Debate Rounds (1)
Adult human beings have the right to be free. In some instances, where actions compromise the freedom of others, freedom can and should be limited. Harm to oneself is a difficult matter and people have varying opinions on it. For instance in Sweeden one has the authority to take their own life, this is not the case in many countries. However, denying freedom is a significant step for one person to do to another and should not be done unless in the most servere circumstances. Is cannabis a severe circumstance? Well, its the least addictive drug on the planet. It's less poisonous than water, its never killed anybody, there is no evidence that it has any health effects (a few weak correlational studies that have recently been discredited does not count) and whilst under the influence one is far more competent than say one intoxicated with alcohol.
So, whatever propaganda one believes about cannabis, even if it where true, this does not legitimise dictorial control over people's lives. Free-market, and pluralistic democracies should not outlaw a weed on no scientific basis. Even if it was harmful if one abused it, the state has no right to do this. If the government decided that they didn't like football, and outlawed it, people like you would agree and go along with it. It would be on the grounds that it causes violence, distracts youth and people from work and lives, causes stress and addiction to it, playing footbal causes injury and families waste money gong to see it. Open your eyes my friend, your leaders are not your parents!
Thank you, good luck in your debate group.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to offer an argument. I'm not sure what the fvck con was thinking. Con also fails to use capitalization at al.
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.