The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
83 Points
The Contender
FalseReality
Con (against)
Losing
57 Points

Psilocybin ("magic") mushrooms should be legal in the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,885 times Debate No: 3769
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (39)

 

Danielle

Pro

Here's one for the Conservatives ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Jefferson once said, "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

Today, the manufacturing, buying, posession and distribution of psilocybin mushrooms is illegal in all but 2 states: Florida and New Mexico. I support the legalization of this drug for several reasons:

1. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..." yet the law disregards one's right to utilize the effects of mushrooms to enhance/practice their religious beliefs.

2. In addition to religious freedoms, individuals in the United States should have the right to ingest anything of their choosing - especially if it is not a narcotic or the chemical composition of the drug is natural. That is to say, mushrooms are grown wild in the enviornment and if people want to pick them and eat them and/or give some to their friends, that should not be a crime.

3. Mushrooms are not addictive either physically or psychologically. If continued mushrooms use is excessive within a short period of time, a tolerance will build giving the drug little to no effect anyway. Additionally, studies show that one's desire to ingest "magic" mushrooms decreases over time.

4. Mushrooms were legal in the U.S. until 1968, and the world was just fine prior to that year while they were still legal. Thus we can assume that there will not be incredibly dramatic, awful consequences for the legalization of mushrooms.

5. Safety: Mushrooms are realtively safe drugs. The toxicity is one and a half times that of caffeine, and the mortality rate as a result of mushroom's toxicity is an incredibly low 0.016%.

6. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine conducted a study regarding magic mushrooms. 61% of subjects reported a "complete mystical experience" while being under the mushroom's effects (which lasts 2 - 12 hours; usually between 4 - 8). Two months after using psilocybin mushrooms, 79% of the participants reported moderately to greatly increased life satisfaction and sense of well-being. Further, the "bad trips" that can result from usage were reported to be easily managed by the researchers and did not have a lasting negative effect on the subject's sense of well-being.

7. As with all illegal drugs, legalization of a controlled substance would eliminate the black market buying and selling of drugs which would in turn reduce the number of criminals in this country. I understand why not all drugs can or should be legal, however, mushrooms is not one of them.

8. It is wrong to compare individuals who take magic mushrooms with hardened drug addicts. Not only are the effects of mushrooms much different from other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin or meth, but mushrooms are also less addictive and less harmful to the body in both the long and short term.

9. Additionally, consider the positive effects mushrooms have on individuals (spiritual enlightenment, euphoria, etc.). Most people who are 'high' on mushrooms do not feel compelled to put the lives of others in danger or at risk by, say, driving a car while under the influence, or acting violently towards another individual. Rather people who use mushrooms report feeling closer with nature and want to be outdoors. If not, they're enjoying closed or open-eyed visuals and are more concerned/distracted by what they're seeing and feeling internally than the desire to venture out and hurt others. This is not my opinion but rather documented in various studies/reports of individuals who are familiar with the use of entheogens.

10. Finally, of course being under the influence of any drug (including caffeine and cold medicine) has the ability to alter one's actions and reactions. This should not be a factor for several reasons. First, for medical reasons my little brother takes testosterone injections on a daily basis. This greatly affects his mood (he is angered more easily) yet his consumption of the drug is not illegal. If someone were to take magic mushrooms for any reason - spiritual or medical (they have been known to help with cluster headaches) - it should not be against the law. Why? Other legal drugs that are prescribed or not affect our reflexes, chemical imbalances, moods, or ability to complete tasks / reasoning.

Rather than outlaw these things, our society has sought to warn (i.e. the warning to not operate automobiles after taking Nyquil) and/or educate, such as via D.A.R.E. programs or groups like M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). I believe that like alcohol, if people are educated regarding the effects of mushrooms, they can make better decisions that would eliminate or highly prevent consumption from interfering with the lives of others and causing disaster. Similarly, just as it is socially accepted (and promoted) for there to be a 'sober force' with an individual(s) who has been drinking, for example, a similar concept can be attributed to the consumption of shrooms.

