The Instigator
neokansas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

marijuana legalization

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 1 vote the winner is...
Guidestone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 41366
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

neokansas

Pro

I think marijuana should be legalized. It's safer than alcohol.
Guidestone

Con

I accept this challenge, and wish my opponent good luck.

He states that marijuana should be legalized because it's safer than alcohol. In a peer reviewed study of the harm of drugs they found alcohol to be the most harmful. [1] That means following his logic he should support legalization of heroin and crack cocaine too for the same reason that it is less harmful than alcohol.



Marijuana should not be legal because of the harmful health effects.
Some of the short term effects include distorted perception, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, and increased heart rate. [2] Some of these effects like distorted perception, and loss of coordination will lead to increased accidents harming more citizens. Also, there would be second hand smoke that would further harm others who don't smoke marijuana. The government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. [3] The government also protects its citizens with immunization mandates, fluoridation of water, iodization of salt, pollution restrictions, and banning of hard drugs. In conclusion, with no accepted medical benefit and many health problems it should continue to be illegal.

Marijuana is a gateway drug.
According to a study by the Yale University School of Medicine marijuana is linked with an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse. [4 ] The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration also have written that "Among lifetime marijuana users reporting their onset after age 20, an estimated 1.1 percent used heroin, 16.4 percent used cocaine, and 20.6 percent used any psychotherapeutics nonmedically in their lifetime. Among persons who had never used marijuana, less than 1 percent had ever used cocaine or heroin, but 5.1 percent had used psychotherapeutics nonmedically." [5] As shown by well respected sources that marijuana is a gateway drug, it should continue to be illegal.


Sources
[1]
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
[2]
http://alcoholism.about.com...
[3]
http://www.justice.gov...
[4]
http://www.ctpost.com...
[5]
http://www.samhsa.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
neokansas

Pro

My opponent, "Guidestone" has not disagreed with my statement that marijuana is safer than alcohol, and wisely so. And by assumption and deductive reasoning, Guidestone has stated that I support the legalization of crack and heroin since they are also safer than alcohol. Let me first say that I do not profess to agree with this statement that all drugs, even heroin or crack, are safer than alcohol.

This is a common tactic in debates used by those who oppose the legalization of marijuana. It is a diversion, and one that side-tracks the argument off into another tangent, and rather a new topic of whether all drugs should be legalized because they may or may not be safer than alcohol. I choose not participate in another subject because the argument of whether marijuana should be legalized is enough of a discussion in itself and one that Guidestone agreed to participate in by his acceptance of my challenge on the subject of marijuana legalization at debate dot org.

Since marijuana, or "cannabis", is a schedule I controlled substance by federal law, it is deemed a drug with no medical potential. Therefore, scientific researchers unfortunately cannot easily study cannabis so that scientific research can be conducted in a fair and conducive setting. But, many prominent doctors are beginning to become more open to the notion that is has tremendous potential for a number of ailments. In fact, preliminary research suggests that it has promise for many neurological disorders like epilepsy. Other preliminary data suggests curative/preventative properties for diabetes type II, and, the big one, cancer. Rather, the data is suggesting that marijuana actually has protective qualities and is bringing hope to those sticken with terrible diseases in medical marijuana states that have access to it's active and non-psycho active properties when no other "legal" drugs have made a difference(1).

But when we have confirmed scientific evidence that alcohol is indeed more dangerous than marijuana, then I would argue there is definitively something morally wrong with the laws in our society. And by that I mean that if we are to judge those who consume marijuana are wrong in doing so because they are breaking the law, and if those laws are correct that punish those who are found guilty of consuming this substance into their bodies, then it begs this question: Should alcohol also be illegal as well? By many conservative and traditional opinions, ideals and personal principles, and by history itself, we know the answer to be yes. But we also know that alcohol prohibition put power into the hands that were corrupt and that it caused the growth and empowerment of a black market, the mafia and in turn provided a financial basis by which organized crime could flourish(2). Prohibition of alcohol only prevented the government from regulating the industry, making it a safer product, and collected tax revenue from its sales. It didn't stop people from consuming it, and was deemed a failure and eventually repealed. In some cases, it only made it easier for the young to get it, and made it cheaper for others. The prohibition of marijuana is doing essentially the same thing. The drug war against marijuana has made Mexican drug cartels powerful and violent and has failed to end the supply and demand of marijuana. By some estimates, as many as 100,000 people have died in the last decade from Mexican drug cartel territorial wars. Cannabis prohibition has made it easy for children to get it. The consumers have become less resistant, more peaceful and therefore easy targets by drug enforcement agents, resulting in imprisonment of millions of U.S. Citizens, making the United States prison population the biggest of it's entire population than any other modern civilization than of any other on Earth(5). There has been a swift change in the thinking that it currently sweeping the nation. Just this year, Gallup(6) and Pew(7) polls have measured that more Americans now feel that marijuana should be legalized than are against the notion.

