Instigator / Pro
4
1538
rating
11
debates
81.82%
won
Topic
#4032
Cannabis is not risk free, and isn’t especially medical applicable.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
I am a fan of cannabis, I am a fan of all drugs. I think all of them should be legalized. However I’ve noticed an issue in the cannabis crowd. They refuse to believe the facts surrounding the risks of cannabis use, and this making legalization harder. They beat the drums of safety and medical application, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it especially useful outside a few niche situations. All drugs are like that.
Opioids are far more effective for cancer pains, cocaine is far more useful as a topical pain killer. However each drug has their own lists of medical applicability and one isn’t necessarily better than the other. Cannabis can’t treat ADHD near as well as amphetamines, it can’t treat depression as well as ketamine and psychedelics. It can’t treat obesity at all. It can’t treat narcolepsy at all. It can’t treat many things that other drugs can.
Medical potential should not be the focus of legalization of even an excuse to using cannabis. We shouldn’t need an excuse, we should be free to do any drug. However, lying and pushing straight up false hoods about cannabis makes that hope a much harder thing to conceive. It should be about freedom, not about safety or medical potential.
My point behind this debate is not bismirch cannabis or cannabis users, but rather to strengthen the argument of legalization by being honest and educating people.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I am not very good at starting arguments, so this will probably be my weakest argument.
I would like to state clearly that I am not anti weed. I am a proponent of legalizing all drugs from PCP and heroin to Cannabis. The point of this debate is to hopefully shine light on some of the risks cannabis use has and to strengthen the argument of legalization.
The reason I think cannabis users believe cannabis is so risk free is actually because it’s illegal. It is extremely difficult to do human studies with schedule 1 substances, it’s even difficult to do animal trials with these drugs. There hasn’t been much literature written about the risks of cannabis use because many scientists don’t want to jump through the endless amount of hoops to actually do research on it legally. This has lead to under reporting on the issues of cannabis use and an over reporting of the benefits by people on Reddit, and similar sites, who have little evidence outside of anecdotal self reports to back up their claims.
I’ll start with a list of risks and evidence for the risks.
Inflammation of arteries surrounding the heart.
“The researchers analyzed the genetic and medical data of about 500,000 people ages 40-69. The data was from the UK Biobank. Nearly 35,000 participants reported smoking cannabis; of those, about 11,000 smoked more than once a month. The more-than-monthly smokers were significantly more likely than others in the study to have a heart attack after controlling for other factors including age, body mass index and sex. The researchers found that frequent marijuana smokers were also more likely than nonusers to have their first heart attack before the age of 50 — an unusual medical event called a premature heart attack that increases a person’s lifelong risk of subsequent heart attack, heart failure and life-threatening arrhythmias that can cause sudden death.”
Now admittedly this particular study does not cover all variables.
“Inflammation of the blood vessels is a primary hallmark of atherosclerosis — the thickening of the vessel wall due to the buildup of plaques made up of fats, cholesterol and other substances — which can lead to heart attack. The researchers found that the levels of inflammatory molecules in the blood of volunteers who smoked a marijuana cigarette increased significantly over the subsequent three hours. They further showed that THC promotes inflammation and hallmarks of atherosclerosis in human endothelial cells grown in the laboratory. Finally, laboratory mice bred to have high cholesterol levels and fed a high-fat diet developed significantly larger atherosclerosis plaques when injected with THC at levels comparable to smoking one marijuana cigarette per day than did control animals.”
This is a major risk that needs to be discussed.
Major risk number 2: Improper firing of the CB1 receptor after repeated use of cannabis.
This is one that I’ve never heard talked about by cannabis users. Improper firing of the CB1 receptor has a direct link to obesity, even in people who do not smoke cannabis. There is a lot of evidence that repeated use of cannabis can cause this improper firing to happen, even after the use has been stopped.
There has been a search of sorts for CB1 antagonists which effectively block the receptors (THC partially agonizes the CB1 and CB2 receptors) to counter act these negative effects of improper firing. But almost all of the drugs we’ve found so far caused anxiety and insomnia and a lot of other undesirable effects in the treatment of obesity. However there’s a naturally occurring molecule called genistein in soy beans that is the most effective answer as of now. It blocks the CB1 receptors all over the body, except for in the brain. 99% of the molecules infested do not break the blood brain barrier and tests on rats have shown it does not change there cannabis experience. So there is a potential treatment for this particular issue, but that doesn’t mean the issue doesn’t exist.
There is also the risk of addiction. This is a hot button issue for some reason. I’m not sure how much you know about pharmacology so I’m going to break this down pretty simply. All psychoactive drugs have to have affinity with receptors that can cause changes in the chemical output of our brains and bodies. There are three main types of affinity when it comes to drugs, there are more complicated ones but that’s not useful for this debate. There are agonists, partial agonists, and antagonists. Agonists mean the substance binds to the said receptor and fully activates it. Partial agonism means they bind to the receptor but do not activate it as powerfully as agonists do. Antagonists mean they block the receptor.
All drugs that fully agonizes any receptor have the same addiction potential. Alcohol agonizes the GABAa receptors and a few subtypes, heroin agonizes the Mu-opioid receptor, K2 and AB-Phubenica agonizes the CB1 and CB2 receptors. Alcohol is not more addictive than heroin and K2 isn’t more addictive than heroin or alcohol.
By that same token partial agonists are less addictive than full agonists, but still can cause addiction and still have dependence potential. They can also be more potent than full agonists. Mitragynine, for example, is an opioid more potent than heroin, but has the same addiction potential as cannabis. There is nothing especially addictive about the opioid system, there’s also nothing especially non addictive about the cannabinoid system.
Cannabis can cause physical withdrawals, that alone doesn’t mean the drug is addictive, but it’s a piece to the puzzle.
“Abstinence following daily marijuana use can produce a withdrawal syndrome characterized by negative mood (eg irritability, anxiety, misery), muscle pain, chills, and decreased food intake.” - Marijuana Withdrawal in Humans: Effects of Oral THC or Divalproex written by Dr. Carl Hart who is a proponent of full legalization as well. He’s not anti weed. He’s a professor of pharmacology and psychology and the university of Cambridge and is an open heroin user among other drugs.
lastly I’ll quickly touch on the medical applicability part.
Sure cannabis can treat a lot of things, no one should deny that. However it can’t treat everything. All drugs have their own benefits, which is why people recreationally use all drugs and why all drugs are prescribed medically in one form or another.
Morphine for example is used in hospitals all over the world to treat things no other drug can treat as effectively. Morphine is basically heroin, heroin itself is diacetylmorphine. Which means there are acetyl bonds in place of the hydroxyl bonds in the top and bottom left of the molecule. That description will depend on the orientation of the depiction of the molecule, that is based off of PubChems orientation. This makes the molecule more polar and more potent. Desoxyn is the name brand for methamphetamine and it is still prescribed today to treat obesity and ADHD. As are Amphetamine based stimulants like methylphenidate. Cocaine is still used in eye surgeries because of its topical pain killing properties. Ketamine is an NMDA receptor antagonist and is used as a general anesthetic and anti depressant. It is far more effective than cannabis for depression, and infinitely more effective as an anesthetic. Btw ketamine is basically PCP. PCP was also used medicinally for the exact same purposes but it was slightly too potent and toxic to be manageable and we created ketamine.
Opioids are far more effective for treating pain of any kind. Cancer pains, nerve pain, inflammation pain, etc. opioids are also arguably just as safe as cannabis toxicologically. If taken responsibly the risks of opioids are very low. Constipation is usually the worst side effect. Obviously they can kill you if taken improperly or mixed irresponsibly with other substances, which makes them more dangerous to abuse, but not to use.
This doesn’t mean cannabis doesn’t have medical uses, because it treats things like epilepsy and other CNS issues very effectively where most other psychoactive drugs fall short. This argument isn’t to say cannabis has no medical application. Instead it’s to say that at the end of the day cannabis is just another drug and really isn’t anything special in terms of effects or medical potential.
Con
#2
I. Resolution Analysis
Considering the complexity and possible ambiguity of the resolution, it makes sense to define the terms, burden of proof, winning conditions, and scope of the debate.
1. Definitions (from Merriam-Webster)
Cannabis: any of various naturally-occurring, biologically active, chemical constituents (such as cannabidiol or cannabinol) of hemp or cannabis including some (such as THC) that possess psychoactive properties
Risk: possibility of loss or injury : peril
Especially: in particular : specifically
Medically: requiring or devoted to medical treatment
Applicable: capable of or suitable for being applied : appropriate
2. Reasonable Interpretations
The second part of my opponent’s resolution is rather vague, and grammatically incorrect as well.
Using context from my opponent’s opening speech and description, as well as common usage, I interpret:
“isn’t especially medical [sic] applicable”
AS:
“isn’t specifically applicable to any medical treatment”
In other words, my opponent is claiming that cannabis compounds cannot be used in any way that another drug can do better. This is supported by his example of morphine, which he says is used to “treat things no other drug can treat as effectively.”
I believe this interpretation, which I will use for my debate, preserves the spirit of the resolution while eliminating the copious ambiguity of the original.
If my opponent wants to object to this interpretation, he should do so in the next round. Otherwise, I will assume it stands for the debate.
3. Winning Conditions
My opponent’s resolution is a conditional compound statement. In other words, both parts of the resolution (“risk free” and “medical applicable”) must be true for the statement to be true.
Therefore, the winning conditions stand as follows:
PRO: “Cannabis is not risk free, and isn’t [specifically applicable to any medical treatment]”
CON: “Cannabis is risk free” OR “Cannabis is specifically applicable to any medical treatment”
I will attempt to win the debate by proving the second statement.
4. Burden of Proof
Burden of proof is assumed to be shared, unless my opponent objects otherwise.