In conclusion, just one of those arguments is reason enough to support the legalization of mushrooms, however, I have provided 10. For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must argue that mushrooms should not be legal and why. Their reasoning should outnumber and/or outweigh my arguments. Because my points are mostly rooted in fact, Con would have to negate those facts in order for their case to be valid. I wish my opponent good luck -- this should be a fun debate.
FalseReality

Con

First, a fundamental flaw in your argumnt is that being that shrooms are food. While they are ingestible, meaning they can go into the body by the mouth, they produce phycodelic effects, thus making them hallucinogens. Also, Wikipedia, (the same site I can tell you've gotten some of your information from, but thats beside the point) says that its being TESTED for medicinal purposes, but has not fully gained a legal status as a cure or antibody for anything absolutly. So that makes your Jefferson statement inaccurate towards this premise.

Now to your specifics

1) I'd like for you to give me a religion that necessitates the use of this drug before I accept it as valid. However, it brings up the question if it really is for religous purposes, shouldn't people's own self made states of euforia and joy be enough WITHOUT the help of halucinogens?

2) There's a problem with this, as I mentioned above. Supposing your not allergic, if you eat crab, you eat it, maybe have indigestion at the most, and that's it. If your not allergic to garlic and you eat it you may have bad breath but that is all. In both of these cases, you're still in your right mind when you eat it, after you've eaten it, and once it passes throughout your system. However, with these mushrooms, they cause you to have phycodelic experiences, which can last for hours, putting you outside your normal state of mind. Because they effect your mind, and cause you to do, think, and feel ways and things that you may not do under normal circumstances, they cannot be cosidered food, but halucinogens as I said. So they can't be eaten where ever and whenever, because they can make you do things, while actual foods don't.

3) They may not be addictive, but their effects are desired. People might not have this uncontrolable urge to take them like cocain, but people will still want the effects, which alone will make them keep comin back.

4) While this is true, it's also technically flawed. The majority of the US (meaning the European side) didn't even know about the mushroom until 1955. Until then it was kept within Native American and Mexican cultures. People who saw the effects of the shrooms, did see them overall as negative, cases being when the Spanish settled in South America and early Western Settlers, both of who saw the rituals performed by the natives and didn't approve. When the effects were actually widely known , they promptly made the shrooms illegal.

5) So they aren't poisonous. They are no more dangerous than alchoholic effects, being that they mess uo the mind and might make you do things you wouldn't normally do. (By the way, alchohols legality is not a factor, as it was made illegal, but because the problem of keeping it illegal was more trouble and expensive than it was worth, so they withdrew prohibition simply for conveiniences sake). If someone was to drive a car, the lights and sounds can produce 'bad trips' making the driver freak out and drive just a rechlessly as a drunkard.

6) While those may be true, there are negative effects you failed to mention, including coldness, loss of appetitie, nausea, mouth failure, hallucinations, sadness, and oddly enough, fear. I've never seen a perscription drug commercial where "fear" was one of the side effects.

7) It may reduce criminals, but I think we'd see a massive increase in job loss, bringing about an even greater recession in the economy than we already have. Not to mention death, as I mentioned before, like alchohol, dangerous behavior would greatly increase because people are not thinking in their right minds. Again, we can see that gangs like those of Al Capones have gone away with alchohols re-legalization, however, the amount of drunk driving and (in some cases) house hold abuse have greatly increased.

8) I'll agree with that, however, their effects CAN be compared to alchoholics, which also produce mind and judgment altering effects.

9) Perhaps they will not willingly want to hurt others, but they certain can, like anyone else who is not thinking in their right state of mind. They may not want to endager others by driving s car, but then again, people under the influence don't think they are dangeroue behind the wheel. Also, someone doesn't have to be in the car with the high person for someone to be in danger. Someone esle just has to be driving at the same time that high person is. We can see that most fatalities in drunk driving accidents are innocent bystanders just minding their own business when they get hit. The same applies to shroomed persons.

10) This statement is completly absurd. Every drug's negatives have to be observed. We could EASILY make an argument on why your bro's testoserone meds are bad. But that is not the case here, rather it is your mushrooms. They effect the most crucial part of the body. Not its reflexes, or someones mood, but their mind. You can still think straight (albiet slightly more extreme) with mood swings, and you know what your doing when you your reflexs are affected. However, the shear power of the mind influences EVERYTHING. You alter that you alter the person as a whole. They take these drugs, and they are no longer themselves, but someone completly different. The mind controls the person, and shrooms control the mind, therefore the person. This is a far greater effect than any perscription drug, which still lets you keep your mentality intact. So this factor, beyond ALL others is absolutly a factor.

