You believe that even if the belief in your mind is objectively wrong and isn’t supported by evidence? That’s usually the problem with religion in general.
Mall, I didnt miss any of your points man. Ive heard them a thousand times, your points arent as good as you think they are. Most of them aren’t worth engaging with because you have proven to never be able to change your kind even if I replied to all of them and destroyed them with evidence.
So I kept my arguments thematic instead if quoting and responding because those arguments are annoying and hard to read.
Mall, I’m just curious. We’ve had two debates now. Have you learned anything at all about drugs in either of them? If so has it changed the way you view drugs at all?
If you haven’t learned anything, would you like to learn something? Ask some question and I’ll answer them. Another side is that if you haven’t learned anything, are you even trying to learn something and listen?
It’s better to just make the points and see how they can counter them with evidence and data, which he hasn’t done. So I hope my last two arguments aren’t lack luster I just had very little to work with .
I apologize for the very long threads I made the character limit 30,000 because 10,000 is never enough and I’m always having to shorten arguments where I don’t want to. Thanks for agreeing to judge this
Let’s get a quick response from you on this one. I’ve got 11 hours of work ahead of me I’d love to do another round tonight. My job is slow and I’ll have plenty of time.
This argument relies so much on a common issue with religious people. If something does contradict part of the Bible or science in general. Then they quickly begin to change the definition of words in the name of “interpretation.” If the words can’t be taken literally then they have no meaningful value. Like how job 38:14 says the earth is flat. “The earth takes the shape of clay underneath a seal…” what other shape does clay underneath a seal take besides flat with bumps coming out of it? Or how it commonly refers to the earth as a circle, never a 3 dimensional object.
While the Bible may not contradict itself, in any meaningful way, (even though I’d argue it does) it does often contradict our basic understanding of the world on many occasions. Therefore the Bible is a useless book for anything other than possibly telling the human story, and having themes that supposedly make a good and moral person. However, you can extract that from almost any book. Read Game of Thrones you can extract that incest is bad and leads to evil, you can extract that pride leads to people dying, you can extract that being over ambitious can cause negative impacts on lives, etc.
The Bible isn’t special, it’s just another fiction book that people can extract value from. That doesn’t mean it’s valuable in and of itself, it just means it’s a good story.
Feel free to debate me on this topic when I’m done with this one.
We can pick pretty much any other drug for that matter. Want to have this discussion abojt Methamphetamine next? Legalize meth to be sold to adults to use?
I’m having a hard time voting in this debate. My main concern is that I believe Savant performed better, but his main point is that humans have inherent moral value. I’m not saying they don’t, but I am saying I don’t believe he was able to prove that point. Just skipped over it completely, unless I’m missing something. So his entire argument is resting on something, that he himself constructed, that he didn’t make any effort to prove.
The only debate I’m willing to have on here is really to do with drug prohibition. I am a geoscience major and have studied climate change and weather, but my area of expertise in this type of setting is certainly drugs and pharmacology.
Thanks for the vote, however even though you voted for me I must combat something you said. “Date rape drugs for example” alcohol is the most “dare rape” drug on earth. Date rape isn’t a class of drugs. What drugs are you talking about exactly? GHB? Xanax? GHB is made by our own bodies and is a wonderfully enjoyable drug. Xanax is used for many different things and is also very enjoyable. There is no such thing as a date rape drug. Benzodiazepines are the ones usually used for that type of behavior, outside of alcohol. But the vast, vast majority of people use those drugs to enjoy their night or life.
The worst part is I typed out a full response lmao. Just got up to do something and didn’t come back in time.
Basically what you said about alcohol being safer and easier to manage isn’t true. Heroin is far safer toxicologically than alcohol. So is ketamine, LSD, Oxycodone, psilocybin, etc. so my response was basically just saying that.
Hopefully Lancelot debates me through the final round this time. I would appreciate it if you weigh in and judge the end the debate, after our conversations. If Lancelot actually comes with some ammunition on this one, everyone who reads the debate could learn a lot.
