Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Vote on Drug Legalization

Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:59:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.debate.org...

Conduct - pro use a lot of foul language, which harmed the credibility and integrity of his case, and he was vastly rude to con throughout the debate.

S&G - no points awarded

Arguments -

Self-regarding and secondhand smoke:

Pro essentially dropped con's harm stating that children are affected by living in the same household as someone who smokes marijuana. Honestly, the argument should've been a lot easier to be taken down. It really only addressed the effects of marijuana, but lots of other drugs exist. However, pro dropped it. This was the harm that took away the self-regarding argument, because at least in one situation, the harms are not self-regarding.

Therefore, we can keep drugs illegal, because they are not strictly self-regarding.

Economic benefits:

Pro simply brushed off the medical costs and productivity arguments as being unimportant and for the wrong side. Con's actual argument related to the current example of cigarette smokers, and pro made no attempt to refute that this was irrelevant. This seriously harmed pro's case.

Con provided that total expenses across the board for drug legalization, including enforcement and regulation, outweigh the benefits of legalizing. Because I can count medical costs and productivity lost from people doing drugs, even if con's arguments were overstated in other sections, I still have the money from the other two harms that put the cost over the benefits.

Benefits of Drugs:

I was not convinced by pro's arguments. They were mostly anecdotal, and con knocked these down pretty easily. Being successful in life doesn't require drug usage.

Pro was responsible for proving why drugs are not harmful, as he had the BoP.

Harms of Prohibition:

Con provides a few arguments showing that prohibition's benefits outweigh its harms, including lowering drug use in high school students (something which didn't get properly rebutted, due to pro's unfounded response), the lack of harm from prison, and cartels don't rely solely on selling drugs.

Pro seemed to refuse refuting any of this with anything more than a sentence or two asserting that con's source was biased or didn't say what con claimed it said.

It seemed more like a cat fight on that end to be quite honest about it.

Sources - No point awarded

Those were the main arguments in the debate, and I don't really think that pro did a proper job refuting anything. It felt like he wasn't taking the debate seriously at all.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:16:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Edit:

Sources - pro tended to refuse using credible sources, and instead insulted con's sources without any real foundation to the dismissal. He used a few highly biased sources, and con's sources far overshadowed pro's.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...