Drunkeness is a problem. This was recognized and made illegal. The only reason it was made legal again was because the crimes organized around it far outweighed the ability of law enforcment to control it. Bt even with it being legal, there are still massivly dangerous effects, which occure everyday around the world. Education helps, but in no way begins to come close to stopping them as a whole. Alchohol alters the mind and thus the person, causing them to act irrationally, violently, and dangerously. Legalization of shrooms may stop some crimes, but just like alchohol, their mind altering effects and their dangerous consequences remain. We can't change alchohols history, but we can prevent that of shrooms. I've refuted all your claims, meaning that none of them are good reasons why shrooms should be legal. I believe they all outweigh your reasonings, and all of mine are as well rooted in the facts you've chosen to ignore, and have negated, or atleast overpowered yours.

By the way, I'd like to clarify that I'm not a conservative, just a debater.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
FalseReality

Con

Really? Okay, well, I won't say anything to add onto my argument. I just hope you'll respond this time
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for missing my only round in 25+ debates on this site; it's finals time and school got in the way of this particular hobby. I do hope that people take my arguments into consideration and do not hold it against me that I missed only one round. Next, I would like to give my opponent a huge pat on the back for reminding us all that magic mushrooms are hallucinogens. For a minute there I thought this debate was actually about legalizing the mushrooms I just had with my chicken marsala last night. But anyway...

Mushrooms are drugs the same way that alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are also drugs. The difference is that these drugs are LEGAL and very widespread -- there is no social taboo. Anyway, Thomas Jefferson's quote still applies. Less close-minded individuals can see how his words apply not only to food and medicine, but revolve around the notion of limiting government interference in people's everyday lives. For a more specific drug-related reference, how's this: The growth of drug-related crime is a far greater evil to society as a whole than drug taking. Even so, because we have been seduced by the idea that governments should legislate for our own good, very few people can see how dangerously absurd the present policy is. -- John Casey.

I could go on all day quoting doctors, philosophers and even government officials advocating for the legalizing of (certain) drugs, But let's move on to the facts. My opponent suggests that he has "refuted my claims" and have therefore proved that mushrooms should remain illegal. Let's take a look back and see what really went down:

1. Drugs & Religion

I noted that people should be able to ingest etheogens for spiritual purposes if they so choose. My opponent asked that I provide an example of a religion which utilizes magic mushrooms. He also asks, "if it really is for religous purposes, shouldn't people's own self made states of euforia and joy be enough WITHOUT the help of halucinogens?"

I will first respond by stating that millions of religions exist throughout the world - documented or not. And even if I can't provide an "official" religion which uses mushrooms in practice, I can cite a real one anyway. It's called Lwerdism and it originated about an hour ago. It has sevaral followers and our official doctrine states that magic mushrooms may be used to seek spiritual refuge or for any type of enlightenment that its followers wish; in fact, we encourage it. I would also like to point out that there is evidence for Psilocybin Mushroom use in the C�te d'Ivoire.

Other religious/spiritual groups that use entheogens as a part of their culture include the small doses of MDMA to enhance meditation by some Buddhist Monks, Peyote by various Native Americans tribes, and Cannabis with Rastafarians. Additionally, I don't think it is up to my opponent to decide how and why people reach euphoria or meditate, whether it's alone or through the use of hallucinogens. Spirituality is PRIVATE. That's like saying, "Can't Catholics still practice their religion without things like the Eucharist or wine?" The answer is yes, probably, but those things are important aspects of the mass and nobody should interfere with that.

2. People's Rights

I concluded that people should be able to ingest anything of their choosing (with limitations of course, such as possible age restrictions) especially if it's grown in the wild with no chemical or artificial tampering. My opponent's response was this: Because they effect your mind, and cause you to do, think, and feel ways and things that you may not do under normal circumstances, they cannot be cosidered food, but halucinogens as I said. So they can't be eaten where ever and whenever, because they can make you do things, while actual foods don't.

