The Instigator
Smithereens
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jamie56
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

illicit drugs should be legalised in Australia

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,354 times Debate No: 25611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Smithereens

Con

The purpose of this debate is to try and stump the opponent using reasoning and logic alone. Neither side will present any factual evidence to support a claim or sources to back up anything. No statistics, no quotes from professionals in the area, just cold hard logic.

During this debate, both parties are allowed to assume their opponents beliefs as stated outside this debate. My opponent knows what I am talking about, so I will not elaborate merely to observe privacy.

Round 1 is for acceptance, no other rules need mentioning, besides the usual, semantics, trolling etc... Dont do it.

Good luck to my opponent, let this be a very thought provoking debate.
jamie56

Pro

Thanmkyou for the opportunity to do thisin some ways unqiue form of debate I accept and relish the challenge already
p.s Game on
+
Debate Round No. 1
Smithereens

Con

Ok, we need no definition here, illegal drugs need to stay illegal based on this thought:
>A person that takes drugs most likely does so of their own accord in order to be happy. Once they take drugs, they develope an addiction, dependence, tolerance and eventually cannot stop. They then cease to be happy, if they in their original right mind could make the decision to stop because it was taking away their happiness, they would do so. So it is up to us to make that decision for them, assuming that it is a moral obligation for a human to help another human in need.

To start this debate, lets examine the intent and purposes of illicit drug use, consider the following chain of logic:
> Utilitarianism is the philosophy by which most people abide
> Drug users come under the overall catergory of 'most people.'
> Drug users are therefore, normal people who take drugs to be happy

What I wish to claim, is that we can only enforce law on normal people. Once someone's ability to reason and choose out of freewill are negatively affected by druguse, they cannot be measured up against the law.These people are therefore obliged to stay normal, in oder to be able to abide by the law. its their duty to society in exchange for the privalige of living in 21st centruy civilization.

Outside this debate, I questioned jamie the following:
Would you force someone to stop hurting themselves if they did not want to do it?
This question seeks to identify a difference between the mental and physical persons of an individual. In drug use, this 'physical side' is the person harming themselves by taking drugs due to the fact that they are now depending on it. The mentail side is the persons original state of mind, his/her reasoning before it was affected by drug use.
So the question asks, if someone had an impaired ability to choose, and they were hurting themselves against their normal reasoning, should you intervene? Or in other words, if someone is taking drugs and is addicted, should we stop them? Throughout the duration of the debate I will attempt to bully James into saying yes. If we should stop people from taking drugs, then that means we should not legalise drugs in Australia.

Im going to do a precognitive rebuttal now and say that my opponent is probably going to claim something along the lines of:
People have the right to choose to do something that harms themselves as long as it doesnt harm anone else.

Firstly, I have a contention against the word 'right.' In the sense that it doesn't exist. There are privaliges, but there are no such things as rights. Thats working from the standpoint that you were born into society. if you are one of the 200 uncontacted settlements, you owe nothing to society and have the right to remain secluded. But if you are born into society, you have the privalige of everything that society gives you inexchange for the following responcibilities:
>The duty to protect society
>The duty to progress society
>The duty to maintain society
Society is a collection of like-minded humans, not in the sense that they believe the same ideas, but that we all share the ability to reason. Anyone who has destroyed their ability to reason in order to make themselves happy has not fulfilled their role to maintain society. They have reduced the imput of a perfectly operational human being and turned it into a person who leeches, a person who requires welfare benefits and the generosity of the law-abiders to remain alive. This is the first causation effect that follows the desicion to take drugs if viewed as a wave.

on the bottom line, there is no way to harm yourself in society that doesnt harm someone else. Every death reduces the total output of the working humans simply because there is one less worker. All humans can work, old people use to work once upon a time, so they are excluded, and mentally disabled people can work, if not, they are an exception too, because they did not choose to be disabled.

Consider the following statement that may or may not be brought up by the affirmative team: 'What if someone wants to hurt themselves to be happy?'

my answer would be that firstly, one must be able to prove that the individual should be put first before the majority, and secondly, one must be able to prove that there is a someone who is in society that owes nothing to society.