5. Scope
“Cannabis” is assumed to refer to all possible chemical compounds that are part of the marijuana plant, as given in the definitions.
6. TDLR
Sorry for the long wall of text before I’ve even gotten to my main arguments. However, this resolution analysis is important so that both parties can agree that they’re debating the same topic. Again, if you would like to object to my analysis of the resolution, do so as soon as possible.
II. Constructive Arguments
As mentioned in “Winning conditions” section above, all I need to do in order to win is show that cannabis is specifically applicable to a particular medical treatment (and that no other medicine can do it more effectively, or with less side effects).
This is the 1st round, and I will keep things relatively short and simple.
- Treatment of Severe Seizures
The Federal Drug Administration has officially approved a cannabis-derived compound, Epidolex, to treat severe seizures in those with Dravet Syndrome and Lennox-Gaustaut Syndrome, two pediatric epilepsy disorders. [1]
These two disorders have long been extremely difficult to treat, and large-scale studies have been scant. However, cannabis compounds have been effective, a fact that has been statistically proven by several controlled randomized studies. Furthermore, they often show similar effectiveness to traditional seizure medicines.
In one study, with a sample size of 630 people, those taking cannabis-derived medication had seizures decrease by about 40%, in comparison with only 17% for the control group – an undeniably statistically significant effect. [2]
Another similar study had consistent results with the 1st one: 43% for the test group, and 27% for the control. [3]
The interested reader is advised to view more evidence in source 4, a meta-analysis of many published studies.
I believe that the available evidence supports the conclusion that cannabis does have a specific (and very useful) application in medicine.
2. Treatment of MS Spasticity
Spasticity (muscle tightness and spasms) is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Cannabis compounds have been shown to be a reliable, effective way to treat these symptoms, and moreover, are one of the only approved treatments (known commercially as Sativex).
The results, taken from peer-reviewed studies, speak for themselves. I won’t bore you with the statistics (which can be found inside the studies), but will instead present each of the conclusions.
“Sativex can be a useful and safe option for patients with MS with moderate to severe spasticity resistant to common antispastic drugs.” [5]
“Results from randomized, controlled trials have reported a reduction in the severity of symptoms associated with spasticity, leading to a better ability to perform daily activities and an improved perception of patients and their carers regarding functional status. These are highly encouraging findings that provide some much needed optimism for the treatment of this disabling and often painful symptom of MS.” [6]
“Numerous lines of evidence suggest that spasticity due to its complexity is not adequately managed with conventional anti-spastic therapies. Therefore, in order to improve the outcomes for the majority of MS patients, alternative approaches are needed to be discovered. Over the last years, the use of cannabinoid compounds as a potential treatment for MS-related symptoms has aroused great interest, owing to encouraging preclinical and clinical studies.” [7]
Clearly, these three peer-reviewed studies all support the same conclusion:
- Cannabis is an effective and specific treatment for MS spasticity
- Moreover, it works as well, if not better, than traditional treatment
3. TLDR
Cannabis-derived compounds have shown themselves to be effective at treating specific diseases, in particular severe seizures and MS-related spasticity. Many randomized controlled trials have supported this conclusion, showing that cannabis has specific medical applications.
III. Rebuttals
[Long series of paragraphs describing the potential risks of cannabis]
I would like to counter this on three fronts.
First of all, demonstrating that cannabis has potential risks is not enough to win the debate; PRO must prove the entire resolution in order to fulfill burden of proof. I will address the second part of the resolution shortly.
Second of all, the potential risks of cannabis, valid as they are, do not outweigh the potential benefits.
“An estimated 10-20% of Dravet syndrome patients pass away before reaching adulthood.” [8]
How can we delay, prevaricate, criticize, the medical use of cannabis when it has repeatedly been shown to have be an incredibly effective, and useful treatment for this specific syndrome?
How can we talk about side effects like “anxiety and insomnia” when we have children dying before adulthood?
How can we withhold and deny crucial, potentially life-saving treatment, on the grounds of “obesity and heart attacks” in their 40’s – when nearly a fifth of children will never even reach 18?
Third of all, many of my opponent’s arguments refer to the risks of smoking cannabis recreationally, rather than taking it as a controlled medicine.
Epidolex and Sativex, the two main cannabis-derived medicines on the market, are in oil and spray form respectively – as a result, they have very minimal cardiovascular effects.
Also, my opponent is claiming cannabis can be addictive. However, most medical forms of cannabis contain mostly CBD, the non-psychoactive component of cannabis, which does not lead to addiction. Although Sativex contains a small amount of THC (the psychoactive compound), the dosage and formulation is so low that not a single case of addiction was reported in the study.
[Series of paragraphs claiming that other drugs are more effective than cannabis for specific purposes]
I would like to point out this quote by my opponent:
“Sure cannabis can treat a lot of things, no one should deny that. However it can’t treat everything.”
My opponent concedes the specific medical applications of cannabis, but then tries to U-turn by claiming it’s not a universal medicine – a clear strawman.
He then goes on a tangent, listing a variety of drugs that perform better than cannabis for specific disorders. This cherry-picking is disingenuous, as I could name just as many diseases where cannabis performs better than any of those drugs.
In addition, recall the resolution. I don’t have to prove cannabis is a magic medicine, or that it’s the most effective one, or that it can treat the most things. All I have to do is prove that is has a specific medical application that it excels at – which I have.
TLDR:
Opponent is making claims irrelevant to the resolution, or which are insufficient to fulfill his BoP.
IV. Conclusion
I have, in my opening round:
- Clarified the resolution and defined key terms
- Noted the winning conditions for each side
- Fulfilled my burden of proof, by demonstrating:
- Cannabis is an effective seizure medication
- Cannabis is an effective spasticity medication
- Proved this using reliable sources
- Refuted my opponent’s first claim, by deeming it irrelevant and insufficient
- Refuted my opponent’s second claim, by showing it to be a strawman
- Overall fulfilled my burden of proof while showing my opponent has not met his
Vote CON!
V. Sources
SOURCES IN COMMENTS (out of chars).
Round 2
Pro
#3
I do not disagree with much of what you said. And I’d like to apologize for being unclear as to what we are actually debating. I meant that cannabis isn’t risk free, which you agree with. The other part of the debate is that it isn’t especially medically applicable. Essentially meaning it’s not more useful in terms of general health benefits than other drugs. That does not mean I think it can’t treat anything at all. That may be my fault for being unclear. I was extremely tired from working 12 hours that day and was having this debate on YouTube with some uneducated people and thought I’d have it on here.
I was not being disingenuous when I said it can’t treat everything or “nitpicking” things that it can’t treat. I was being honest. The entire point of this debate was not to claim cannabis can’t treat the list of illnesses that It does have efficacy for. It absolutely can. My claim is that it is not any more medically applicable than any other psychoactive drug. Morphine can treat a list of illnesses too, as can amphetamine, as can PCP, as can Ketamine, as can scopalomine, etc. Which is why I listed other drugs and their ability to treat things that cannabis can not. You seemed to ignore my final point in that cannabis is just another drug, it has things it can treat, it has things that it can’t treat. Now I will admit that maybe I should’ve scaled the debate down to THC. Because cannabis itself does have many accessory alkaloids in the plant. However many of them exist in trace quantities and there’s no real evidence that those alkaloids effect much when smoking cannabis or using cannabis products, which is why there’s an entire Other market for CBD dominant cannabis products. Even edible cannabis usually only has THC, a few derivatives like THC-o and THC-p in trace quantities, and CBD. With that said the majority of the chemical composition, usually well over 90%, is THC, unless you specifically purchase edibles with a higher ratio of other alkaloids.
I also never said that the risks of cannabis outweigh the rewards. I don’t think that’s true of any drug that isn’t directly toxic to the user like some of the more obscure stuff like MTPT. I also do not have a problem with using cannabis as a treatment for people with dravet syndrome. However just because cannabis can effectively treat that insanely rare disorder does not mean we should just ignore the risks it poses to people.
I Don’t think you and I disagree on much. I was unclear in the debate title and I apologize. However I think you made an enormous jump and arguably strawmanned my argument by assuming I meant cannabis has no medical applications. Of course it does, that’s not arguable. I’m pretty sure I said that in the description and in my argument. But so does literally every other common psychoactive drug. The main point of this was to make that clear.
I also kind of wanted the risks somewhat separated from the medical debate, because I was more speaking on rather healthy people consuming THC and cannabis, and then adding an extra layer of saying “yes it has medical applications but it’s nothing special.”
The main issue I have with the cannabis crowd is that they refuse to believe or accept that it does pose risks to healthy people, and that it isn’t some miracle drug. you don’t necessarily seem to do that so I thank you for that. You also kind of made my point for me at the end of your argument by saying you can list many things that cannabis treats better than those other drugs. That is exactly my point. All drugs have a series of things they can treat more effectively than others, that doesn’t make one drug better than the other. It may make them better for specific situations, but that doesn’t mean they have more total and general application in the medical field.
I don’t think you showed any of my positions were wrong, because you yourself were using strawman arguments, now part of that is my fault for being unclear, but part of it is your fault for making an assumption. You didn’t take a small step either, you jumped half way across the planet from what I was saying. I never said it has no medical application as you claim here: In other words, my opponent is claiming that cannabis compounds cannot be used in any way that another drug can do better.
You then say this as if I said this:
again I apologize for being unclear. Im new to this site so I don’t really know how to add links and what not. you clearly have a little bit more experience in this site and I do have to say you had a very well written response. I don’t think we disagree on much. I think you misunderstood my position (partially my fault) and were arguing with things I wasn’t saying.