What a crock! As I've mentioned, there are plenty of other widely consumed legal drugs including caffeine. Studies show that caffeine can and does affect you physically AND mentally. Not to mention, what about Robitussen (the cough medicine)? That is certainly legal - even sold in some $1 stores - and surely everyone has heard of "Robotripping" or ingesting large amounts of Robitussen to 'trip' such as one can with a hallucinogen. If you wanna discuss STRICTLY food, my opponent is still wrong: Studies have shown that some foods, like turkey, whole grain breads, and sugary snacks, have definite effects on the brain -- ABC News Medical Unit

This same source also cites salmon as "making you do things" (positive things - but nevertheless) as well as chocolate, milk, and more (Source: http://abcnews.go.com...). And let us not forget the most important argument here -- ALCOHOL. However, we will get to that a little bit later.

3. I pointed out that mushrooms are addictive neither physically or mentally. My opponent said, "But people would still want the desired effects." Um, so? Milk is known to have calm and soothing effects on an anxious or stressed out individual. Milk is not addictive in any way, but if I like the effects from it and seek out a glass of milk every once in awhile... what's wrong with that? Clearly my opponent will point out that milk is NOT a hallucinogen. But if someone wants the desired effect of mushrooms and will be safe about it (i.e. enjoying the results in the privacy of their own home), why should we take away that right?

4. I pointed out that mushrooms were legal until 1968 - no biggie. Con provided undocumented/unsourced info that was pretty irrelevant and pointless in terms of arguing the resolution.

5. I pointed out that mushrooms aren't poisonous. Con agreed.

6. I pointed out statistical facts regarding people's enjoyment of mushrooms and even the 'bad trips' -- studies show that they have no long term effects on an individual. My opponent pointed out some possible side effects (what TV advertisement of ANYTHING you ingest doesn't have possible side effects?) and said, "I've never seen a perscription drug commercial where 'fear' was one of the side effects." Uh, clearly he doesn't watch much television; almost every anxiety medicine has the side effect of anxiety or fear, ironically enough. Let's take the example of Benzodiazepines which has side effects of anxiety and psychosis (Source: http://www.panic-anxiety.com...).

7. I noted that legalizing mushrooms would eliminate a lot of the black market drug ring. My opponent came up with, "I think we'd see a massive increase in job loss, bringing about an even greater recession in the economy than we already have." Um... say WHAT?! Hold up. What the HELL kinda BS is this? It's actually really funny and totally absurd and untrue (can you prove it or even defend it? Nope.).

8. Con agreed that mushrooms are a lot safer than most (probably all) other illegal drugs, except marijuana, I'm assuming (though MJ can give you lung or mouth cancer, I guess).

9. I brought up that tripping people probably do not want to harm others. Con agrees but notes that people who are drunk often kill people via drunk driving. This is true (and incredibly sad); however, laws no longer prohibit the consumption and buying/selling of alcohol because it is OUR RIGHT to enjoy it as long as we're being responsible. Laws encouraging responsibility exist and promote safety.

10. Finally, I argue that people consume mushrooms for a variety of reasons just as people consume other drugs for a variety of reasons (i.e. Prozac for depression). Everything in this world can be abused but it's up to the INDIVIDUAL to make good decisions. Because mushrooms are nowhere near severely harmful (and less harmful than a lot of legal drugs), there is no good reason to criminalize them. My opponent has not successfully argued my claims (they're rooted in FACTS, not opinion, afterall) OR provided good reasoning as to why they SHOULDN'T be legal.
FalseReality

Con

I'm glad I straightened that out. Perhaps if I hadn't mentioned this crucial point you would have been arguing for Macrolepiota in round 2, supposing that you had responded. Good to be of service.

No, it's not because of the social taboo. I'm pretty certain it's because of it's halucinogenic effects. I'll explain more on how your Thomas Jefferson quote still doesn't apply in point 2. Also, your flip to the author of Spartina hardly has an wieght in comparrison to the many annoymous qoutes by families broken up by drug addiction, overdose, and relapse. Ask any child living in a home with drug addicted parents, I'm sure they'll have something to say.