It is with this logic that the marijuana laws are changing at the state level. 20 states have enacted medicinal marijuana laws for those with chronic illnesses and 2 states have enacted laws making the recreational use of marijuana legal. The U.S. Justice Department has recently stated they will not interfere with state laws that prevent distribution to minors; revenue from marijuana sales going to criminals, gangs or cartels; state-authorized conduct being a pretext to traffic other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; diversion into states that do not have laws authorizing marijuana conduct; violence or the use of firearms in cultivation and distribution; drugged driving and other harm to public health; the growing of marijuana on public lands; marijuana use on federal property.

My opponent argues that marijuana is a gateway drug and has provided a study to support his statement. But more recent research suggests that more prevalent gateway substances are the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco(4). In this case, it again supports my argument that if one substance is banned, so then should legal ones be banned that are even more influential to try other drugs.

My opponent argues that marijuana use causes health issues. Again, I am not debating whether pot can have potental side effects. I am simply saying that if American society finds alcohol safe enough to legalize, we should not demonize cannabis that is a safer choice, an aspect which Guidestone has not argued. But if we were to go down this road, I will say that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. But, there are thousands of well-documented cases where alcohol has been the sole cause of poisoning and death. And to fairly administrate such a debate solely on specific health aspects, we may not be able to fully complete this discussion until fair, verifiable scientific research on cannabis has been studied and affirmed.

1. http://www.cnn.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.gallup.com...
7. http://www.pollingreport.com...
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, but there are some problems with it.

Harm
I didn't disagree with the comment marijuana is less harmful than alcohol because it is; however, this is not a good argument for two reasons. Firstly, if this is the only requirement to be legalized then the logic must follow like this, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and drugs less harmful than alcohol should be legalized; therefore, heroin, crack, marijuana, etc. should be legal. Unless my opponent supports the legalization of all drugs less harmful than alcohol then he is logically inconsistent. Further, I would like to point out this is not diversionary since it is just following through his reasoning of legalizing marijuana, and if he does not like the results then he should drop the argument. Secondly, it assumes that I am for keeping alcohol legal, which I am not.

Research
The claim that "scientific researchers unfortunately cannot easily study cannabis" is unfounded and unsourced. There have been many studies such as the one by Patrik Roser, PhD, MD which found that "These data suggest that Delta (9) -THC may lead to acute impairment of attentional functioning and working memory"[1] Also, I want to know where he found that marijuana has "curative/preventative properties for diabetes type II" because not even the word diabetes appears in the article he supposedly got it from. [2]

Prohibition
He is right that prohibition didn't stop people from consuming alcohol, and that is because prohibition didn't ban consumption or even the possession of alcohol . It only banned "sale, production, importation, and transportation of alcoholic beverages" [3] Even though national prohibition may have led to increased crime it doesn't address the fact many states had prohibition laws staring with Maine in 1851. [4] When prohibition was repealed it didn't stop states of counties from having prohibition, and even today there are still dry areas. Prohibition of alcohol and banning of marijuana are not the same or can be related since one, alcohol, didn't ban the possession or consumption which made enforcing the law more difficult. Further, just because cartels do terrible things doesn't mean we should turn them into a legitimate business.

Polling
You have also committed the Bandwagon logical fallacy "You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation." [5] Just because a majority believes it should be legal doesn't mean it should.

State laws
I am unsure the point of this paragraph. I am might have missed the point. If my opponent would please clear up onto what he was saying it would be much appreciated.

