Instigator / Pro
4
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#678

All drugs should be legal

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Tiwaz
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1481
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Description

It's a political argument, so I think BoP should be shared toward the ultimate goal of a resolution. At which point, voters can give argument point based on who's resolution was closer to their initial claim. Con is welcome to deny this and argue for an organic development of the BoP instead.

I'm not picky.

Good luck!!

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:

It’s hard to boil this down to the issues that are specifically different between the two sides.

Both sides appear to acknowledge that jail time shouldn’t necessarily be set for drugs, that misusing drugs cause social harm and harm above the level of individuals (such as crimes).

Con appears to be arguing for a scenario with illegal drugs and less harsh penalties - and pro appears to be arguing for the same but with drugs legal.

Both sides need to clearly demonstrate to me what bad things will happen if drugs are legalized (con), or what bad things happen with drugs being illegal that won’t happen if drugs are legal (pro).

To start off with: Con almost completely nulifies every benefit pro listed by agreeing that drugs - whilst remaining legal - should not be treated as harshly.

Pro specifies that legalization would eliminate dealers - and that harmful drugs wouldn’t be sold by dispensaries - a point that con points out would likely not eliminate dealers. Con clearly show the harm here - that lack of appropriate legislation may hinder the states ability to response in these cases.

Con elaborates on specific harms by showing a social impact of drugs, and impact to those around them - but this appears to be an implicit argument that having the drug illegal eliminates these harms: which he didn’t support. Con could have argued that drugs remaining illegal would reduce their use and impact - but he didn’t. I don’t believe pro disagrees with the harms con outline , but feels this is misuse and should not be treated as a legal issue. A part of his case is arguing that being illegal gives the ability to offer assistance and deal with the problem.

This wasn’t the sum of what was said, but there was a lot of talk of morality, whether drugs harm the individual or a wider group, and others that I don’t feel we’re particularly useful in eliminating harm.

Given that both plans were almost the same, the main elaborated difference here was that in cons plan, the illegality is used to provide help, and target drug dealers. Pros argument that dealers would be eliminated was well undermined by con.

The criteria for this debate appears to be who has the better plan. As the plans are mostly for the same, I feel the additional benefits con listed were *just* enough to make it seem like a better plan, and to effectively demonstrate a clear harm of pros plan. As a result, while I could have potentially awarded this as a draw I think dealer aspect, and the aspect around forcing treatment raised by con were sufficient to tilt the needle his way.

Arguments to con. All other points tied.