1)Well, I see you had to make up your own religion to make this point count at all. We can determine then that you had no backing for this from the beginning and would so be void. But I'll work with it. Lwerdism isn't a religion. Unless it has 500000+ members it isn't an official religion but a small group of followers following a leader, not any kind of deity, aka a cult. It should be noted that because your not trying to connect with anything, except themselves, they are probably only trying to get high without fear of any legal consequences. So that's debunked. And C�te d'Ivoire isn't a religion, it's a country, and as your keen to point out, you don't have any evidence to back this statement up. So, until there is a recognized religion that uses shrooms, they can't be considered an entheogen (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which is a phycadelic drug used for ritual and traditional purposes. Because theLwerd hasn't given any real religion, besides the fake one that she hasn't proven to exist besides her word, this argument is not a factor.

2)Well, this is all well and good. I really didn't realize thinks like turkey intentionally caused you to go into hallucinogenic states and totally alter your mind 9therefore yourself) as a whole. Hold on, wait a minute. They don't. Shrooms do though. When you eat things like chocolate, turkey and grains you are still in your right state of mind, but with shrooms you aren't. I drink a lot of milk, and haven't once had a trip. Rather, I'm still me. If I ate a shroom though, I'd be high, gazing at wood grains, and totally out of my right state of mind. So there is a distinct difference between hallucinogens (which include shrooms) and food, so your Jefferson quote is wrong. Next you bring up robotusin. Its effects where made to be taken in proportion, which would not make someone high, but people overdose. So by this example, isn't it also possible that even though, as you say, it would be told to be taken in doses that people may overdose on this as well? Hmmmm. I'll also get on alcohol later.

3)Like I said above, milks effects and shrooms are completely different. Milk still lets you keep your right state of mind, shrooms don't. That's why they are illegal, just like cocaine, marijuana, meth, etc. It may not be addictive, but it's effects are what is of concern. If people are able to openly get shrooms, they will over do it (especially in times of depression, we see this with alcohol) and keep coming back for more because they like the feel so much (like alcoholics) keeping them in an unstable mind set. That's why they are bad. See my robotusin argument above about having it in the home.

4)(http://en.wikipedia.org...) all my info is from here, so if you see something that you don't think is sourced, you'll find it here. If you look at history, it says that the Government (the white one) wasn't aware of shrooms existence until experiments were performed showing the effects in 1968. Close to two years later it was made illegal. SO when they did know about it they made it illegal, it wasn't just a mainstream everyday thing like you make it out to have been. Its not that the US as a whole was fine, because they didn't know about it at all, it was just in small Indian communities.

5)But you failed to observe the second half of my argument, being that even if they aren't directly poisonous, they still are dangerous. I won't try to lie and say they are when they aren't. Shrooms, like alcohol, cause mind alteration. One that may not only deter proper judgment, but coordination as well. Like I said, you could easily wig out, or get distracted, much easier than if you were in your right state of mind, and get into a wreck, killing you and probably others so you can be high.

6)Your link is about prescription medications, not over the counter free-for-alls as you want shrooms to be. These drugs are strictly given out by doctors, and only to people who need the medical benefits. SO unless your arguing they should be prescribed (which to my knowledge your not) we'll drop this, leaving regular side effects. Still, all the side effects I've seen on non-persciption drugs don't cause one to hallucinate, or go into states of fear. They are bad, but at least your mind is intact.

7)Well you didn't really try to debunk this, but anyway. We can already see this effect. You live in New York, and you've probably seen bums. Most of them likly ran out of money from either drug or alcohol abuse. Also, if we look at cigarettes, (at $40 a carton now, and that's if its cheap) that takes a huge chunk of money out of ones pocket. So, along with the amount of people not working because they are high, along with the cost of the shrooms, its only logical to assume its legalization would have an effect on the economy. You also ignored the part about the relation between alchohol legalization and drunk driving, which can be compared to shrooms, so we'll assume you agree here.

8)I agreed with shrooms, not other drugs, but I'll assume you agree that they can be compared to alcoholics, seeing as how you didn't respond to this part at all. Good to know.

9)No, you have your facts wrong. It wasn't legalized because it is a right, but because it was too hard to control the massive amount of crime surrounding it. And we can see that when they did, drunk driving increased. So since you agree they can be equally compared, we'll also agree on the assumption that shroom legalization will up accidental deaths as well.