To make my position as clear as possible I’ll say this. This is supported by his example of morphine, which he says is used to “treat things no other drug can treat as effectively.” Are you saying that this claim isn’t true? Of course morphine can treat certain things more effectively than other drugs, or we’d be using other drugs to treat those things. That doesn’t mean it’s better than cannabis, but just because cannabis can treat things better than morphine doesn’t mean cannabis is better than morphine. I think you’re simplifying my argument to an almost insulting level, luckily I didn’t take it as an insult and just assumed I wasn’t communicating my point Properly. I also don’t care if you argue harshly, do your thing man.
More so:
Cannabis has medical applicability to many illnesses, however, it is not anything special in that regard. As ive stated all psychoactive drugs, even alcohol have medical benefits. Alcohol was once used as an anxiolytic before benzodiazepines were created. Benzodiazepines have the exact same mechanism as alcohol in the brain they are just much much safer to consume regularly. Of course quitting those drugs cold turkey can kill you but that’s not a hard thing to prevent at all. opioids have many health benefits and medical uses, as do NMDA antagonists, dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors like amphetamines, as do 5-ht2a agonists like LSD, Psilocin, DMT, Ibogaine (ibogaine does just about everything from NMDA antagonism to alpha 3 beta 4 nicotinic receptor affinity which can have anti addictive properties.) I’m simplifying the mechanisms of these drugs for the sake of the debate, we can debate mechanisms endlessly. all drugs you can name have benefits. Cannabis is not special, it’s just another drug.
Cannabis also Has a few very serious risks. You mentioned why should we care about obesity given a niche illness that cannabis can treat. Are you aware obesity is the leading cause of death in our country? In the form of causing heart disease. Sure children dying Has much more weight to the emotional side of humans than that does, but that doesn’t mitigate the huge issue of obesity. An issue than repeated cannabis use can cause. Not just through the “munchies” but through changing the way the CB1 receptor fires even after use has ceased. When that happens the brain is releasing endogenous chemicals that cause the user to feel hungry, even if their body is not in need of more nutrients.
Now obviously cannabis is not the cause of most of those obesity deaths, but just because it can treat one thing doesn’t mean we need ignore other risks. It’s also worth noting Dravet syndrome is exceedingly rare. Not near as big of an issue as obesity. However it’s still amazing that cannabis can treat it, and I hope we continue to use it or further it’s usage in those cases.
I enjoyed reading your response, and I don’t think we disagree on as much as I anticipated. You are a smart guy and seem to be able to conduct decent research on this topic.
I don’t disagree at all with the points you brought up regarding the amount of substances in cannabis, nor their health benefits. I don’t disagree with the fact most products in circulation are comprised of CBD. CBD doesn’t cause addiction and actually doesn’t even cause tolerance build up which is actually something special about cannabis. So again, we don’t disagree on much. I wasn’t clear, you misunderstood me. With the risks I was focusing on recreational use, with the health benefits I was focusing on the fact that it isn’t anything special just because it can treat some illnesses, because all drugs can do that. Like take Ambien for example, not only can it treat insomnia, arguably not very well, but it can also help people in comas and paralyzed people. It’s a well documented thing that you can give ambien to someone in a coma and they will wake up while ambien is in their system. It’s a well documented thing that you can give ambien to paralyzed people and they will have their motor functions reinstated while under the influence of the drug. Cannabis isn’t anything special when it comes to treating illnesses and it does carry risks to recreational users. That was supposed to be the premise of this debate.
Good response and happy new year.
Con
#4
I. Summary
To make things easier for my opponent and voters (I applaud anyone brave enough to read these walls of text), I will summarize the debate so far at the beginning of each round.
My opponent, in R2, has conceded:
- Cannabis is effective for several medical applications
- Cannabis is, on balance, safe and beneficial when used properly
Therefore, we only disagree on the scope of the debate – that is, the following issues:
- Whether this debate applies to medical cannabis, recreational cannabis, or both
- What the second part of the resolution means
In this round, I will defend my interpretation of the scope and topic of the debate, while cross-examining my opponent’s contentions.
II. Constructive Defense
1. Scope of this Debate
There seems to be some confusion over whether the debate applies to recreational, or medical, cannabis. The resolution, and description, can be reasonably interpreted to refer to medical cannabis as well.
In order to support his resolution, my opponent must prove that “[cannabis] isn’t especially medical applicable.” This is confusing enough by itself, and I’ll address that in a moment. However, this clearly shows that this debate applies to more than just recreational cannabis.
Furthermore, showing that recreational cannabis has insufficient medical benefits doesn’t sufficiently prove PRO’s case – any substance, when taken in an ineffective form, or for a disease it’s not supposed to treat, is obviously going to have no or negative effects. In contrast, I have shown, and PRO has conceded, that medical cannabis is uniquely effective in treating several several diseases that no other medicine can treat as well.
The burden of proof is shared, and I believe that I have met mine, while PRO has failed to meet his.
2. Interpretation of the topic
a. Differing Views
For the sake of clarity, I will first list my opponent and I’s interpretation, then explain why mine is more reasonable.
The resolution: “It [cannabis] isn’t especially medical applicable.”
My opponent’s view: “My claim is that it is not any more medically applicable than any other psychoactive drug.”
My view: “My claim is that it is especially medically applicable for certain purposes.”
My interpretation is more sensible for several reasons.
First of all, it is more debatable and fair. My resolution allows a legitimate scientific discourse on the relative benefits, side effects, ethics, and legal implications of medical cannabis. In contrast, my opponent’s resolution will lead to nothing but a massive gish gallop – technically, he needs to evaluate every single psychoactive drug in existence to prove his point.
Second of all, it implicitly makes more sense. What comes to your mind when you think, “especially medical applicable”? Is it:
- Medically applicable for a specific purpose
- More medically applicable than any other similar substance
I leave this question unanswered, and up to the voter.
Third of all, it appears to match with the description better. PRO, in his description, mentions how the medical benefits of cannabis are relevant (or irrelevant, depending on who you ask) to the legalization of it.
If PRO was truly interesting in debating this, then the medical applications of cannabis by itself, rather than comparing it to a laundry list of other drugs, would be more fitting to the separate question of legality.
b. Benefit of the Doubt
My opponent has not presented any evidence for why his interpretation is any more valid than mine – indeed, he even said, “I’d like to apologize for being unclear as to what we are actually debating.” This shows that he is aware of the clear ambiguity of the resolution.
So with all this in mind, why should voters trust my interpretation? Simple – the benefit of the doubt.
PRO was the one who created the resolution, description, and opening round. In all three of these, he had the opportunity to provide a clear interpretation of the resolution for opponent and voter alike. It should be clear that when it comes to defining the battleground of a debate, the instigator has a clear advantage.
When PRO fails to do this, he implicitly leaves it up to CON to interpret the resolution for himself. In essence, PRO has the responsibility to define the resolution – when he fails to do this, CON should be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his own interpretation.
TLDR:
My interpretation is valid because:
- More fair and debatable
- More sensible
- More relevant to the resolution
As well as:
- My opponent had the responsibility to define the resolution properly
- In the absence of this, any reasonable interpretation by me should be accepted
III. Rebuttals
(For clarity, I’ll go and pick my opponent’s few main claims – most of his argument is irrelevant or repetitive)
[Series of paragraphs describing how it is not any more medically applicable than any other psychoactive substances]
See above, for why my interpretation is better.
Also, my opponent is setting a very high burden for himself by saying, “it is not any more medically applicable than any other psychoactive drug.”
I’m not a biochemist, and I’m pretty sure I can’t prove it’s more medically applicable than most psychoactive drugs. However, I can definitely prove it’s more medically applicable than at least one!
It’s mostly irrelevant for now, but if my opponent sticks to this line of argument, I can confidently prove it wrong.
“With the risks I was focusing on recreational use, with the health benefits I was focusing on the fact that it isn’t anything special just because it can treat some illnesses, because all drugs can do that.”
First of all, focusing on recreational use is a strawman – in a debate about medical cannabis, focusing on recreational use is more or less irrelevant.
Second of all, the fact that other drugs can treat illnesses doesn’t negate my claims and evidence. All I have to show, per the resolution or how I see it, is that cannabis is especially medically applicable for particular purposes.
TLDR:
Most of my opponent’s claims are irrelevant to the resolution, or strawman my claims. My evidence is rock-solid, so as far as I see it, my opponent has two choices:
- Argue that the risks of medical cannabis are greater than the benefits
- Show why his interpretation (that he had the responsibility of setting) is more reasonable
IV. Cross-examination
In debate, cross-examination is a time-honored tradition of elucidation and clarification. I haven’t used it before, but now is as good a time as any.
So, I pose the following questions to PRO:
- How do you interpret the resolution?
- If you interpret it differently than I do, what makes your interpretation more valid?
- Is the resolution unclear, and does it leave room for different readings?
- Do the side effects of recreational cannabis apply to medical cannabis?
- What evidence do you have to support your claim that “it is not any more medically applicable than any other psychoactive drug”?
- How and why should two different drugs, being used for completely different purposes, be compared?
- Do you concede that medical cannabis, when taken for diseases it’s designed to treat: is safe, effective, and relatively risk-free?
- Why should voters vote for you when you conceded all my crucial R1 constructives?
V. Conclusion
In this concise round, I have done the following things:
- Summarized the debate and used a clear structure (unlike my opponent)
- Affirmed why my interpretation is more valid, debatable, and fair
- Showed why my opponent had the burden of defining the resolution, and failed to do so
- Extended my R1 contentions
- Rebutted my opponent’s arguments as strawmanning, irrelevant, or holding an impossible BoP
- Cross-examined my opponent with crucial questions regarding his arguments
I still have some more arguments in reserve, but with three rounds to go, I'll save them for future rounds.
I look forward to my opponent’s response. Vote CON!
