The Instigator
srustisinchu11
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

drug addiction

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...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 77097
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

srustisinchu11

Con

the story is same throughout the world. drug addiction has spared neither a progressive nation nor a backward one. it is rather strange the more backward a nation is the more sad are the experiences of drug addiction .according to melvyn lestitsky US assistant srecretary of state for international narcotics matters there were at least seven lakh drug addicts in India on august 1,1989.by the end of the century they would be more than doublew.it is rather,strange that more than 50% of these are either students of colleges,the seats of knowledge and learning or young men in the 10-25 age group.the group includes people of all shades ranging from engineers and advocates to that of rag collectors and road side hotels boys. the government can just aid the efforts or initiate the efforts-the management is with society.
Zarroette

Pro

Con merely states some statistics about drug addiction rates. Con provides no reason why drug addiction is bad. Hence, there is no impact on any of Con’s arguments.


In America during 2012, alcohol taxation generated $6.5 billion [1]. If the American gov’t were to encourage alcohol addiction, instead of discouraging it with institutions like the NCADD [2], alcohol addiction would increase taxation revenue.


Drinking alcohol has positive effects on people, such as: reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke [3]. Alcohol is a depressant, meaning that it can help you relax after a stressful day [4]. Therefore, it is clear people would benefit from alcohol addiction.


Alcohol/drug addiction (1) generates more taxation revenue and (2) makes the addicted healthier and relaxed. My opponent provides no rebuttal or negative case with any impact. Resolution affirmed.


References

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Mmm I didn't realise that there was another name for Kritik, unless I misundestood what I read about Theory Shells.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
I was thinking of running a theory shell with this one.
Posted by michigainman56 2 years ago
michigainman56
It is unfair because who ever is pro couldn't provide a reasonable argument for why drug addiction is good. Arguing for drug addiction? Really?
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
Oh yeah, every time a person votes for Pro/Con, how many points is Pro/Con given?
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
Hm? What do you mean, "unfair"?
Posted by michigainman56 2 years ago
michigainman56
Wow this is so unfair I am reporting this. Disgusting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 64bithuman 2 years ago
64bithuman
srustisinchu11ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: As Pro pointed out, Con has built an argument on facts that do not relate to the resolution. His points don't relate to how drug addiction is negative, just how widespread the problem is. Con poorly sources his argument, if you can say it's sourced at all. Points to Pro for having better spelling and grammar as well. Con could have pointed out the burden drug addiction has on taxpayers, etc.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
srustisinchu11ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just laid out statistics and didn't argue that drugs were bad, while pro listed many positive benefits. I reccomend in the future, maybe making a debate more rounds, so you can offer some rebuttals for your opponent's arguments, as well as recover from mistakes. Con failed to capitalize the first word of every sentence, something that annoys me a lot.