Gateway Drug
My opponent does not deny that it is a gateway drug; therefore, my argument stands. Also, he goes on to say if marijuana is banned because it is a gateway drug than other drugs like alcohol and tobacco should be banned. How is this not what he considered diversionary. When I follow his logical through on being less harmful than alcohol that is diversionary, but when he follows my logic through that gateway drugs should be banned that is not diversionary. To me this just seems logically inconsistent. I do support smoking and alcohol bans so I am logically consistent.

Health
My opponent does not deny any of the health issues I mentioned earlier. These well known and document short-term effects like distorted perception, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, and increased heart rate. [6] There is also the problem of second-hand smoke. Even though no one may have overdosed on marijuana it has contributed to people's deaths. Also, like I said earlier there are many studies on the effects of marijuana.

Sources:
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.state.me.us...
[5] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[6] http://alcoholism.about.com...


Debate Round No. 2
neokansas

Pro

Marijuana should be legal because it is safer than alcohol. Yep. That's right. That's just an excellent beginning to an enormous debate that is full of solid reasoning and logic, and has proven challenging for the best in the business. Believe me-- I know, I've listened to a few debates from national figures on the topic of legalization of cannabis including (but not limited to) Patrick Kennedy, Mason Tvert, Ethan Nadelmann, Rob Kampia, Larry Campbell. We could waste time and continue to dwell on whether or not I correctly established a valid premise for this debate, or we could look at the actual issue of cannabis legalization or prohibition as a subject of our argument. I'd much rather get your thoughts on why you think cannabis should not be legal. I'm much more interested in learning if you have anything that might rattle my brains a little and provoke thoughts I might not of ever thought of before. Challenge me! This is an important topic. I think cannabis could potentially improve our economy, and potentially solve social, energy and environmental issues, which is a whole lot more important than wasting time dwelling on what I said or did not say in my opening argument. What do you think? Life is short. If you're not interested, I understand. I just joined debate dot org. I'm sure someone else will want to debate these issues if you're not up to it.

Fact of the matter is, in my rebuttal to your response, I effectively named several solid reasons that marijuana should be legalized. None or little of which you have responded to directly. You have avoided the discussion/issue of cannabis legalization as a whole. Let me reiterate my points in a list fashion that will be easier for you to follow and respond to. And if you wish to challenge any of these statements, let me know and I'll provide data and sources--no problem. But, I don't think any of this is far fetched by any means and in the interest of time and good debate, I'm going to just put it out there:

1) Prohibition of cannabis has been a 1.5 trillion dollar waste of taxpayer money since it began in the 30's.

2) Prohibition of cannabis has proven ineffective in preventing people from getting and consuming it at their whim.

3) Prohibition of cannabis has created a very lucrative black market.

4) Prohibition of cannabis has created and funded very powerful organized crime gangs. cartels and basically what are considered to be terrorists.

5) Prohibition of cannabis has incarcerated millions of non-violent drug offenders, and as a result our nation has locked away more people per capita than any other nation on earth.

6) Ending prohibition will enable government to regulate and tax the sale of it. The revenue generated from those taxes can be used for social programs that help those who abuse it and have problems with it.

7) Ending prohibition will in take the business of distribution away from the organized criminals, in turn taking their power away.

8) Ending prohibition will make it more difficult for children to access cannabis.

9) Ending prohibition will make it easier for serious scientific research to take place that can confirm or deny many medical, wellness and preventative attributes already associated to it. Colorado just within the last 2 days have confirmed they will spend 7 million, half of their marijuana legislative budget on research. This is huge news regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

10) Ending prohibition / regulation of cannabis will create enormous tax revenue. Not incarcerating millions of folks will save billions too. 2014 sales projections are in the 3.4 billion range, which obviously doesn't include states where it is currently illegal.

11) Ending prohibition will enable policy makers to reallocate law enforcement personnel to focus on more important crime issues like terrorists instead of cannabis users.

Your suggestion that we go backwards and prohibit alcohol again and never end prohibition of cannabis is irrational because it already has failed once with alcohol and continues to fail with cannabis. Perhaps you lack understanding or have been influenced of damaging stereotypes that are associated with cannabis users in our popular culture. The fact of the matter is, most cannabis consumers are closet users. They are not the mindless "Spicoli" personalities that everyone associates. Rather, they can be brilliant, intelligent people. You might've heard of these who have either admitted to it or have been caught in the act:

1) Steve Jobs
2) Oprah Winfrey
3) Carl Sagan
4) Morgan Freeman
5) Bill Gates
6) Michael Phelps
7) Barrack Obama

...just to name a few. But, too much of anything can be bad for you. Chronic use of weed specifically can slow down cognitive functioning. Obviously, in support of my argument, I want to focus on the positive aspects. In addition to cannabis' recreational, medical, preventative, curative, wellness / nutritive properties, let's look at the plant and how it could solve many other problems currently facing our country.