VI. Sources
Extend all R1 sources (see comments).
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent has made something very clear to me. That is he doesn’t have any actual rebuttals to my claims. His only argument is that my title for the debate was confusing which I have already conceded. However, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that I have listed many medical applications for other drugs that cannabis does not have. I have also agreed with him that cannabis can treat things other drugs can not, which is the 100% point of this debate. Each drug has their own list of illnesses they can treat, that does not mean one drug is better than the other.
My opponent claims I strawman his arguments as he continues to do it to mine. For example, he claims I must prove that the risks outweigh the benefits, even though I have never even begun to claim that. Not in the description, not in the title, not anywhere in any of my arguments. That is his cheap way of trying to pin something on me that I don’t even believe or have even tried to argue. What I have tried to argue, and I have successfully argued, so much so that my opponent agreed with me in his first reply to my original argument, is that cannabis has risks. The other part of my argument that he seems to have trouble grasping is that cannabis is not a special drug. It has some unique aspects to its pharmacology, but every drug does.
Just because a drug has risks does not mean it can never be applied successfully to any illnesses. However, Just because it can be successfully applied to some illnesses does not mean it doesn’t have risks. That is the entire first part of this argument, and I have proven that to be true, my opponent has even admitted that with this sentence: “Second of all, the potential risks of cannabis, valid as they are, do not outweigh the potential benefits.” Attention to the “valid as they are part.” That right there proves the first part of this argument correct.
Onto the second part. I am going to list three different drugs, I will list the variety of problems they can solve. This is not to say cannabis is not as good as these drugs but to point out that many drugs, especially all of the ones people seek, have a long list of things they can treat and that cannabis is nothing special in that regard.
Ketamine
Ibogaine
Heroin
Ketamine is an NMDA receptor antagonist. This causes anesthesia in high doses and a soft euphoric relaxation in small doses. It has been used very successfully to treat, major depressive disorder, which is common and involved in over 90% of suicides. It also has an amazing ability to be used to prevent traumatic events from causing PTSD and MDD. This is something that isn’t very well known to the public, but very well documented and studied in the psychiatric field. Two large scale studies have been done on women who just gave birth and were given ketamine almost immediately afterwards. There were women in this study who did not receive the same treatment. The women who did not were over 20% more likely to develop Postpartum depression and suicidal ideation than the women who were given ketamine. People who are taken to the hospital and receive ketamine after a horrible car accident are much less likely to develop PTSD from the event than those who do not. Ketamine and it’s parent molecule PCP have been used in psychotherapy to help patients loosen up and talk about traumatic events to the point where they no longer fit the criteria for PTSD after just a few sessions. Ketamine has also been cleared by the FDA to treat OCD and is available to anyone who has the money to use it for that disorder, which is something I suffer from and take medicine for.
Again before I move onto the next drug, this is not to say ketamine is more useful than cannabis in a clinical setting. It is to say cannabis is nothing special just because it can treat the few niche things my opponent pointed out. It can treat more than he’s pointing out as well, as ketamine can treat more than I am pointing out. It is not a special drug in terms of its medical applicability which I don’t even feel is an arguable topic.
ibogaine is not a well known substance. If it is known to anyone it is due to its ability to treat nicotine and opioid addiction very effectively. That is the tip of the iceberg with ibogaine. There is almost nothing it doesn’t do. If there is one drug that I would say is especially medically applicable it is ibogaine. I’m going to give a small and simple pharmacology lesson here. Ibogaine activates the Alpha-3 Beta-4 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. This helps combat the smoking cessation aspect of nicotine addiction. It antagonizes the NMDA receptor as ketamine does and can be used in a similar way to ketamine. It agonizes the 5-ht2a receptor as psilocybin and LSD do. Psilocybin has been granted breakthrough status for MDD, and LSD is currently showing great promise in the treatment of severe migraines and depression. It is also a dopamine re-uptake inhibitor as Wellbutrin, a successful anti depressant, is. It is also a Serotonin Re-uptake inhibitor which is the most commonly used antidepressant type In the world. It also has active metabolites that agonize opioid receptors, which have also been proven to help depression. As I said earlier it also treats opioid addiction profoundly well. That’s not even the end of it though. Ibogaine releases a protein called Glial derived neurotropic factor (GDNF). GDNF as of now is the most effective treatment for Parkinson’s disease, far greater than cannabis, far great than deep brain stimulation. The reason it is so good at treating this deadly disease is because it is one of the only things known that actively rebuilds the dopaminergic neurons that Parkinson’s disease destroys. Sadly ibogaine is in schedule 1 in this country and people have to go to Mexico or the Netherlands usually to seek treatment from ibogaine from these illnesses and ailments. It has 4 mechanisms that have been the key to treating the worst mental illnesses in the world. OCD, MDD, PTSD, Parkinson’s and addiction. It has mechanisms to treat all five of them. And studies have shown that it does so extremely well. About as well if not better than anything ever studied before.
Again this is not to besmirch cannabis or to say it isn’t a useful drug. It is only to point out my second aspect of this debate, and that is cannabis is not special. It has things it can treat, it has things that it can’t treat.
The beneficial aspects of heroin are rarely discussed. I picked this drug specifically because it has such a bad reputation. This is mainly to point out, especially to uneducated people who think heroin is awful, that even a drug like heroin has a long list of uses in the medical world. It is still to this day one of the most effective treatment for bronchitis ever created. The best part about this treatment is that it is taken orally. When heroin is taken orally it isn’t heroin by the time it reaches your brain. It is morphine. This is because the two acetyl bonds on the molecule that actually make heroin what it is (diacetylmorphine) are metabolically cleaved into hydroxyl bonds which form morphine. It smooths the itching and coughing people struggle from with bronchitis. It is also an absolutely incredible treatment for severe pain, far more effective for cancer pains than cannabis is, far more effective for nerve pain than cannabis is. There is also a lot of reason to believe it is a fantastic treatment for depression if taken responsibly. That shouldn’t be a surprise, cannabis is a decent treatment for depression, certainly not as good as opioids are, but if taken irresponsibly it can make depression and anxiety worse. The same applies to all of the psychoactive drugs that treat depression. A drug marketed as an antidepressant called Tianeptine hit the European market and had incredible results. People who were taking it felt their depression relieved almost instantly when taking their medicine. There was just one problem, the people who took it, who happened to be former heroin addicts were constantly reporting it literally felt like they were taking heroin. This is because they essentially were. The pharmaceutical company lied about the drug’s pharmacology, and it turned out that Tianeptine was a mu-opioid receptor agonist, just like heroin. People were rightfully upset about this and the drug was removed from the market and that company was sued into oblivion. Rightfully so. However the implications of that situation have not gone unnoticed. Studies then began using opioids pharmacologically and chemically related to heroin in depression trials. No surprise they were more effective than SSRIs and DRIs. They have also studied their ability to treat anxiety disorders like OCD and GAD. It treated both of them very effectively. These same opioids were the expanded into the treatment of Tourette’s syndrome. Opioids are now considered to be one of the more powerful and efficient treatments of that disease. Heroin is no different. Now with all of that said I do believe there are better and safer opioids to use. Mitragynine and buprenorphine are examples of that.
I believe I currently have proven my points and my opposition has done absolutely nothing to counter the main two points of this argument. 1: Cannabis carries risks. He has already admitted it does. So that is a check. Just because the benefits in some cases (certainly not all) outweigh the risks, doesn’t mean the risks don’t exist. 2: Cannabis is nothing special in terms of its general medical applicability. I have proven this by taking three random drugs and listing a small amount of their medical benefits. It is just another drug.
I do admit my title was confusing, however that does not mean my opponent gets to make up what I was stating in the first place as he has repeatedly done. He has done nothing to show it is especially useful in a general medical sense, only that it’s just another drug.
Con
#6
I. Summary
(To voters – if you’re speeding through this debate, please read at least this first section)
With all due respect – when reading through the debate, this is my impression of my opponent’s strategy:
- Create an extremely ambiguous, poorly defined resolution with no clear scope
- Admit to this, but claim it’s irrelevant
- Ignore opponent’s interpretation of the resolution, as well as cross-examination
- Fail to object to the interpretation of the resolution
- Thereby implicitly conceding it (in formal debate, what is dropped is conceded)
- Gish gallop arguments that support an already conceded resolution
- PROFIT???
This is my strategy:
- Note the ambiguous resolution
- Propose a clear and debatable interpretation as a working resolution (semantic Kritik)
- Offer the opponent a chance to object to it
- Which he fails to do
- Support my interpretation of the resolution
- With well-sourced, undeniable facts that my opponent even concedes
- Extend my arguments while my opponent continues to dedicate 90% of his arguments to random irrelevant biochemist stuff
My opponent’s arguments, while seemingly convincing, are an example of ignoratio elenchi, which is usually defined as “a fallacy in logic of supposing a point proved or disproved by an argument proving or disproving something not at issue” (Merriam-Webster).
II. Rebuttals
“My opponent has made something very clear to me. That is he doesn’t have any actual rebuttals to my claims. His only argument is that my title for the debate was confusing which I have already conceded.”
I don’t have any rebuttals to your claims because your claims don’t support the resolution. My opponent has already conceded that the topic of the debate is very confusing, and has dropped my point regarding my interpretation – why is his interpretation more valid than mine, especially considering that the ambiguity was his own fault and responsibility?
For an example of this, see one of my earlier debates:
I will quote the wise words of Oromagi, #1 debater on this site:
“If the standard for the debate was "made the most good points without refutation" then CON would have won this debate pretty easily but it is not. PRO very wisely demonstrates that laying out definitions, burdens for proof, and wincons for a semantically focused argument can and should beat even a persuasive but undefined argument. CON should in future use that DESCRIPTION to lock in definitions, parameters, and burdens before the opponent takes that advantage away from the instigator.”
