http://www.cdc.gov... ). This is telling us that the labels are less prominent than other countries. This may help contribute to bad decisions by smokers to smoke, because they are not given the FULL statistics. I bet if customers had to view a website, such the one I cited earlier (but you didn't read all parts of the website), than they would be more likely to reconsider smoking or try to quit. Here is the link to the same website, (the video is not the main part, so look at the top bar with the "The Problem" tab) http://tobaccofreeca.com... .
If you have looked at the problem section, than you will see that they back my arguments. If you are wondering why I have mentioned smoking a lot, it is because it is an example. A lot of similar and different problems arise with other not so legal drugs.
My argument points:
I will state this, drugs are harmful to society because they are non-beneficial and they simply hurt people. I don't see any websites saying "drugs don't hurt you at all!" or "drugs can be good for your health". The only people who I think are implying these statements are drug dealers and companies. They simply don't care about human health. A lot of people don't realize that deadly drugs are so bad for our health, and why it is immoral to distribute them when knowing the health risks. I don't understand why that isn't so obvious to a lot of people (especially liberals). I will give you a basic review:
1). Drugs hurt people's health and self esteem. they also kill people
2). Everyone knows this, INCLUDING the drug dealers and companies. The new druggies don't have the experience.
3). If the companies know they kill and hurt people, then it is very immoral and inhumane to exploit people for profit. Even if the druggies agree and know the facts, they are still be hurt physically and emotionally for PROFIT! It is basically the exact same thing as people being payed for torturing human beings, even if the people agreed to the torture.
If anyone thinks it is okay to make a profit of of hurting people, than they are a chauvinistic pig. I will leave my statement at this. If I sound harsh, than you're getting the idea. I am only speaking the bare bone honest truth.
First of all, I would like to address the fact that I don't care if you misspell a couple of words in your debate. It's fine if you do that, and I understand that spell check can be kind of crappy at times. I would just like the judges to acknowledge this fact, and possibly get a couple of points for it.
Also, when you are referring to drugs, do you mean cigarettes? If so, could you address this in the following speech? If cigarettes are allowed in the debate, could you also allow the subject of E-Cigarettes too?
I thank my opponent for giving the newer/updated source. I understand the fact that you were unable to give me the correct link. It is very informational.
Thank you for clarifying on the phrase "peer pressure." I agree with the fact that peer influence is a better term for it. But I would like to quote you on one of your phrases: "when you start drugs young," which is one of the points/rebuttals that I brought up in my previous speech. First of all, this is exactly why schools bring up the subject of drugs when you are younger. Therefore, it has become far less likely that a younger individual would accept drugs, unless they are very messed up. I would also like to address the quote that you made: ". That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up." First of all, I would like to ask what you meant by "Contention 1." By contention 1, do you mean my first rebuttal to your argument, or did you perhaps mean my very first contention? Seeing as how you appear to be referring to my first rebuttal, then I will give reasoning for that. If you meant something else, could you address that fact in your next speech? While one might be taking drugs, there are tons of other solutions for drug addictions (i.e: Pondera, which was mentioned in my previous speech), so that is what makes drugs harmless. They don't pose any threats because the threat can easily become neutralized by revolutionary products like Pondera.
Thanks for clarifying on the subject. I did look around a little bit; it was very interesting. However, I think that you dropped my argument in that paragraph. I will assume that you agree with that statement, or you overlooked it. In case that you just missed it, you can make it in a future speech. Otherwise, I guess that argument goes to me.
You're correct, I went off on a tangent, and got off topic. I will give a rebuttal to this, and then we should just leave the particular subject, unless you wish to pursue the subject further. You said, "You could see how your products are killing so many people, and it happens, no matter whose fault it is." Doesn't that mean that the government should ban car companies as well? After all, cars kill thousands of people every year, just like drugs. Also, when I mention inexperienced drug users, I was not using myself in the 'equation.' I won't give much of a rebuttal to this argument, seeing as how it went off subject, and it is highly one-sided.
I will agree with the fact that the source is against the argument. I should have done more looking on the particular subject. I can't argue with the fact that my own source contradicts my own arguments.
I will specify on some of my topics once more. First of all, drugs control the population. They kill off the disobedient people that can't follow society's laws. As I have said before, they separate the wheat from the chaff. People who just want to experience drugs are even more stupid. They already know the consequences; they are easily persuaded. Stupid, and easily-persuaded people have nothing to contribute to our society, and should therefore die.
Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
1). Answer to first question:
When I talk about drugs, I relate to the topic. This debate includes heroin, cigars, cigarettes, cannabis, meth, E-cigarettes, illegal recreational drugs, tobacco products, and basically all of the street drugs. Just to clarify.
2). Rebuttal to 2nd rebuttal:
"I would also like to address the quote that you made: ". That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up." First of all, I would like to ask what you meant by "Contention 1."
What I mean is your contention 1, or rebuttal. You didn't label it as contention 1, but I assumed it was contention 1. You state that pondera makes drugs harmless. This makes no sense. Not every druggie is going to take pondera. It sounds trustworthy and effective, but that doesn't mean everyone who is on drugs is going to take it for sure. Those who do take it will see that the harms of the drugs will go away. Smallpox has a vaccine, but that doesn't mean that if a strain was to appear in non-vaccinated people that it would be "harmless". Sure the threat to society can be neutralized in a way, but this may not be as easy as it seems. The threat is still there in non-pondera takers, and to get the drug to all people in America and in many other countries would be very hard and complicated.
3). Rebuttal to rebuttal 3:
" If the drug addicts want security and relaxation, get a security camera and a bed. There are lots of non-harmful (and not as costly) ways to relax properly. (Source: Life-Hacker is BAE) If you look on the source, it provides you with a lot of easy ways to provide yourself with relaxation. Best of all, you don't have to suffer from headaches or brain damage. Also, the source that you mentioned isn't an article, it's a video. "
You have a point, in a way. Sure there are better and non-harmful ways to relax, but most druggies will be willing to stay addicted no matter what "life hacks" you throw at them. I looked up life hacks, and the results I got where off topic, and seemed frankly as money saving techniques. Anyways, it was irrelevant in a way to the debate. And when I stated security, I meant being comfortable with your life, not a guard or dead bolted door. Addicts will think of being secure, but the sense is false, as they are being robbed of their life and money by drug dealers and companies. I guess it is still their fault, but why keep drugs anyways if they only help these so called "disobedient people" lose their lives faster, and have less chance of rehabilitation.
4). Rebuttal to rebuttal 4:
" Doesn't that mean that the government should ban car companies as well? After all, cars kill thousands of people every year, just like drugs."
Yeah they do, but this is from drivers being given licenses to early in their lives. I made an entire debate on this, so you will see useful points about this in that debate if you look at it. Anyways, I am starting to veer off topic. The drug companies sell products that WILL kill you if you use them correctly. Car companies sell cars that when used incorrectly will kill you. Most products will do something undesired or bad when used incorrectly. Such as alcohol, one of the least horrible drugs out their for society. Drugs will always hurt you even when used correctly (except alcohol in most cases).
5). Rebuttal to rebuttal 5:
I guess I win on that one. My opponent conceded on this small, inner topic of the debate.
6). Counter arguments:
"First of all, drugs control the population. They kill off the disobedient people that can't follow society's laws. "
Now, what you are saying is that humans should be using artificial selection on the population. That is basically what you are saying, and isn't artificial selection wrong. This is especially wrong on HUMAN BEINGS! So let's say that using this logic, we should just kill every poor citizen in Africa and Asia. After all, they aren't helping society in any way... They just starve and die in Africa, and our military has to help them. Your logic on that point was completely flawed, and I just proved it.
7). My arguments:
We can't use or allow artificial selection on humans, for it is unconstitutional. The American constitution will not allow for people to simply say, "kill everyone who doesn't do it the right way." Sure I think we shouldn't have people taking drugs, but just letting them die and our environment get destroyed is unacceptable. Hitler said to kill all the Jews because they didn't practice his set religion. Wouldn't WE be breaking the laws of society by allowing this to happen to drug addicts?
Thank you for clarifying on the statement that I asked for. While I do have a couple of arguments for E-cigarettes, I believe that the debate is pretty much ending, so I won't bring those up.