That is what I mean by “as alcohol and nicotine are” sold in the same fashion, regulated, controlled, and legal to posses, purchase and use. It has nothing to do with the differences in the drugs
I’m not even sure what you’re claiming or trying to say here.
Yes alcohol and nicotine are different drugs that act very differently in the brain. But are they sold differently? No. They’re sold in stores, the companies manufacturing and produces these drugs have to meet regulatory standards, Quality control requirements, etc.
is alcohol really only sold in bars? I was unaware of that, I could’ve sworn I’ve purchased many alcoholic beverages from stores, that had cashiers, displays, and refrigerators. Maybe I’m just tripping though.
I’m not calling for bars, has nicotine every been sold to you in a bar? I’m calling for these drugs to be sold in regulated environment that has quality controlled standards, just like alcohol and nicotine. There should be dispensaries that sell a wide range of psychoactive substances. Why do people who use alcohol get to have the peace of mind of not facing jail time, having their kids taken away, having their drug of choice quality controlled, etc. but people who like ketamine, or oxycodone, or heroin not deserve that? Why should I have to face prison time because I enjoy taking oxycodone every now and then? Why should I have to worry about my drug being contaminated with more potent substances and no way to test for it? Fentanyl test strips themselves are illegal is the majority of US states. You should’ve taken the debate.
It’s even more disappointing when the opponent is chirping in the comments the entire debate but not making arguments. I think he expected an easy debate with someone who doesn’t know anything about drugs.
This is like people saying “drugs should be illegal because I was an addict” that’s just a projection of your issues in to everyone else who looks at porn. And like I said, I had an issue with it as well. It would be very irresponsible for me to project the problems I faced with this onto everyone else who uses porn. Porn has benefits and risks, to call it destructive because you used it in a destructive way is just bad thinking. It’s also playing the victim in a way because you’re blaming something besides yourself for mistakes and decisions you consciously made.
The word is, is too much for me to get behind. I have also had issues with porn use it almost destroyed a relationship with my girlfriend who I love more than everything. That is absolutely no one’s fault but mine. Porn CAN be destructive is something I could get behind.
I’m advocate for legalizing all drugs and a lot of the same things of drugs are valid for Porn. The vast majority of people who view porn do not form harmful viewership and that alone would mean saying porn IS destructive is wrong. Saying the word IS insinuates it is inherently destructive and will always lead viewers down a terrible path. That simply isn’t true.
If I invite you to a debate about the legalization of all drugs will you accept? I’m just gonna go ahead and do it. Let’s hash it out there, accept or not, up to you.
The document does not allow people to infringe on the rights of others simply by majority. Which is why they are considered unalienable rights. Along with life and Liberty. That would be like saying if the majority thinks we need to kill the Jews it should be legally covered by the document.
If you’re talking about prescription drugs for OCD. There’s normal SSRI’s that can help, Mirtazipine helped me for a while, Buspirone is very helpful. I’m not well versed in the huge selection of prescription drugs. Most of my research is on psychoactive substances people seek.
Ketamine has had decent success treating OCD in a clinical setting. I have OCD and I take Buspirone and that works very well for me. Only complaint is that it makes me dizzy as hell for about 30 minutes after I take it.
In terms of schizophrenia not really as of now besides stuff like lithium. That’s an illness we truly don’t understand well enough to treat yet.
Ketamine has also had some decent success with Bo-polar disorder. Which is interesting because we currently use lithium to treat that illness sometimes and lithium and ketamine have exactly opposite mechanisms, so we also don’t really understand that one either.
You brought three major illnesses that are not very well understood and outside of my expertise. But from what I’ve seen ketamine is having decent success with some of them. There is some evidence for drugs thag block the serotonin 2a receptors (5-ht2a receptors) can have some anti psychotic activity, but that still needs to be researched more.
If you disagree with me, go ahead and invite me to a debate about the legalization of all drugs. I’ll be able to lay everything more clearly. I studied chemistry in school, I have studied pharmacology for roughly 4 years, have conducted studies of my own on cannabis, I know my stuff with this topic. I’m not trying to sound cocky or anything like that, but if yo I want to have this debate, come prepared lol
You believe that even if the belief in your mind is objectively wrong and isn’t supported by evidence? That’s usually the problem with religion in general.