I admit that much of your paragraph-long contentions about other drugs have gone uncontested. Again, I don’t need to – my impacts outweigh yours. I’ve defined the scope of the resolution, you’ve conceded it, and now your arguments are outside the scope of the resolution. It’s that simple.
“My opponent claims I strawman his arguments as he continues to do it to mine. For example, he claims I must prove that the risks outweigh the benefits, even though I have never even begun to claim that. Not in the description, not in the title, not anywhere in any of my arguments. That is his cheap way of trying to pin something on me that I don’t even believe or have even tried to argue.”
My opponent is actually strawmanning my arguments by taking them out of context.
There are only two places in the debate where my opponent might have gotten this.
R1: “Second of all, the potential risks of cannabis, valid as they are, do not outweigh the potential benefits."
I never claimed that my opponent must disprove this. This was only a contention in order to outweigh my opponent’s claims regarding risk, in order to support my main argument.
R2: “My evidence is rock-solid, so as far as I see it, my opponent has two choices: argue that the risks of medical cannabis are greater than the benefits [or] show why his interpretation (that he had the responsibility of setting) is more reasonable.”
Again, I never said disproving this was a necessary condition to winning the debate. As any reasonable reader can see, it was a rhetorical way of showing how solid my argument was. Obviously, there’s no rule restricting my opponent to these two lines of arguments.
“What I have tried to argue, and I have successfully argued, so much so that my opponent agreed with me in his first reply to my original argument, is that cannabis has risks.”
Proving the first part of the resolution is not enough to win. I remind voters, and my opponent, that the resolution is a conditional compound statement – split up into two separate claims. Both must be proven in order for the resolution to be true. [1] To show it simply:
Scenario 1: True / True = True
Scenario 2: True / False = False
Scenario 3: False / True = False
Scenario 4: False / False = False
Currently, the status quo is scenario 3 – if the debate continues like this, I win.
“The other part of my argument that he seems to have trouble grasping is that cannabis is not a special drug. It has some unique aspects to its pharmacology, but every drug does.”
Ignoratio elenchi again. Until my opponent shows he is actually proving the resolution, his arguments are irrelevant.
“It is not a special drug in terms of its medical applicability which I don’t even feel is an arguable topic.”
Important point - opponent admits to attempting to set up a truism, leaving a Kritik for me as the only option.
[Paragraph extolling the virtues of ketamine][Paragraph extolling the virtues of ibogaine][Paragraph extolling the virtues of heroine]
Ignoratio elenchi, and not helping my opponent’s legibility either.
“I believe I currently have proven my points and my opposition has done absolutely nothing to counter the main two points of this argument. 1: Cannabis carries risks. He has already admitted it does. So that is a check. Just because the benefits in some cases (certainly not all) outweigh the risks, doesn’t mean the risks don’t exist. 2: Cannabis is nothing special in terms of its general medical applicability. I have proven this by taking three random drugs and listing a small amount of their medical benefits. It is just another drug.
Extend previous rebuttals.
“I do admit my title was confusing, however that does not mean my opponent gets to make up what I was stating in the first place as he has repeatedly done.
Communication involves two people.
III. Extensions
Resolution Analysis
- Dropped. Extend.
Resolution Defense
- Dropped. Extend.
Resolution Offense (cross-examination)
- Extra dropped. Extend.
Resolution Support
- Conceded. Extend.
IV. Conclusion
In this response, I have:
- Demonstrated how my strategy is far more effective than my opponent’s aimless wanderings
- Rebutted my opponent’s contentions and responses as ignoratio elenchi
- Extended my arguments that PRO has entirely dropped/ignored
I look forward to my opponent’s response. Vote CON!
V. Sources
And all sources from previous rounds (see R1 comment)
Round 4
Pro
#7
Another round where my opponent chose to argue my choice of words and prose instead of actually combatting what I am saying. Not only does this show that he doesn’t know enough about this topic to have a true discussion. It also shows a lack of confidence in the evidence he thinks he has. He used the true/false false/false idea and claimed one of my points is false. Yet he has provided no evidence nor rebuttals to my claims. I’m not even sure he understands what my claims are. That was forgiven in the first round as I conceded my title was confusing. However, I have clearly explained what the debate is and what needs to be covered. He has yet to provide any evidence or arguments that counters my claims. He can only counter my formatting and choice of words. That type of thing simply isn’t meaningful in a scientific debate.
To lay them out clearly again. Cannabis has risks. Cannabis is not a special drug in terms of its medical applicability, at all. My opponent has listed medical uses for cannabis. That’s fine, that isn’t the debate. The debate is whether or not it is especially useful. Meaning more generally useful than other drugs. He has done nothing to provide evidence for that. I have provided evidence for my side of the debate. I have shown that every drug, heroin, meth, PCP, Ketamine, cocaine, etc. all have medical benefits as well. Are any of those drugs especially medically applicable simply because they treat stuff? Not at all, they’re just substances that change our bodies chemical output and can therefore treat various illnesses and ailments. The only drug I’d ever consider “special” in this regard is ibogaine, and I explained why. Even then it’s not a miracle drug, it’s just something that seems to be able to treat a wider variety of things than any other drug I can think of.
My opponent is good at debating when score cards count. However if he was tasked with convincing a room full of people that his point is correct over mine, he would fail. Because from what I can tell he is not very educated in this topic. He has made some simple google searches like “medical benefits of cannabis” and regurgitated what he found on google. He’s likely never considered the true medical benefits of any other drug besides cannabis. He can’t tell you the mechanism of action of any drug except cannabis, if that. He doesn’t understand the topic, and that’s fine. This topic isn’t something that interests everyone, and he isn’t a dumb person. He is just undereducated in this topic. Especially to be having a debate on this topic with someone who has devoted years of their life to researching this very thing as I have.
He says I ramble, that may be true compared to the finely laid out bullet points he presents. Is there an ounce of substance to any of his arguments? No. He is simply better at formatting and word play. I am better at presenting the evidence that is relevant to this topic. He prevent evidence that cannabis is medically useful, once he saw I accepted that and countered it successfully, he began playing the semantics game, because he had already dug to the bottom of his pharmacological knowledge.
He has provided no evidence what so ever, that combats or rebuts any of my claims. I’ve laid them out several times, and he keeps trying to pin on an argument he made up, supposedly because of my poor written title. His made up argument is clearly stated in his own words here: isn’t especially medical [sic] applicable”
AS:
“isn’t specifically applicable to any medical treatment” again, admittedly I gave him a pass on this first time because of my poor argument. However, anyone reading this knows that is an enormous jump. It’s like when someone who loves sushi says it is “especially” good compared to other foods. Then someone says “it isn’t especially good” doesn’t mean it isn’t good at all, it’s just nothing special. I didn’t think that would be hard to understand based off of a missing ly and the end of the word.
I want him to explain to me and the voters why cannabis is special compared to ketamine, Or ibogaine, or Tianeptine, or Mitragynine, or psilocybin. He hasn’t done that because he can’t. It isn’t special, it’s just another drug, that can be used medically for some things, but not others, and one that does carry risk. This doesn’t mean cannabis is bad, it also doesn’t mean it’s good or special. It’s just another run in the mill drug. All partial agonists share properties with cannabis. Not very addictive, doesn’t have as high dependance potential as Full agonists, pretty hard to overdose on, low toxicity, etc.
He does not understand pharmacology the way I do, I do not understand the act and art of debating as well as he does. However when discussing a pharmacological topic, one of those two things is clearly more valuable to the conversation than the other. He understands cannabis has benefits and thought that would be enough to win the debate. I also have a feeling he figured I was going to spout some easily disprovable nonsense about the risks of cannabis and was surprised that I’m well versed in this topic. Cannabis having benefits is not the debate. no matter how many times he tries to turn it into that. The debate is about cannabis having risks, which he has already conceded, and that cannabis is not special. He has given 0 evidence to disprove either of those things. I have given many lines of evidence to prove both of those things. He gave up on arguing the risks after the first round because he knew there was no ground to make up. He instead began playing the semantics game and the “definition” game.
I listed the benefits of three different drugs last time. Those are just 1 molecule as well. Cannabis has dozens of different molecules, and still isn’t anything special compared to the singular molecular structures I mentioned. Especially not ibogaine. It is simply another substance that pharmacologists have found uses for. That’s it. And they didn’t find these used because cannabis was just so special that it jumped out at them. They found these uses because they know how certain diseases effect the body, they also know how weed effects the body. So after becoming familiar with both of those things they said “maybe cannabis can help with this” and did tests and it worked sometimes and failed other times. That doesn’t make cannabis special, or especially medically useful. When you look at a drug like ibogaine and psychedelics in general, that is not how it happened. These benefits truly did jump out at them. When I say psychedelic I’m combing NMDA antagonists and 5-ht2a agonists into one term. I generally don’t like using that term but it’s the most well known one so I use it to get points across.
In the broad medical field, cannabis is just another drug, sometimes we will bring it out to treat stuff and other times it’s not even considered, like every single other drug. Seizures? Bring the cannabis. Low appetite? Bring the cannabis. Cancer pain? Bring the opioids. PTSD? Bring the ketamine and MDMA. Addiction? Bring the ibogaine. Parkinson’s? Bring the ibogaine. It’s not something special, and that was the entire point of this debate. To point out it’s just a drug, not some super special pharmacological agent.
My opponent has done nothing to counter that except argue semantics. Semantics doesn’t prove anything, evidence does. I have all of it to support my claim that cannabis has risks (I only pointed out three of many) and that it is not more generally useful than any other class of drugs. I have shown why that is the case.