10) But like I said with robotusin, people will abuse. SO what make you think they won't if they have easy access? If the individual will abuse on legal non-intentional high inducing drugs, do you really expect them to act moderately with ones that do? That's absurd. Also, since you agree drunk driving happens all the time, and also agree that shrooms and alcohol can be compared, we can see that you think shroom-driving will be a problem.

So because they can be harmful (compare to alcohol), alter the mind in ways the user can't control, are not food but hallucinogenic's, will cause an economic fallout, and can and probably will be abused like any other drug, it needs to maintain its illegality. TheLwerd said all I had to do was prove her points wrong and I did, with facts and statistic (most of which are common knowlegde, but you can easily find them on google if you look). Remember, the votes are not on whether you personally think they should be legalized or not, but which of us argued on that stance better. Bye! :)
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by psykoshr00m 5 months ago
psykoshr00m
i wanna start a religion where we worship mushrooms and have them be part of our spiritual growth. if we cna make it an acutal religion we will be protected by the freedom of religion act. anyone interested in helping me make this movement contact me at psykoshr00m gmail.com put in the subject 'shroomism'
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
Jack, I did this debate 5 years ago. It was one of my first debates. I have innumerable other and better points to make since then.
Posted by JackHabbit 1 year ago
JackHabbit
On the basis of religion and freedom of consciousness, growing psilocybic mushrooms for personal use should be legalized. I'd like to point out that both debaters missed obvious points, namely, that a hallucinogen is not the same thing as a depressant; Alcohol is a depressant, which slows reactions times, contributing to car accidents. What psilocybic mushrooms do is basically keep the brain from filtering out unnecessary sensory stimuli; In other words, every sound, sight, sensation, taste, is new, noticable, according to British Researchers on PNAS.

Additionally, the destruction of rituals from Native American and Mexican cultures emphasizes the place that "magic mushrooms" have in many people's ancestry, heritage and identity. These are more relevant than has been addressed in this debate. To discount this is to foolishly place American societal values above those of other cultures, and to pick and choose which pre-existing cultures' rituals are worthy of being observed and respected. Lastly, anything can be over-dosed on. Too much water can kill you. That is not a reason to outlaw it.

There are many other points to be made but the other commenters seem to have nicely summed up most of what I had in mind.
Posted by shroomspore 6 years ago
shroomspore
I am definitely for Pro here.
while neither of them provided many links or quotes, she provided more, and made her case more appealing.
In response to Con's numerous sightings of people driving while tripping being dangerous, I would like to point out Drunk driving.
Do we, here in America, or in any other part of the world for that matter, condone drunk driving?
no
in fact, we have made strict laws against it.
Many groups, like MADD, keep pushing for harsher and harsher penalties, and strive for education on the dangers of driving intoxicated.
If mushrooms were legalized, I'm sure that MADD or some new organization would go right ahead and push for laws against driving on shrooms (and I would be right behind them), IF the laws already in place didn't apply to them.
Shrooms and driving don't mix, I'll give you that,
but neither does alcohol and driving, but alcohol's legal.
I think honestly the only reason that most people are so against shrooms is because, from an early age, they've all had to listen to the rhetoric that the government spews on a daily basis, and it sinks in.

Mushrooms aren't bad.
and as far as the spiritual question con posed about needing mushrooms for religious purposes, Native American shaman used them to talk to "gods".
Religion, like pro stated, is a personal matter.
what you do in it is up to you ALONE.
not the government
not con
not your parents
Posted by SweetBags 6 years ago
SweetBags
RFD:
ultimately, pro won all the contested points (con even agreed with some of them). con never presented any unique points as to why shrooms should be illegal, and was out debated by pro. therefore i'm voting PRO