You state that "not every druggie is going to take Pondera," and you would technically correct in saying that. However, I said that Pondera reduces "an average of 95% drug cases that it was tested on"! That's a lot, for a product to reduce addictions! Granted, there are a lot of drug addicts who aren't going to take Pondera, but they plan on taking drugs for the rest of their life. They are the 'chaff' that should be separated (I'll address that point later on in my speech). Have you ever heard of the term "cornered animal?" While these 'hardcore' drug addicts won't necessarily reflect this term, people who want to quit drugs are a very good example for this idiom. A cornered animal wants to get out of their corner, and they are desperate for anything that might help them. Lots of drug addicts are willing to quit, but haven't found the resources. The desperation that these drug addicts face will eventually turn towards something that might reduce their addiction. Pondera can help the people who want to quit. You even said it yourself: "Those who do take it will see that the harms of the drugs will go away." This contradicts your statements in that paragraph, and it really does make drugs harmless. I would like to talk about the fact that Pondera is actually sponsored by a few government agencies, and will be sponsored by many more within the coming years. So when you say that getting the cure to all drug addicts in America will be complicated, that could definitely change within a couple of years. Who knows? Maybe the drug threat will be neutralized in a couple of years!
"Most druggies will be willing to stay addicted no matter what 'life hacks' you throw at them." First of all, you should never insult Life-Hacks. Ever. Anyway, when I stated my source, you didn't need to use the source. I do appreciate your enthusiasm, though. I'm glad to be against an opponent who is always willing to contribute and learn from their opponent. I also apologize if I misinterpreted your definition of "security." But either way, you can find an easy way to feel secure and happy. You said that drug addicts are "being robbed of their life and money by drug dealers and companies." But don't you think that they would realize that? You know, druggies might smell weird or do crime, but they aren't exactly completely oblivious to their financial situation. Sure, they might not be completely sure about their situation, but most don't just spend money until they are out of cash. "Oh, that sucks. I'm in debt because of buying drugs." That's the stereotypical druggie in the movies, not the people in real life. It's a simple misconception, don't worry. Granted, there is at least one constantly drunk guy who's running in the red because he spent too much on drugs, but that's not everyone. Therefore, any argument talking about 'snickering capitalistic pigs,' or 'greedy companies who don't care about human lives' has been countered.
Cars... 'veering' off topic... Whether or not that pun was intended, I can't deny the fact that the joke was pretty great. But let's get back on track. (Train puns, anybody? Darn, I need to 'train' harder for these puns) First of all, I'd like to repeat one of the points that I have made clear throughout the debate. The people who do drugs already know the dangers of using these drugs, and they don't need lame cigarette warnings to tell them that. I acknowledge the fact that these warnings suck butt, and it came from that source. You said it yourself: "The drug companies sell products that WILL kill you if you use them correctly." If you know that, then there are undoubtedly billions of people who know that fact (don't take that the wrong way, just trying to prove a point). Even though druggies know that, they continue to do drugs. Therefore, people who die from drugs deserve to die, because that they knew that and never quit. If they tried to quit, but never quit, then they were obviously not trying hard enough.
Killing the poor people in Asia and Africa might solve a couple of problems, but this will just cause more problems than it solves. It would cause many protests. But has anyone ever protested for people dying from drugs? I doubt it. Your example might appear the same, but there are some major differences between them. Once again, I have to repeat the point: the people who do drugs knew the risks. I am altogether very sure that you get the gist already. The poor people aren't breaking any laws by being poor. But people who do illegal drugs break laws, and that's why they deserve to die. Poor people might die, but they don't necessarily deserve it. Who knows? Maybe the drug industry is all just a plot by our government to control population or weed out the bad from the good to make a perfect society. You don't really know, do you? Unless you have an argument for them, I advise that you be more careful until you say that somebody's points are "completely flawed."
We are not "letting them die," as you have said in your speech. Why do you think we have hospitals? We try to make them live, and they go right back to doing drugs. You also asked,"Wouldn't WE be breaking the laws of society by allowing this to happen to drug addicts?" I'd like to repeat that we are not just letting them die. We're not breaking the laws of society. If anyone is to be blamed, it's the government. And no, this is not some conspiracy that I made up on the spot. Instead, we should blame the government because they're not banning the industry that is causing all these deaths. It's ironic, isn't it? The government is the one who made these laws, but they break them by keeping the drug companies around.
Since it is nearing the end of the debate, I often point out all the arguments or rebuttals that my opponent dropped in their speeches. You didn't drop many arguments; I believe that you only dropped one that I could remember. There might be a couple more, but I forgot. Tell me in the next round if you wish to agree with me, or if you want to make a rebuttal.
There are lots of people willing to help drug addicts, despite what you said. This is not the reason why smokers want to quit but never do. (2nd round, 1st rebuttal)
Also, I ask you to not make any new arguments for this debate; that always makes things more complicated. I won't have enough rounds to argue against it, nor will you.
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Themeaman909 forfeited this round.
I await your answer in your next speech. Thank you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.