“Ignoratio elenchi again. Until my opponent shows he is actually proving the resolution, his arguments are irrelevant.” I have proven both resolutions, you just refuse to accept that and refuse to bring evidence against it. I have shown why cannabis carries risk. I have also shown that cannabis is not anything special, by choosing three random drugs and showing they also have a long list of uses.
Also Ignoratio elenchi means this: a logical fallacy which consists in apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted.” He replied to a quote from my previous post which said this. “The other part of my argument that he seems to have trouble grasping is that cannabis is not a special drug. It has some unique aspects to its pharmacology, but every drug does.”
How exactly is that disproving something that wasn’t asserted? Especially considering that is literally 50% of this debate. Half of this debate is to argue that cannabis is not especially useful medically, meaning it isn’t a special drug. All he has to offer at this point is semantics. 0 evidence to refute my claims, 0 evidence to support his. So I will ask him a very simple question if he can answer it with sound evidence and logic I will applaud him.
What makes cannabis especially useful medically compared to Ketamine, Ibogaine, or any other drug? Not in the context of “it can treat this which ibogaine can’t” but in the context of general medical applicability. What makes cannabis especially useful compared to other drugs?
Con
#8
I. Summary
Extend:
With all due respect – when reading through the debate, this is my impression of my opponent’s strategy:
- Create an extremely ambiguous, poorly defined resolution with no clear scope
- Admit to this, but claim it’s irrelevant
- Ignore opponent’s interpretation of the resolution, as well as cross-examination
- Fail to object to the interpretation of the resolution
- Thereby implicitly conceding it (in formal debate, what is dropped is conceded)
- Gish gallop arguments that support an already conceded resolution
- PROFIT???
This is my strategy:
- Note the ambiguous resolution
- Propose a clear and debatable interpretation as a working resolution (semantic Kritik)
- Offer the opponent a chance to object to it
- Which he fails to do
- Support my interpretation of the resolution
- With well-sourced, undeniable facts that my opponent even concedes
- Extend my arguments while my opponent continues to dedicate 90% of his arguments to random irrelevant biochemist stuff
Now, after the literal fourth round, my opponent has finally chosen to directly address my arguments. As such, I will be explaining, in this response, why my semantic Kritik should win me the debate.
II. Kritikal Analysis
“Kritiks are philosophically-based arguments which question fundamental assumptions underlying the arguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate.” [1]
Throughout this debate, I have been running a high-level, semantic-based, anti-truism Kritik. I will quote several well-known debate sources to support the validity, and justification, of my Kritik.
1. The Kritik
Analysis: My opponent set up an ambiguous resolution, then bait-and-switched it into a truism. Therefore, my only option is to set up a semantic-based Kritik using the “particularly” definition of “especially.”
Link: This Kritik deals directly with the unclear resolution that my opponent turned into a truism. This is against the spirit of debate.
Implications: If I don’t run this Kritik, I lose because my opponent is setting an impossible burden of proof.
Alternative: Instead of interpreting it as “more medically applicable than other psychoactive drugs”, the resolution should be interpreted as “particularly medically applicable for certain purposes.”
2. Validity of Kritik
“At least three of five conditions should exist before either side introduces a kritik.” [1]
- There should be an important flaw in the topic or the opposing team's position.
- The judge should be receptive.
- The attack should fit a kritik issue format noticeably better than a more traditional voting issue format.
- The attack should be understandable both in intent and structure.
Now, are these conditions met?
a. Yes. My opponent introduced a fundamentally ambiguous topic, then attempted to argue for a truism interpretation of it.
b. Maybe. It depends on whether voters think my Kritik is valid – which I have been trying to prove for the last three rounds.
c. Yes. It makes far more sense to take this line of attack rather than trying to fight my opponent in his home base.
d. Yes. At this point, if the Kritik is valid, then it overrides normal impact-based voting considerations.
e. Yes. My Kritik is simple – my opponent had an ambiguous resolution, and I interpreted it, semantically, in a different way than he did.
Therefore, I conclude my Kritik is valid.
3. Justification of Kritik
Usually, I don’t run Kritiks, since I have no problems with a traditional debate structure. However, in this case, it was absolutely necessary, as shown by these quotes by my opponent:
“And I’d like to apologize for being unclear as to what we are actually debating.”
My opponent first concedes that the topic is ambiguous...
“It is not a special drug in terms of its medical applicability which I don’t even feel is an arguable topic.”
And then concedes he was trying to set up a truism – after all, it’s literally impossible to prove that cannabis is more effective than every psychoactive drug in existence.
As a result, my only recourse was to go for a semantic Kritik. In the words of Barney, a debater with a 39-0 record [2]:
“However, in cases where a phrase is poorly defined, or defined in such a way that is unfair, a semantic Kritik can be used to convince voters that the resolution is better fulfilled using another definition of a word.”
“Of course some debate types mandate Kritiks; countering truisms for example.”
Therefore, I conclude my Kritik is justified (and necessary).
4. Impact of Kritik
“The kritik is generally presented as an absolute argument. It demands a yes-or-no response from the judge, rather than an impact which is weighed against other arguments.”“Kritiks are a priori (Latin: "from the beginning") voting issues. Since they represent fundamental considerations on which presentations are built, they demand to be evaluated before substantive issues such as inherency, topicality, or disadvantages are considered. If the bedrock of those arguments is faulty, as the kritik suggests, then we can discard the arguments without looking at them in detail.” [3]
If my Kritik is valid, it renders my opponent’s arguments invalid, because they were fundamentally built on faulty ground. Therefore, I would win the debate, since my R1 arguments supported the “real” topic.
If my Kritik is invalid, than I am extremely screwed.
5. TLDR
My Kritik is valid, justified, and necessary to counter a truism. It also undermines my opponent’s fundamental arguments. If voters think my Kritik is correct, then they should vote for me.
III. Rebuttals
“Another round where my opponent chose to argue my choice of words and prose instead of actually combatting what I am saying. Not only does this show that he doesn’t know enough about this topic to have a true discussion. It also shows a lack of confidence in the evidence he thinks he has. He used the true/false false/false idea and claimed one of my points is false. Yet he has provided no evidence nor rebuttals to my claims. I’m not even sure he understands what my claims are. That was forgiven in the first round as I conceded my title was confusing. However, I have clearly explained what the debate is and what needs to be covered. He has yet to provide any evidence or arguments that counters my claims. He can only counter my formatting and choice of words. That type of thing simply isn’t meaningful in a scientific debate.”
My opponent appears to be under the false impression that semantic arguments are less valid than evidence-based arguments. I haven’t been ignoring his arguments out of laziness – instead, I have been undermining them the whole time.
Also, my opponent is moving the goalposts. He has attempted to “clearly explain” the resolution – after the debate started, and I had already accepted. Bait-and-switch is poor conduct.
“My opponent is good at debating when score cards count. However if he was tasked with convincing a room full of people that his point is correct over mine, he would fail. Because from what I can tell he is not very educated in this topic.”
I fight on my own terms. Debate is the art of persuading a specific audience, not the art of yelling logically correct statements.
“He says I ramble, that may be true compared to the finely laid out bullet points he presents. Is there an ounce of substance to any of his arguments? No. He is simply better at formatting and word play. I am better at presenting the evidence that is relevant to this topic.”
Extend Kritik.
“However, anyone reading this knows that is an enormous jump. It’s like when someone who loves sushi says it is “especially” good compared to other foods. Then someone says “it isn’t especially good” doesn’t mean it isn’t good at all, it’s just nothing special. I didn’t think that would be hard to understand based off of a missing ly and the end of the word.”
So my opponent:
- Sets up an ambiguous resolution
- Doesn’t define a single term
- Uses a persuasive stipulation to justify a truism
- Says my definition is invalid because he created the debate
- Then expects a non-native English speaker like me to understand a grammatically incorrect clause with several reasonable interpretations
Also, “especially,” in context, has a different meaning when used with “applicable” - it implies that something is well-suited for a particular purpose. This more-or-less makes my opponent’s comparison invalid.
“All he has to offer at this point is semantics. 0 evidence to refute my claims, 0 evidence to support his. So I will ask him a very simple question if he can answer it with sound evidence and logic I will applaud him. What makes cannabis especially useful medically compared to Ketamine, Ibogaine, or any other drug? Not in the context of “it can treat this which ibogaine can’t” but in the context of general medical applicability. What makes cannabis especially useful compared to other drugs?”
I would think that at this point my opponent would have realized my strategy.
IV. Conclusion
In this round, I have:
- Explained my Kritik
- Shown the validity of my Kritik
- Shown the justification of my Kritik
- Shown the impact of my Kritik
- Demonstrated why, if valid, my Kritik outweighs all his arguments
- Rebutted my opponent’s only offensive claim, that semantic arguments are somehow less valid than evidence-based arguments
I look forward to my opponent’s response. Vote CON!
V. Sources
R3 sources in comments!
Round 5
Pro
#9
All of that was well written. If this is to be scored like a formal debate based off of structuring and style, he will likely win. However, if this debate is based off of evidence, which it should be, I should win. I conceded my title was poorly worded, however like I said last time he made a huge jump from what I was saying, and began arguing against it. He knew what the debate was supposed to be about two rounds ago, and had done nothing but complain about my wording since. He has provided no evidence for anything, he admitted the first half was correct, he just keeps harping on the confusion of the title that he knew the answer to in the second round. Also if he would’ve actually read my first argument this confusion wouldn’t exist. No one ever said anything about it never being applicable to anything. As he keeps trying to argue against, my opponent is arguing against something no one said. In the last sentences of my argument I say this:
“This doesn’t mean cannabis doesn’t have medical uses, because it treats things like epilepsy and other CNS issues very effectively where most other psychoactive drugs fall short. This argument isn’t to say cannabis has no medical application. Instead it’s to say that at the end of the day cannabis is just another drug and really isn’t anything special in terms of effects or medical potential.”