Bio Fuels
An industrial form of cannabis, also known as hemp, is low in the psychoactive ingredient THC, but grows rapidly and produces an enormous amount of substance that can be a replacement for gasoline. In fact, the first automobiles were designed to burn hemp gasoline.

Fiber
Way back, a man named William Randolf Hearst used his vast media empire to demonize cannabis and ultimately was successful. You might've heard of the "Reefer Madness" era. This period in time the prohibition of alcohol had just ended. It was a new target for the massive law enforcement resources left idle after it's repeal. Have you seen the movie Citizen Cane? Orson Wells played Hearst. Hemp threatened his logging business. By the way, Americans at this point became very good at clear cutting forests everywhere. Yet hemp fiber makes superior textiles (they used to make auto body panels from hemp! They were strong and light too!), clothing (the word "canvas" itself used to be made from cannabis, which is why it starts with "can") and regenerates very rapidly and efficiently. Our constitution was printedwritten on cannabis canvas and the first American flags were made with it. Paper users of today wouldn't be also known as tree killers if we still used hemp. And the paper would be very much better quality of we could grow hemp instead of using our beloved and important trees. Way back them, the superior minds that were considered the fathers of our nation (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc) were required to grow hemp. And, hmm-hmm, they most likely smoked it too). They often made royalty payments (aka taxes) to the King in England with hemp instead of currency. Speaking of currency, that too was made from hemp.

Like it or not, this is the direction our country is going. Legalization. Some say it's inevitable. But there still may be time to stop it! Tell me why it should be stopped. I want to hear it.
Guidestone

Con

"Marijuana should be legal because it is safer than alcohol. Yep. That's right. That's just an excellent beginning to an enormous debate that is full of solid reasoning and logic, and has proven challenging for the best in the business."

It is not challenging if you are logically consistent, it is only challenging when you hold conflicting beliefs like legalizing marijuana for being less harmful than alcohol but not legalizing heroin for being less harmful than alcohol


"Believe me-- I know, I've listened to a few debates from national figures on the topic of legalization of cannabis including (but not limited to) Patrick Kennedy, Mason Tvert, Ethan Nadelmann, Rob Kampia, Larry Campbell."

You listened to all of them but never sourced them once?


"We could waste time and continue to dwell on whether or not I correctly established a valid premise for this debate, or we could look at the actual issue of cannabis legalization or prohibition as a subject of our argument."

Considering I never said any about correctly establishing a valid premise, I think we were looking at the actual issue.


"I'd much rather get your thoughts on why you think cannabis should not be legal."

As mentioned in the first round I don't support it because it is a gateway drug and has bad health effects.


"I'm much more interested in learning if you have anything that might rattle my brains a little and provoke thoughts I might not of ever thought of before. Challenge me! This is an important topic."

It isn't that important of a topic, and this isn't challenging?


"I think cannabis could potentially improve our economy, and potentially solve social, energy and environmental issues, which is a whole lot more important than wasting time dwelling on what I said or did not say in my opening argument."


So, you want me to stop focusing on what you are saying and start focusing on things you never said before this round?


"What do you think? Life is short. If you're not interested, I understand. I just joined debate dot org. I'm sure someone else will want to debate these issues if you're not up to it."

If I wasn't up to it I would not have accepted the debate


"Prohibition of cannabis has been a 1.5 trillion dollar waste of taxpayer money since it began in the 30's."

unsourced, not mentioned in previous agruments, This equal about 19 million a year which isn't much

"Prohibition of cannabis has proven ineffective in preventing people from getting and consuming it at their whim."

Also unsourced, Prohibition of murder has proven ineffective in preventing people from murdering at their whim, should we legalize murder then?

"Prohibition of cannabis has created a very lucrative black market."

Unsourced, Prohibition of heroin has created a very lucrative black market, should we legalize heroin then?

"Prohibition of cannabis has created and funded very powerful organized crime gangs. Cartels and basically what are considered to be terrorists."