With those two points taken care of, I look forward to hearing from my opponent.
jamie56

Pro

Ok I will be quick to start of so get ready. My first point is that there is such a thing as freedom of choice. My opponent states that the average person is a Utilitarian he is assuming that every person on this earth from the richest tycoon to the poorest man follows this theory of philosophy if at least subconsciously if not consciously (for those of us who don't study philosophy that roughly equates to the end is what you justify an action by specifically how happy you are at with the end result of an action is what you judge it by.)This is a major problem I find with my opponents argument he judges everybody with a standard model he says that if everybody in the world was given the full information about drugs, if they knew it was going to hurt them in the long run then they would not take them that they would appreciate someone stopping them, in this case, stopping them pre-emptively when they are in full possession of the consequences of that action then why should we stop them? the person who has taken the drug was in the full possession of their faculties before they took the drug so why should we deny their right of of choice by stopping their decision it does not harm anyone else (physically) but themselves and it was their decision and they knew the consequences of their actions
My opponent stated that once some takes drugs they are detrimental to society but conceivably that

argument could be used on nearly everything to degrees if you play video games you are not "a fully effective member of society",if you have any hobbies you are not a "fully productive member of society"overall this argument is incredibly open ended and also goes against my opponents earlier argument that the majority of people are utilitarian.

With these 2 points disposed I look forwrd to see how my opponet will continue to justify his poit of view.
Debate Round No. 2
Smithereens

Con

My opponent is a misinformed person but that's ok because it doesn't harm society in this level of debating.
His claim amounts to a single point:
>People are fully aware of the consequences of a decision before they make it.
This statement although true, does not advance my opponents claim due to the fact that there are various other components that weigh on different sides of the person's desicion to start taking drugs.
Consider this scenario:
there is a homeless person named Scott who lives on the street. Everyday, Scott is abused and assaulted and has trouble getting food or water. He has various friends who are in the same state that he is in, but they are less than honorable. These friends introduce him to drug use. immediantly, Scott's reaction is that the drugs will not make him happier, he knows the consequences of drug use and that it will hurt him. But Scott agrees to try the drug out and is later hooked, addicted to the drug which releases copious amounts of dopamine in his brain, shutting down his euphoria receptors. Scott becomes depressed and when he cannot find a way to acquire more of the drug himself, he kills himself.

Now, everything about that scenario is reflected in tens maybe hundreds of thousands of alike people, but what I want my opponent to realise, is that it completely disproves the basis of his claims.

Scott was not influenced by his own reasoning as my opponent would claim he was, his normal state of mind was already impaired by:
>His friends
>His state of living

The same situation can be applied to every drug user in the country, humans are not capable of doing things without reasoning and so any reasoning that leads a human to do something against his/her nature is unnatural. My opponents view is that we are not morally obliged to stop someone from harming themselves even though they do not want to. There is no such thing as a human who wants to harm themselves in their correct state of mind. The incorrect state of mind is like a prison, it tortures the person even though they don't want it, but they will continue living in that prison because we have neglected them.

That disproves my opponents claims that people who are in the right state of mind can make the decision to harm themselves. Completely false, if they make that desicion, then obviously they are in the impaired state of mind. Allowing them to make their desicions using an impaired conscious is completely inhumane and cruel.

Looking at my opponents claim that we have freedom of choice, Its pretty plain to see that he didn't properly read my post at all. He completely failed to defend it from a rebuttal that was waiting for him to arrive.

Lets go through his unorganised slab of text and refute each point as it arises:
'he is assuming that every person on this earth from the richest tycoon to the poorest man follows this theory of philosophy.' What my opponent says is accurate here, although the implicit straw-man is not welcome. All creatures follow some form of the philosophy of utilitarianism as a default. in animals, instead of looking for happiness they look for survival and different ways to survive and eat. Humans are not so worried about survival as animals, so we look for a purpose, happiness. Everything ever done by humanity with reason has been done for the reasons of 'a greater good,' a 'better place,' or simply for happiness. Why do we search for things to satisfy our curiosity? Its makes us happy. Why do we kill millions of each other in wars and battles? For greed, why are we greedy? For happiness. Everything boils down to happiness eventually, drugs are no different. In fact, drugs are the closest to failed pursuits of happiness than nearly anything else.