It should pretty easy to see what the title is saying based off of that.
This type of stuff should not win debates, especially scientifically based debates: “My opponent appears to be under the false impression that semantic arguments are less valid than evidence-based arguments.” in science evidence is the only thing that truly matters. That’s what this debate is, the science of drugs in the body. Semantics have no purpose or use here. They don’t prove or disprove anything, they “undermine” supposedly, but semantics doesn't undermine evidence, positive evidence that disproves my evidence would undermine it.
At the end of the day my opponent is a good debater. However he is not well versed enough in this topic, in my opinion, to prove or disprove any of the statements I've made in this argument. For that simple fact I should win the debate as it should be scored off who has more evidence, is the evidence strong, and is it applicable. I have presented strong, applicable evidence for my claims. He hasn’t provided anything but semantics and trying to “undermine” what I’m saying without actually presenting any evidence. It’s hard to undermine evidence unless you know more about the topic than my opponent does.
This was a good debate, the style and semantics is with him, but the evidence is with me. That is what should win me this debate. That style he has shouldn’t convince anyone of anything in a debate about pharmacology. This isn't a debate to be scored for debating styles, it's a scientific debate. Evidence is what should take the prize.
I have presented evidence cannabis is risky, he agreed.
I have presented evidence that cannabis is nothing special compared to other drugs. Meaning it is not especially medically applicable. It is just another drug. Having evidence to support my claim should win the debate, him playing the semantics game in an evidence based debate should not win him anything. I respect his ability to debate well, but he doesn’t know anything about this topic or we’d be seeing it. My title was confusing, if he would’ve read my first argument he’d know what it was about before he ever typed a word. He didn’t read to comprehend he read only to find words to pick apart and change the debate from what I clearly stated, at the end of my first post, to something he thought he could play. That should not win debates.
Con
#10
I. Summary
Nothing new honestly – only my opponent trying to move the goalposts. If I forfeited this round, a vote for CON would follow quite reasonably.
II. Rebuttals
“All of that was well written. If this is to be scored like a formal debate based off of structuring and style, he will likely win. However, if this debate is based off of evidence, which it should be, I should win.”
Arguments, and spelling and grammar, count for 4/7 of point allotments. Sources (which my opponent honestly should lose), count for 2/7 of point allotments. If my opponent wanted the debate to be scored in a certain way, perhaps he should have done that in the description.
Also a S/G concession from my opponent, if you choose to look at it that way.
“I conceded my title was poorly worded, however like I said last time he made a huge jump from what I was saying, and began arguing against it. He knew what the debate was supposed to be about two rounds ago, and had done nothing but complain about my wording since. He has provided no evidence for anything, he admitted the first half was correct, he just keeps harping on the confusion of the title that he knew the answer to in the second round. Also if he would’ve actually read my first argument this confusion wouldn’t exist. No one ever said anything about it never being applicable to anything.”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. If you “clarify” the resolution after the debate starts, it’s only moving the goalposts.
Furthermore, if my opponent's interpretation was fair and debatable, I would have no problem fighting an uphill battle – it wouldn’t be the first time.
The problem with the interpretation my opponent tried to use is that it’s literally a truism – I have to prove cannabis is more effective than every psychoactive drug in existence. Even if I disproved my opponent’s arguments, he would just gish gallop several more each time (as he has done each round).
“This type of stuff should not win debates, especially scientifically based debates: “My opponent appears to be under the false impression that semantic arguments are less valid than evidence-based arguments.” in science evidence is the only thing that truly matters. That’s what this debate is, the science of drugs in the body. Semantics have no purpose or use here. They don’t prove or disprove anything, they “undermine” supposedly, but semantics doesn't undermine evidence, positive evidence that disproves my evidence would undermine it.”
That’s your interpretation, and you’re entitled to it. I’m entitled to mine. I politely remind you that we are on a debate site – any strategies that convince the voters are equally valid.
Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1217/
“At the end of the day my opponent is a good debater. However he is not well versed enough in this topic, in my opinion, to prove or disprove any of the statements I've made in this argument. For that simple fact I should win the debate as it should be scored off who has more evidence, is the evidence strong, and is it applicable. I have presented strong, applicable evidence for my claims. He hasn’t provided anything but semantics and trying to “undermine” what I’m saying without actually presenting any evidence. It’s hard to undermine evidence unless you know more about the topic than my opponent does.”
At the end of the day, I admit my opponent knows infinitely more about biochemistry than I do. That’s why I’m using a Kritik – the literal point is to fundamentally assail the base of my opponent’s arguments without directly rebutting them.
“Kritiks are a priori (Latin: "from the beginning") voting issues. Since they represent fundamental considerations on which presentations are built, they demand to be evaluated before substantive issues such as inherency, topicality, or disadvantages are considered. If the bedrock of those arguments is faulty, as the kritik suggests, then we can discard the arguments without looking at them in detail.” (Round 4)
“This isn't a debate to be scored for debating styles, it's a scientific debate. Evidence is what should take the prize. “
My opponent has now attempted to move the goalposts twice: first, by changing the resolution to a truism, and second, by changing the objective measure by which the debate is scored.
“I have presented evidence cannabis is risky, he agreed.”
It’s only one-half of the resolution that needs to be entirely proved – so irrelevant.
“I have presented evidence that cannabis is nothing special compared to other drugs. Meaning it is not especially medically applicable. It is just another drug. Having evidence to support my claim should win the debate, him playing the semantics game in an evidence based debate should not win him anything. I respect his ability to debate well, but he doesn’t know anything about this topic or we’d be seeing it.”
I will freely admit I know nothing about this topic beyond a working knowledge of Google and Wikipedia. This is no fault of mine, as my opponent has admitted. Indeed, I think, if anything, it only makes my concerted, high-effort, and strategic arguments only all the more impressive.
Again, extend Kritik.
“My title was confusing, if he would’ve read my first argument he’d know what it was about before he ever typed a word. He didn’t read to comprehend he read only to find words to pick apart and change the debate from what I clearly stated, at the end of my first post, to something he thought he could play. That should not win debates.”
Moving the goalposts once the debate starts is not clarification – especially when to support a truism. Also, I read “only to find words to pick apart” - this is literally the point of debate. If my opponent wanted to debate a specific topic, and be judged in a specific way, he should have specified as such before the debate started.
TLDR:
My opponent is moving the goalposts, and arguing that evidence is the only thing that matters. On the other hand, I have demonstrated why his evidence is irrelevant to the resolution, and therefore does not have any impact on weighting.
III. Extension
Kritik Validity
- Dropped. Extend
Kritik Justification
- Dropped. Extend
IV. Final Focus
1. Arguments
R1: PRO starts reasonably, supporting both parts of what he thinks to be the resolution. If the debate had ended here, he would have had sufficient evidence.
R1: CON focuses on a de facto Kritik (although he doesn’t formally call it as such), using the link of an ambiguous resolution, the implication that PRO is setting up a truism, and the alternative of using a fair resolution. He then supports his interpretation of the resolution.
R2: PRO concedes the ambiguity of the resolution, and the convincingness of CON’s evidence. Attempts to extend arguments without addressing CON’s Kritik.
R2: CON extends and defends Kritik by demonstrating how it is more fair, debatable, and relevant. CON also pose several critical questions to PRO, which are duly ignored.
R3: PRO basically does nothing but extend arguments. Kritik goes ignored, other than a throwaway line about how he made the resolution, so he decides how it is interpreted.
R3: Mostly extension by CON, who notes how if PRO fails to address the Kritik, he is committing ignoratio elenchi.
R4: PRO argues against CON by saying that this debate should be judged on evidence, not semantics – an arbitrary and unsupported judging standard.
R4: CON formalizes his Kritik and demonstrates why it is valid, how it counters an ambiguous truism, and why voters should treat it as an a priori issue that takes precedence over PRO’s evidence-based arguments.
R5: PRO repeats his argument that semantics is invalid in a scientific debate.
R5: CON rebuts PRO’s arguments by noting that any strategy is equally valid, if judging standards are only by who more convincingly proved the resolution.
Throughout this whole debate, CON's main Kritik has gone uncontested, other than a few weak arguments about "but semantics doesn't win debates" - never mind that debate is literally the art of persuasion using language.
For arguments, voters should vote CON!
2. Sources
a. PRO’s strategy is far more reliant on sources than CON, who used a semantically focused argument.
b. PRO had many questionable claims that CON could have nailed, if he didn’t feel that it would distract from the relevance of his argument. Just for an example, “major depressive disorder... is involved in 90% of suicides” is very suspect.
c. PRO used 0 sources.
d. CON used 12 sources.
e. In terms of both reliability and amount, CON had better sources.
For sources, voters should vote CON!
3. Spelling and Grammar
Per DebateArt’s Voting Policy, Spelling and Grammar may be awarded for general legibility issues, such as “Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.”
If voters believe that PRO’s arguments were far harder to follow than CON’s arguments, they should give Spelling and Grammar to CON. Otherwise, it should be left tied.
For spelling and grammar, voters should vote TIE or CON!
4. Conduct
Although I admit that my Kritik may have changed the topic from what PRO expected, nothing about it inherently suggests bad conduct. Furthermore, considering it was to counter a truism, it could definitely be justified.
Other than that, no excessive conduct problems from either side.
For conduct, voters should vote TIE!