Unsourced, Replace cannabis with heroin, should we legalize heroin then?

"Prohibition of cannabis has incarcerated millions of non-violent drug offenders, and as a result our nation has locked away more people per capita than any other nation on earth."

So what?

"Ending prohibition will enable the government to regulate and tax the sale of it. The revenue generated from those taxes can be used for social programs that help those who abuse it and have problems with it."

Ending prohibition of murder will enable the government to regulate and tax the sale of licenses to kill. The revenue generated from those taxes can be used for social programs that help those who abuse it and have problems with it.

"Ending prohibition will intake the business of distribution away from the organized criminals, in turn taking their power away."

Unsourced, Because ending prohibition will magically make all the drug cartels disappear, and lose power. It won't make them a legitimate business though.

"Ending prohibition will make it more difficult for children to access cannabis."

Kind of like how having more guns decreases the rate of people getting guns?

"Ending prohibition will make it easier for serious scientific research to take place that can confirm or deny many medical, wellness and preventative attributes already associated to it. Colorado just within the last 2 days have confirmed they will spend 7 million, half of their marijuana legislative budget on research. This is huge news regardless of which side of the debate you're on."

There is already lots of info and research about it, you make it sound like it is an unknown substance.

"Ending prohibition / regulation of cannabis will create enormous tax revenue. Not incarcerating millions of folks will save billions too. 2014 sales projections are in the 3.4 billion range, which obviously doesn't include states where it is currently illegal."

This of course to into account the increases in accidents, health effect, bureaucrats to make sure tax is paid, and inspectors to check if they are following the rules right? I would have checked your source but you didn't have one.

"Ending prohibition will enable policy makers to reallocate law enforcement personnel to focus on more important crime issues like terrorists instead of cannabis users."

Because police are too busy arresting pot smokers to catch the murderer. Then again maybe we should legalize murder.

"Your suggestion that we go backwards and prohibit alcohol again and never end prohibition of cannabis is irrational because it already has failed once with alcohol and continues to fail with cannabis"

We have better enforcement now than we did over 80 years ago. I told you before the prohibition of alcohol and banning of marijuana can't be compared because they did not do the same thing.

"Perhaps you lack understanding or have been influenced of damaging stereotypes that are associated with cannabis users in our popular culture. The fact of the matter is, most cannabis consumers are closet users. They are not the mindless "Spicoli" personalities that everyone associates. "

The short answer: nope

"Rather, they can be brilliant, intelligent people. You might've heard of these who have either admitted to it or have been caught in the act:

1) Steve Jobs
2) Oprah Winfrey
3) Carl Sagan
4) Morgan Freeman
5) Bill Gates
6) Michael Phelps
7) Barrack Obama"

Many people have used appeal to authority too, but it is still a logical fallacy.


"Bio Fuels"

It could not replace gasoline unless you grew tons of hemp.


"Fiber"


This is just a conspiracy theory that ignores the fact that many states already banned it, and there was very little hemp growing in the US Anyways.

"Like it or not, this is the direction our country is going. Legalization. Some say it's inevitable. But there still may be time to stop it! Tell me why it should be stopped. I want to hear it."

Just like the people said when prohibition was coming "Like it or not, this is the direction our country is going" So, please don't fight it, just sit there and do nothing.

Debate Round No. 3
neokansas

Pro

I'm done.
Guidestone

Con

It is unfortunate that my opponent is deciding to quit on an issue he cares about.

It is also unfortunate that his arguments are filled with logical fallacies, unsourced information, and avoids addressing the first two reasons why marijuana shouldn't be legal.

I will list all my reasons and see if he will respond to these

1. Gateway Drug
According to a study by the Yale University School of Medicine marijuana is linked with an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse. [4] The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration also have written that "Among lifetime marijuana users reporting their onset after age 20, an estimated 1.1 percent used heroin, 16.4 percent used cocaine, and 20.6 percent used any psychotherapeutics nonmedically in their lifetime. Among persons who had never used marijuana, less than 1 percent had ever used cocaine or heroin, but 5.1 percent had used psychotherapeutics nonmedically." [5] As shown by well respected sources that marijuana is a gateway drug, it should continue to be illegal.