tips:
while both sides gave a few cites, neither made particularly good use of evidence. if you go to the trouble of finding it, use some quotes, back up your case with more then a general statement and a link. this is expessially helpful with judges (such as me) don't go to your links, but give you the benefit of the doubt that they say what you say they do.
do more then say (or expect) that judges will go to your evidence and find the good bits for themselves. ill give you a hint. JUDGES ARE LAZY! give them what you want them to have, don't leave it up to them. if you do you might not be happy with the results.
Posted by SweetBags 6 years ago
SweetBags
pro, if your gonna use studys, give a quote, and a link. its easier to believe that way.
con, you made the same mistake as pro, but your claims were much larger (like the people disapproving of Mexican/Indian cultures that used them. evidence is necessary for claims like that).
debunk means to prove true (bunk means total crap, BS, ect.) so pro wouldn't want to debunk your case.
flow:
1, while con's rebuttal had a point, it ignores the fact (as pro pointed out) that different people worship in different ways, and that a particular organized religion might not have it as part of their common practices. PRO win
2, i'm gonna have to go PRO here as well. con's rebuttal had little to do with this point (he talked about the effect of shrooms, not that people have the right to eat what they want.)
3, con agreed that they weren't addictive, so PRO wins again. wanting something doesn't mean its dangerous. right now i want some sobe, does that mean i'm addicted to it? course not.
4, pro has a point, nothing bad happened shroom related before it was outlawed. cons rebut didn't attack that point, saying that "the govt didn't know about it, when they found out they outlawed it". so it didn't really address the point. PRO
5, con agreed. PRO
6, all drugs have negative effects, as pro pointed out. none of the side effects con mentioned were severe enough to warrent his argument. PRO
7, con's attack was illogical, presented a radical outcome, and lacked backing evidence. PRO
8, con agreed again. PRO
9, as pro pointed out, she is advocating responsible use of shrooms, and driving while on them isn't responsible. that combined with con's lack of proof that anyone would be driving on shrooms (if you've ever seen someone on shrooms you'll get why they wouldn't be driving) gives PRO the win again.
10, didn't really see why this mattered. but id have to go with a PRO win. if legal drugs have negatives then an illegal ones comparable negatives aren't so much of a detractor.
Posted by FalseReality 6 years ago
FalseReality
Well theLwerds friend, in case you missed it, my main argument on why not was the whole "its dangerous to be out of your mind". Tripping is just the same as being drunk, and what one of todays highest killers? Drunk Driving, which she conceeded was an acceptable comparrison. That argument alone is more than enough reason why to counter the her 'Choice' rebuttal. Along with the facts about hallucinogens that alone should be enough reason. And do you really have any proof that the President snorted crack? Cause if you do you could present it for an automatic impeacment.
Posted by LaSalle 6 years ago
LaSalle
I voted Pro even though she missed a round. Con's main point all along was that mushrooms are hallucinogens that affect people's mind and leave them incoherent. Pro responded pretty much with the My Body, My Choice argument. That particular argument is very strong and would easily win ANYONE an entire debate UNLESS adequately refuted. Con did not sufficiently respond and explain why people should not have that choice. He did not detail why the government has the right to prohibit certin behavior. Now personally, I am AGAINST the legalization of mushrooms; however, Con did not do a good job of explaining WHY. He just pointed out a bunch of obvious things like how they affect your thinking/judgment/mindframe. So what? If people want to alter their perception, shouldn't they be able to? Not necesarilly, but Con didn't provide insight as to why. The whole job-loss thing was completely retarded. Millions of people take drugs in this country and still have jobs. Look at the President - he's a coke head. And the probable next President is a FORMER coke head. SO...
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
I apologize -- this was the first round of debating that I have ever missed. It's that time of year again (finals) and school/life is kicking my @ss. I will hopefully be around to post my Round 3 asap.
39 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 3 years ago
hauki20
DanielleFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both were a little unfriendly in their own way. S&G: FalseReality made many typos and the like. Arguments: Danielle's arguments were rational and good throughout the debate. The most humorous of FalseReality's arguments was "I get to decide if your religion is actually a religion or not, 'cause I'm the decider." Sources: FalseReality mainly used Wikipedia, and even then basically just said "Here's the 10+ page entry, my proof is in there *somewhere*." Another victory for truth.
Vote Placed by ahab 3 years ago
ahab
DanielleFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 4 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 5 years ago
FemaleGamer
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by NilAdmirari 5 years ago
NilAdmirari
DanielleFalseRealityTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Corey_skains 6 years ago
Corey_skains
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by minimac 6 years ago
minimac
DanielleFalseRealityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30