V. Concluding Remarks
This was a really interesting debate, and represents a fundamental dichotomy between high-level and low-level resolution analysis. I hope that my opponent enjoyed the debate as much as I did.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This debate came down to resolution analysis. I find simultaneously that Pro's analysis of the resolution to be more correct and I think common sense, would agree with pro's interpretation as well. Con argued that his analysis of the resolution should be accepted, because it was more fair to both parties and more clear. Pro offered no rebuttals and admits to poorly wording the debate and not getting the one he was expecting. I would urge pro to make the topic more clear, next time he attempts the topic and I would encourage him to defend his interpretation of the resolution instead of letting his opponent walk all over him, in that regard.
However, I think even if we accepted pro's analysis of the resolution he would still lose the debate. While con did concede some dangers existed he also argued the medical benefits in terms of treatment for seizures and ms spascity for example. Pro seems to agree with con when this is brought up. I think in the final round pro also made an appeal to authority "I know more about the topic than my opponent". Maybe you do, perhaps you are completely right and your opponent is completely wrong. My advice is to make the best case you can for your argument not attempt to make any case for yourself. Arguments to con because pro let him define the debate and con's arguments towards his interpretation, not only faced no opposition but were actually conceded to by pro. Source points to con because his claims used citations and pro made claims that absolutely need citation but failed to provide them. I would argue since pro is insinuating he is a doctor or pharmacist than he really has no excuse not to know how citations work and to know how important they are.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro starts off arguing that there are risks to cannabis, such as a heart attack and how they contribute to obesity. He mentions a study performed on mice to back up this claim.
Con wisely lays out the definitions and specifies a shared burden of proof. Con points out how cannabis may be used to treat seizures and muscle spasms, thus disproving the statement that cannabis cannot be used medicinally. Pro concedes by acknowledging that Con is right but tries to deviate from the resolution he set. It is this re-establishing of his position that ultimately proves to be his achilles heel.
Pro used no sources, so this gives the point to Con.
Spelling and grammar are a tie.
Both are civil throughout, so conduct is a tie.
Thank both of you guys. I wasn’t ever trying to sound like a know it all or anything, I just have a lot of confidence in my knowledge on this particular topic.
I’ll try and start another debate on a topic similar soon and I hope y’all are there to see it.
Do it again. You learned enough about formulating the resolution here to make it really hard to beat you as well as to make sure it stays on the topic you prefer.
For the record, I think you have a great knowledge base in these topics - just remember that the resolution is half of the debate.
Thanks for the vote, wasn’t trying to sound like a doctor or pharmacist. I have just dedicated many years of my life to studying pharmacology. I think my title being unclear messed up my argument pretty badly.
I'll take a look at it tonight.
Thank you.
Mind if I get a vote on the Nicolino Locche vs Floyd Mayweather debate?
I don’t expect you to vote immediately but when you have enough time, I’d appreciate it!
Thanks for the vote. If you ever need a fair vote for a debate, don't hesitate to tag me.
Looking forward to your vote.
Will vote on this after dinner.
Thx! Don't feel any pressure to do it if you're short on time.
I'll try when I get home from vacation if I don't have too much work for uni.
Still planning on voting?
Will vote on this soon
https://media.tenor.com/BL4Uxc4WFrsAAAAd/johnny-depp-johnny.gif
Sometimes you just gotta go to war man. Especially with people like RM
*Drops a friendly message asking for votes last night*
*Comes back to a warzone in the comments*
Yep, a normal day at DebateArt.
That’s a real mature way of handling this. Ignore my friendly messages, remove me from friends list, report votes for me, call said votes unfair, then block me because your claims don’t make any sense.
A- level debater right here folks.
You are irritating me with being like 20 out of the past 20something notifications I have had.
You are blocked for now, ty.
I’m not even mad about any of it at all. I just want you to stop acting like you’re a victim of unfair voting, when you’re just not well versed in this topic. It’s fine to not dedicate your life to studying pharmacology as I have. That’s no problem. It’s only a problem when you begin to act like an expert and blame everyone but yourself for not getting votes. If people come and vote for you, I will think they’re uneducated or don’t have deep insight on the topic, but I would never report the vote or complain about. That’s on you man.
Do you not find it strange I’ve had a very respectful debate with my opponent in this thread? We have messaged each other back and forth many times about the debate and about the approach to the debate.
But you ignore my friendly messages and evidence and expect people to side with you on a debate you know literally nothing about. So much so you couldn’t counter 1 single point I made the entire time. And kept bringing up points that let me know you’re entirely uneducated. Like “date rape drugs which are basically only used for kidnapping” you have 0 evidence for that. Date rape drugs aren’t a class of drugs. Are you talking about GHB? Which does the exact same thing to the brain as alcohol and Xanax? GHB, is used recreationally all the time and 99% of the users do not use it to rape other people. So that made no sense.
If you’re talking about drugs that can make you lose consciousness, then you’d have to call opioids, alcohol, Xanax, ketamine, PCP, etc all date rape drugs. Which you probably wouldn’t if you had half a brain. You just don’t know anything about this topic and then try to say to someone who has a formal education and years of research into the topic ignorant. It’s amazing how egotistical you are on a topic you clearly know nothing about.
I have no salt what so ever big guy. I showed you no I’ll will. As a matter of fact I sent you a friend request and friendly messages in between rounds trying to show you my evidence for my claims. You ignored them, and then removed me your friends list. That sounds much saltier than anything I’ve said to you at all. Also if you can’t see I’m just playing “mental warfare” which you claimed to be the master of, you’re not paying attention.
Also I’ve given you dozens of lines of evidence that drugs are not harmful 80-90% of the time. You just refuse to accept the data. You have brought forth 0 data to back up how harmful you claim drugs to be. That’s on you. You have done no real research on the topic of pharmacology and how drugs interact with societies at all. Your research starts and ends with simple google searches like “risks of heroin” and don’t dig any deeper. Again I gave you many sources to start doing true research on the topic, you ignored it and never presented any evidence that went against anything I was saying at all, again that’s on you.
It’s not my fault you can’t be objective in your approach on the topic of drugs. You also didn’t get “votebombed” someone actually read the debate and saw who had more evidence for their claims. That was a landslide in my direction.
The salt is primarily yours both while you were losing and even while winning. That is why you are talking about it everywhere and now assume I would grudge against you instead of the user that votebombed me in that debate.
I do not care about this discussion, I just find your understanding of revenge and feelings are rather low EQ. That translates into why you cannot comprehend how vile drugs are to communities and the emotional distress of it.
Rational madman is currently losing a debate against me and is very salty. I’d be very very surprised if he doesn’t give you every vote lol.
Care to drop a vote?
R3 SOURCES:
1: https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxkbennett0496.pdf
2: tiny.cc/Kritik
3: https://mbhsdebate.wixsite.com/debate/kritik
Extend all sources from previous rounds.
Addiction is a misnomer in my opinion. It also depends on what you mean by addiction. Ketamine can hardly be considered highly addictive. There’s evidence it can actually treat addiction. Also to be considered an addict and be diagnosed with substance use disorder, the use or activity must be disrupting your social life or professional life. If you’re saying they have higher dependence potential that would be true. However that isn’t the point of this debate. The point of this debate is to say that cannabis is nothing special, you can look at Mitragynine, which is an opioid, and it has the same addiction and dependence potential as cannabis because it is a partial agonist at the mu-opioid receptor as well as a few others. It has also been used to treat opioid addiction as well as other drugs that have similar pharmacological properties. There’s nothing especially addictive about the opioid system, there’s nothing especially non-addictive about the cannabinoid system. Drugs like AB-phubenica and K2 have shown that.
I like the recreational debate as well, I believe all drugs should be legal to use recreationally.
"It is also not more medically applicable than drugs like morphine, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, methamphetamine, etc. "
Those are some VERY strong drugs to be comparing it too, and those are highly addictive. I don't think anyone's arguing that cannabis is anywhere near the same ballpark, though to be fair, I've done little-to-no research on the supposed medical uses of cannabis.
I've always been more of a recreational use arguer anyways.
That's great to hear - I don't really spend a lot of time on soft sciences, since I plan to major in civil engineering someday. It's impressive you've managed to tackle such a thorny topic in your free time.
Anyway, ik my style of debating is a bit annoying - I do IRL debate, and focused on semantics and greater-impact arguments (the idea that I don't need to rebut your arguments if my argument's impact is overall greater). My knowledge of biochemistry is limited to basic biology and Wikipedia, so I needed to try a different route if I wanted to win this.
If you ever want to have a two-way discussion on legalization of cannabis (a topic I'm interested in), feel free to DM me - I'm pretty friendly outside of debate rounds.
It is a compliment you said that though. Thank you I spend hours of my life studying this stuff. I write as much as I read I’ve been working on a pharmacology and drug use guide of sorts for a couple years now.
I got over halfway done with a chemistry degree with a focus towards pharmacology, before my hatred for physics for scientists overcame me lol. Now I’m a geoscience major so I can still get good work. But I’m honestly mostly an autodidact on this topic. Just reads lots of pharmacology books and lots of neurochemsitry studies. There’s still a lot I don’t know and I wouldn’t consider myself a true expert, but I still plan on returning to become a pharmacologist once I get my Environmental career rolling.
Out of curiosity, did you major in biochemistry or a similar field? That's the sort of impression I get from reading your arguments.
No problem man, I have thick skin lmao. It’s partially my fault for not double checking what the title and stuff was before starting the debate. All good.
I apologize if my tone came off as a little bit condescending; it was simply annoying for me to accept a debate, only to realize that the topic you thought you were creating was different than the topic I thought I was accepting.
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-drug-comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms
2: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1714631
3: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618
4: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653733/
5: https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/87/9/944
6: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22509985/
7: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16553576/
8: https://dravetsyndromenews.com/dravet-syndrome-prognosis/
This should be classified as a hot debate
Omg Autin just accepted the challenge at the same time I tried to, Mps I would be down to do the same topic with you just send me a challenge