The Instigator
Dorsatum
Pro (for)
The Contender
Smooosh
Con (against)

The prohibition of any substance is inherently immoral.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Dorsatum has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 105531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Dorsatum

Pro

My argument is simple.

If we agree that we own our own bodies, and have the right to use them as we see fit. Then using force to govern how others use their bodies cannot be justified morally. Provided, of course, they are not infringing on the rights of others.
Smooosh

Con

I cannot make a viable argument as far as whether "we own our own bodies, and have the right to use them as we see fit". But, I don't believe that is relevant in the argument at hand. Even if my opponent could prove the above statement to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, that does not excuse anybody from their inherent responsibility and liability that comes with everyday life.

*If my opponent is coming from the standpoint that I am free to experiment with any substance that I feel fit to try, that's fine on the surface, but if I get in a car while under the influence of LSD and I cause harm to others, that argument doesn't hold up in court. I understand that my argument may seem redundant because my opponent could point out that I would be infringing on the rights of others if I cause harm with my car, but that argument will only hold up if my opponent can prove that the LSD did not cause me to cause the harm. One could take it a step further and argue that the drug didn't cause me to cause harm, but MY decision to take the drug caused me to cause harm, therefore it was my decision to take the drug which caused me to cause harm. So that leaves us at the logical conclusion that we need to prohibit SOME substances that are known to impair ones judgement so severely that they can no longer control their actions. Whether we are free to take those substances is irrelevant because we are never free from the consequences of our actions.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dorsatum 7 months ago
Dorsatum
You are correct I agree with the Harm Principle fully. It is what I am trying to convey with this argument.
Posted by Dorsatum 7 months ago
Dorsatum
Both of those are great suggestions. I believe it is too late to change the topic tho? I could perhaps post a new one.
Posted by kasmic 7 months ago
kasmic
Or perhaps "Adults ought to be free to act as they see fit provided they do not harm others."

Then you could specify that the debate is not about what constitutes an adult but rather what the state can or can"t morally decree.

A debate about whether a person owns themselves would be interesting as well.
Posted by Dorsatum 7 months ago
Dorsatum
I am not familiar with the harm principle. Any reading you can recommend?

Smooosh, I am ok with keeping it as is if we both understand that I am referring to adults of sound mind, an oversite on my part for sure in the working of the question. I am new here and used to Facebook and Reddit, people are far less detail oriented! So far this site seems very promising!
Posted by kasmic 7 months ago
kasmic
it seems based on your arguement that the harm principle is what you wish to debate. The prohibition of substances is incidental though not central to the harm principle.

Resolved "a just society implements the harm principle."
Posted by Smooosh 7 months ago
Smooosh
Would you like to continue with the debate as it is, or do you wanna change the wording of the resolution? I can just forfeit if you want.
Posted by Dorsatum 7 months ago
Dorsatum
I suppose the term "developed human" is quite subjective. This is my problem with nailing down most moral ideas when it comes to kids. When is a kid an adult is a very subjective question and hard to answer.

Perhaps I should rephrase the point as "The prohibition of any substance between mentally stable adults is inherently immoral"
Posted by kasmic 7 months ago
kasmic
So your resolution could be negated by bringing up kids?

Seems to me that if it is morally permissible to prohibit substances for children, then prohibiting substances is not inherently immoral.

I think modern science does not support 18. Rather, it seems to suggest closer to 26.

http://hrweb.mit.edu...
http://www.wisegeek.org...
Posted by Dorsatum 7 months ago
Dorsatum
A five-year-old is not yet a fully developed human and is dependent on its parents for survival. At what time a person becomes a "developed human" is an interesting topic and not one I have a strong opinion on. Generally, I will trust the science behind 18 ish being the magic number.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.