The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,100 times Debate No: 27521
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I tend not to read comments let try this a gin no?
.org links are not valid
I don't trust the government
I am pro for the legalization of weed.
I will be using heath religion and other ting to defend my side, and I will try my hardiest to avoid a cluster fuGk like last time
ps voter I cant spell worth a crap some times


I guess but how come you can't use .org and .gov? Those are sources that are more reliable than .com. And also, .org is not created by the government. It is created by non profit organizations.

Anyways, I will allow pro to go first.
Debate Round No. 1


Opp I ment gov, I feel like a tard now, I dont trust the government because they like to lie thou there teeth more often then not. Eliminate the gov links and more the have of your arguments are gone. then all I need to defend aginst Is the bran washing bull that pollutes people

org links are okay tho I goofed on that one the .gov are my enimeys.
marijuana needs to be legal cuss it will make many people happy
Oh yeah you can grow it it is a plant so yeah I don't need to buy it.
It can and will help people with adhd alltimers cemo therapy and many other thing.
All of the ingredients in weed, well most of the ingredients in weed is allreding something we have in are bodes to day.
it can allso kill or decres tumors.


My opponent said that marijuana makes people happy, but happy is an opinionated word. This statement is invalid because it needs to be supported by facts.

My opponent says that it can and will help with ADHD, Alzheimer Disease, chemo therapy, and many other things, but he has not shown any proof. The link provided below talks about point three.

My opponent says that it can decrease tumors, but the test that was run was on rats. Rats have a different immune system than humans and could be able to break down tumors easier than humans.

Weed does tons of damage onto the lungs more than cigarettes.
Weed increases the risk of receiving psychosis.
Weed can damage the brain.
Weed impairs the ability to produce hormones for sex.
Weed impairs reaction ability, which will hinder them in driving cars.
Weed can actually cause cancer.
Weed has linked to many birth defects in youth.
Debate Round No. 2


website link not valid, if i wanted i cold say weed is a taco with that site pleas sits that are not edited by the community
happy can be defined, by the by so i can say it makes people happy, ad if it were legal then they be happier cuss the cops wont be on the edge of there mind.
beside find me a link of some one dieing on weed. as you do that I can if you like go and find the death stuff of people dieing on ciggs and alcohol.
are prisons and jails ar bing wasted on people that only do weed, nonviolent offenders.


My opponent said that .org websites are valid so therefore it is valid. Besides, if he can't trust the government websites, then should be invalid, because pbs is funded by the government. As you can see, my opponent is trying to remove more valid sources, so that the only sources we can find will serve his purpose.

True happiness's definition changes from person to person. There is no one level of happiness. One person's happiness could be another person's pity.

Some people who are under the influence of weed can be violent people.

Also, the pungent smell of weed when smoked will make people upset.

The legalization of weed will make it harder for parents to explain the hazards of tobacco.

Not only that, all information posted on organization's websites are edited by a community of editors.
community defined - a group of people

Pointer- Why would my opponent give me information on a topic completely unrelated to the debate? To make me lose!
Debate Round No. 3


I had lost a vote or two quoting yahoo answerer, you quoted a wikipedi of debates, so no if any one can edit it meaning a 10 year old or a troll then it is invalid.
For cripe saces it has a opichin to log in to edited it, if it weren't for the fact that I cant make a bloody account on the dang cite then I would of trolled the crap out of it, tho I am still trying to make a account
next you thew a bunch of your beliefs at me, no fact to support it or to disassemble my augment.
all so the government is using weed as a scapegoat for other issue so it gos to show that they would say or do anything to keep the public fearful.
if you need the government to spoon feed you lies and tell you what to think, go join a big brother nation.
all thing sad here can be backed up by my last link in round 3.
and yah maybe the last guy is relates to weed but he also stated he wanted it to stay illegal, I new he was against my cuss whim I posted but thing is his shlt help me any ways and it wasn't a ,gov link so come on.
if you link something make shere only the site admen can edit it, or people that git bad to monkey around the cite.


org links are okay tho I goofed on that one the .gov are my enimeys.

If I he says that I can't use debatepedia, but he can use the website of an organization that is funded by the government.
He is being a troll because he is using a website that is funded by the government without a government endcode.
Second, he also uses a website that doesn't even prove his case. The person says that weed should be illegal. He says that weed is a scapegoat, but that statement can't be proven by facts. What can be proven is that weed is dangerous. Also, if he can use a .org website that is funded by the government, then I should be able to at least be able to use a .org website as he said in bold. Also, at the bottom of the debatepedia page, it tells people where they got their information. So, it's not like they just made it up. They have proof.

Second, the government doesn't influence how I think. The government says abortion is bad, but I think it is beneficial.
(Viewers, do not send me a debate request about abortion.)

My opponent says that I am throwing a bunch of beliefs at him but he is making random assertions. What makes one person happy makes another person upset. If a person smokes weed, that person might, be happy, but even then, there will be that one person that is mad, or let's say not happy, because of the pungent smell of weed. That is a fact.

*Note* My opponent has bad grammar which is making it hard to debate against him.
*Note* My opponent hasn't refuted any onf my points, so if he doesn't argue any of my points, then he should lose, that and his bad grammar.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4


ickda forfeited this round.


Weed is not good for us.
My opponent did not refute any of my arguments, and has trolled this entire debate.
He says in the second round that I can use .org websites, but then turns around and says that I can't use .org websites.
He says that we couldn't use government affiliated websites, but then uses the website of a corporation that is funded by the government.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Between the atrocious grammar and forfeit, this goes to Con.