'he judges everybody with a standard model he says that if everybody in the world was given the full information about drugs, if they knew it was going to hurt them in the long run then they would not take.'
Until an exception can be found to the rule, it shall stand. My opponent is very closed minded when he sees an ordinary person deciding to take drugs for the first time. However, we need to balance the motives. If there is peer pressure shoving the individual on one side, then we need to provide information to discourage him proportionate to the level of peer pressure he or she is experiencing. This way, we can negate the disruptive influences that negatively impact someone's choice. All decisions should be able to be made by an individual without exterior negative interference. That is called freedom of choice. But where all the information comes from a single party, eg, a friend or criminal dealer, the choice has been negatively affected and cannot be called 'free.'

So who is going to provide the other half of counterbalances to dispute negative influences? The government.

His ending statement seeks to misinterpret my previous arguments. I said that all humans living in society have:
>The duty to protect society
>The duty to progress society
>The duty to maintain society
I was wrong to assume my opponent had a shred of common sense.
Ill explain it in simple English:
The duty to protect society means that all members that benefit from society are obliged to help prevent or intervene with an attack on society if it is within their power to do so.
The duty to progress society means that any opportunity that will advance any aspect or capability of society is not to be turned down unless it conflicts with a person's privileges (rights). Eg. Thou shalt continue working that extra 5 minutes that will allow a discovery of the cure to cancer even if you have a sore toe.
The duty to maintain society is actual a duty to not tear it apart. If you are born into the world and live of welfare for your entire life, you are a drain on society and are in the wrong.

The laws of Australia that prevent drug use also prevent a complete massacre of the younger generation. We both know that adolescent children have an impaired ability to determine risk. Well known fact. Considering that making it illegal for teenagers won't stop it getting to them, I would like to challenge my opponent to propose a method in which drugs can be made legal whislt our teenagers stay safely out of its reach.

I would like to raise some previous points that my opponent completely failed to address in the probably vain hope that he might see them.
>there is no way to harm yourself in society that doesn't harm someone else.
>Drugs destroy your duty of care to society
>Would you force someone to stop doing something if they are not in their correct mindset?

I would like to finish up by quoting my opponent from outside this debate, after a different argument I asked him why he still supported his claim, he said: 'I am irrational.' This wasn't a joke or anything, he said what he meant and meant what he said, so my question, which I never got to ask him, is something that is irrational worth supporting for the purposes of this debate?

The resolution is negated, now lets see what else my opponent has to say...
jamie56

Pro

jamie56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
I dont think i missed anything, you however, missed everything, like the pre-emptive rebuttals
Posted by jamie56 5 years ago
jamie56
*ignored
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
I am not sadistic james, i refuted all your points so much that I was left with enough time to attack your person. implicitly of course.
Posted by jamie56 5 years ago
jamie56
I think you igbored one of my arguments
Posted by jamie56 5 years ago
jamie56
so I am guessing you are a sadistic since you didnt refute it and you are insulting me ofr my suppoesed misguided attempts to hurt poeple when you are sadistic
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
do you have a brilliant rebuttal up your sleve that will justify your thinking or are you planning to concede?
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
I didnt call you a sadist, i just said that you wish to hurt people, not because you enjoy hurting people, but because it suits your beliefs on how all people should live.
Posted by jamie56 5 years ago
jamie56
and you call me a sadist?
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
Oh, and yeah, I used this opportunity to make fun of scott.
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
If the general consensus had no opinion on drug legalisation, you would impose drugs on them. you call your idea irrational, so you would be imposing an irrational idea on everyone. Justifiable? No. Inhumane and selfish? yes. In short, a self-deluded maniac who would rather see the furtherment of his beliefs rather than the well-being of his people. Hitler was the same, the pope who ordered the crusades was the other. Both believed they were doing it because the majority would benefit and that it would be better overall, so please, quit being closed minded, fight the symptons of Aspergers and aknowledge that you wish to hurt people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.