Instigator / Pro
7
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#589

Marijuana is better for you than alcohol

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
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No information

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:

ARGUMENTS (con): In summary, BoP unmet.
SOURCES (tied): See C2.
S&G (tied): I could make a joke about how off topic both were, when the resolution was about marijuana's effects on alcohol...
CONDUCT (tied): Both got a little ugly by the end (pro's usual, con's R2 opening).

C1 (con): Legality
This should have been the equivalent of a warning shot from con, but the counter made it a winner. ... The laws are going away, really rapidly, when speaking of long term effects it's practically a non-issue. Instead of that basic information, the debate presented the hypothetical that problems can just go away (this could equally be applied to health problems from drinking tap water in Flint), with some additional profanity about how much pro doesn't care.

C2 (con): Karma
Pro gets some credit here for making effective use of a source showing alcohol as worse. This should have been his key thing, showing alcohol is worse throughout the debate, rather than in isolation on one small point. While this should not stand up to the onslaught of good sources from con, as a reward for such massive improvement I am leaving sources tied.

Too little of this point was challenged, so while it isn't high impact (pun not intended), it still shifts the argument points a little more toward con.

C3 (con): Date-rape
Pro right away concedes this (and for largely repeats the concession throughout), by pointing out how messed up alcohol gets a person, which supports con's central claim of proving a crime was committed.

Conclusion: As con points out, these debates massively favor pro. Throw some pictures of liver damage, and we're shocked into a vote against alcohol. I feel like con admitting to the work he went into for the trickery was wasted, as this debate never rose to the level where it was needed. If pro were to successfully disprove each of con's contentions, he would still have not introduced his affirmative argument (ok, some ways of disproving could have done it), leaving his BoP unmet.

...
Notes to debaters:

Type: Regarding your R1 opening, sources are supposed to be employed to prove a point. If you don't reference their content, they do you no good. It is the difference between a passionate make-out session, and just placing your un-moving tongue in someone's mouth.

RM: Nice catch on the grammar mistake in the resolution. I once had a debate about if Rap for women was bad... To be fair, I tried to warn the person, but they insisted their own words didn't matter...

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 argument is which is better for you, Alcohol or Marajuana. It isn’t whether Marajuana is bad, or alcohol is bad, so for me the winner is the person who clearly contrasts the impacts from the drugs in questions. Saying one has a negative impact on its own is irrelevant.

Importantly, I as I think con will have a much tougher time proving this, I’m not going to assume that the burden of proof leans a little towards pro here - especially as he’s the instigator.

1.) Contention 1: Con argues that Marajuana is legally worse for you. While this is a legal consequence, I would have accepted this as a weak harm. Pro counters this is an effect of the law not marijuana - and con doesn’t appear to reply. Con even appears to argue pro didn’t touch it. As a result, I have to give this point to pro.

2.) Contention 2: buried under a seemingly irrelevant title is some points here.

A lung transplant kills the donor, a liver transplant may not, and the liver can recover much easier than Lungs.

Pro drops both these points. Imo while they are comparative - con (or pro for that matter) does not do very well in the contrast he could have pointed out incidence rates of lung and liver diseases, or more specific data on transplants. But as he doesn’t, it weakens his position a little. Nonetheless con mostly establishes a minor contrasting point here.

Harms underage brain development more than alcohol, and harms IQ. Pro doesn’t contrast with alcohol here other than saying it’s better - and pro additionally points out that alcohol can cause brain damage in young people too.

Both sides claim the other harms the brain of the the young, but neither side really provides any decent contrast between the two: by this means comparing and contrasting the relative effects.

3.) Contention 3.

I can’t even figure out what this means.

“it's much easier on you, psychologically and psychosomatically, to both know it was rape and prove it was rape if you were drunk as opposed to high”

What is this supposed to mean? That it’s easier to know and prove it was rape if you’re drunk? I think that’s what you mean - it’s another example of pro getting in his own way.

The first paragraph appears irrelevant and unnecessary.

The second appears to assert that if you’re high it’s harder to prove that you were rapes because of the effects whereas if you’re drunk - it’s clear.

This seems a prima facia absurd argument. Pro points this out, and asks for just one example. Cons response was basically to cite a link that basically states the links are unclear.

I can’t accept this argument as a result on its face. It’s too tenuous and con provides no warrant - even in the face of pro challenging it.

Pro didn’t offer any argument to affirm his position. He simply relied on trying to refute con.

In both pros opening round - and cons second round, both sides rely mostly on quotes from sources. I am going to summarily dismiss ALL of pros arguments where he just posts a long quote and no argument. This is a debate, not “see who can post the best quote”. If you use a quote, you have to explain its relevance, how it applies and what it means.

So after this, con tentatively establishes a single point. A couple of points have little in the way of actual comparisons - the mental health impact is particularly hard - as neither side provides a definitive way of contrasting the two drugs.

So out of this, if BoP was on Con - I Would award this to pro, if shared, or slightly on pro, it goes to con.

Arguments to con.

Sources: both sides use sources poorly in places, well in others. So this is a tie.

Conduct: pro degenerates into name calling, which normally gets pinged with Conduct. However, cons wall of quotes in round two was particularly egregious, and quite frankly lazy. If con did this over two rounds - I would have awarded pro conduct - instead I have decided to award this as a tie.