2. Health effects
Some of the short term effects include distorted perception, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, and increased heart rate. [1] Some of these effects like distorted perception, and loss of coordination will lead to increased accidents harming more citizens. Also, there would be second hand smoke that would further harm others who don't smoke marijuana. The government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. [2] The government also protects its citizens with immunization mandates, fluoridation of water, iodization of salt, pollution restrictions, and banning of hard drugs. In conclusion, with no accepted medical benefit and many health problems it should continue to be illegal.

3. Morally wrong
Under the two major schools of ethics, Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, both consider it immoral. Utilitarianism is "The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." [5] Kant uses what he called the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is "In the ethical system of Immanuel Kant, an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire." [6] In Kantian ethics you must think if everyone had to do this action all the time. Smoking of marijuana would impair normal functioning and every had to smoke marijuana then the world would be a world in which no one would want to live; therefore, it is immoral and should not be legalized. In fact there is almost no ethical system in which smoking marijuana is morally good/acceptable.

4. Legalization would increase the number of children having access to it
Developing brains and bodies can be dealt serious blows by the use of marijuana. Anytime you make something legal, you increase the accessibility to children. All too often kids and teenagers get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. We shouldn't let the same thing happen with marijuana. How many kids can get access to cigarette or alcohol, a lot more than can get access to marijuana. So, legalization would only give kids more access to it not less.

5. Drug related arrest benefit society
Someone who illegally buys/sell/uses marijuana has already established themselves as someone who does not follow the law, and could lead to more crimes in the future; however, if they are in jail on drug charges they cannot commit more crimes. Also, they would get a lighter sentence than others crimes, and we can focus on rehabilitation on why they turned to drugs instead waiting for them to do more crimes. By addressing the source of the problems we can make a better society or we could legalize marijuana and pretend the problems don't exist.

6. Legalization of marijuana will lead to the legalization of other drugs
As shown in previous arguments they can be changed just slightly to support legalization of harder drugs such as heroin, so unless you believe hard drugs should be legalized too then we should not start the pattern of legalizing drugs.


Sources:
[1] http://www.ctpost.com...
[2] http://www.samhsa.gov...
[3] http://alcoholism.about.com...
[4] http://www.justice.gov...
[5]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Debate Round No. 4
neokansas

Pro

I do not choose to forfeit the debate, but it is impossible to debate someone who is using irrational, non-objective phrases and comments. My opponent lives an hypocrisy when it comes to posting unrelated to subject statements, lacking sources, using non-objective deductive reasoning, using two word responses which have no meaning to specific points. Obviously my opponent is making yet another attempt at grasping for more diversionary tactics in avoidance to the argument at hand. I will merely wait until we have expended all responses and let others vote for the winner.
Guidestone

Con

I agree it is impossible to debate someone who is using irrational, non-objective phrases and comments, like a continual use of logical fallacies which you have done twice. When I read the lacking sources comment I did laugh because I am not the one who has made of list of unsourced information. Also, you claimed to find information in sources which it didn't like in round 2 "Also, I want to know where he found that marijuana has "curative/preventative properties for diabetes type II" because not even the word diabetes appears in the article he supposedly got it from." For using "non-objective deductive reasoning" you didn't dispute how it didn't work, so I don't see what is wrong with it. "Using two word responses which have no meaning to specific points" I used one two word response that was "So What?" because you failed to show how that was a problem, so there was a point. As for using "diversionary tactics" see round 2 "How is this not what he considered diversionary. When I follow his logical through on being less harmful than alcohol that is diversionary, but when he follows my logic through that gateway drugs should be banned that is not diversionary. To me this just seems logically inconsistent. I do support smoking and alcohol bans so I am logically consistent." He does the exact same "diversionary tactic" I used.

As for living in hypocrisy, you are the one using irrational phrases and comments, and lacking sources. That is the definition of a hypocrite.

I would like to point out my opponent never addressed any of my criticism from any round.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
Just saying "x is better than y" does not mean we should tolerate x.
Posted by nicole52 3 years ago
nicole52
You can win this debate Pro, plenty of statistics to back you up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
neokansasGuidestoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I have decided to award points for conduct and sources to Con. Conduct as Pro forfeited a round and sources as Pro did not supply the citations Con required. Arguments point are tied, as Pro had good arguments but no rebuttals and essentially gave up. While Con kept using the example of slippery slope when the debate had nothing to do with that. Spelling and grammar are tied.