RM no I don’t have any interest in voting on this.
I have been very busy and have been dealing with some health problems the past week. I don’t know if I’ll be able to get to it.
Mall, I didnt miss any of your points man. Ive heard them a thousand times, your points arent as good as you think they are. Most of them aren’t worth engaging with because you have proven to never be able to change your kind even if I replied to all of them and destroyed them with evidence.
So I kept my arguments thematic instead if quoting and responding because those arguments are annoying and hard to read.
Yes science and religion contradict. Are you on the side of accepting that or denying it?
Mall, I’m just curious. We’ve had two debates now. Have you learned anything at all about drugs in either of them? If so has it changed the way you view drugs at all?
If you haven’t learned anything, would you like to learn something? Ask some question and I’ll answer them. Another side is that if you haven’t learned anything, are you even trying to learn something and listen?
Not trying to be rude in any way just curious.
Thank you for your RFD.
It’s better to just make the points and see how they can counter them with evidence and data, which he hasn’t done. So I hope my last two arguments aren’t lack luster I just had very little to work with .
I apologize for the very long threads I made the character limit 30,000 because 10,000 is never enough and I’m always having to shorten arguments where I don’t want to. Thanks for agreeing to judge this
Let’s get a quick response from you on this one. I’ve got 11 hours of work ahead of me I’d love to do another round tonight. My job is slow and I’ll have plenty of time.
Gotcha, never really debated in any serious way first time seeing these terms
What THBT and on balance mean
This argument relies so much on a common issue with religious people. If something does contradict part of the Bible or science in general. Then they quickly begin to change the definition of words in the name of “interpretation.” If the words can’t be taken literally then they have no meaningful value. Like how job 38:14 says the earth is flat. “The earth takes the shape of clay underneath a seal…” what other shape does clay underneath a seal take besides flat with bumps coming out of it? Or how it commonly refers to the earth as a circle, never a 3 dimensional object.
While the Bible may not contradict itself, in any meaningful way, (even though I’d argue it does) it does often contradict our basic understanding of the world on many occasions. Therefore the Bible is a useless book for anything other than possibly telling the human story, and having themes that supposedly make a good and moral person. However, you can extract that from almost any book. Read Game of Thrones you can extract that incest is bad and leads to evil, you can extract that pride leads to people dying, you can extract that being over ambitious can cause negative impacts on lives, etc.
The Bible isn’t special, it’s just another fiction book that people can extract value from. That doesn’t mean it’s valuable in and of itself, it just means it’s a good story.
Feel free to debate me on this topic when I’m done with this one.
We can pick pretty much any other drug for that matter. Want to have this discussion abojt Methamphetamine next? Legalize meth to be sold to adults to use?
That’s way I said “similar fashion” I’ll be able to cover the differences and why they should take ideas from both distribution models.
RM I know you have me blocked, but would you like to attempt to redeem yourself against me in the debate I currently have open?
I’m having a hard time voting in this debate. My main concern is that I believe Savant performed better, but his main point is that humans have inherent moral value. I’m not saying they don’t, but I am saying I don’t believe he was able to prove that point. Just skipped over it completely, unless I’m missing something. So his entire argument is resting on something, that he himself constructed, that he didn’t make any effort to prove.
The only debate I’m willing to have on here is really to do with drug prohibition. I am a geoscience major and have studied climate change and weather, but my area of expertise in this type of setting is certainly drugs and pharmacology.
Would you like to have a debate with me?
I am talking about legalization same way alcohol and cannabis are sold.
Would you like to set up a debate between us? With the title and resolution of your choosing as long as it revolves around drug decriminalization?
I think it’s honestly much easier to argue for legalization of a drug like heroin for example than it is alcohol in terms of safety and pharmacology.
Thanks for the vote, however even though you voted for me I must combat something you said. “Date rape drugs for example” alcohol is the most “dare rape” drug on earth. Date rape isn’t a class of drugs. What drugs are you talking about exactly? GHB? Xanax? GHB is made by our own bodies and is a wonderfully enjoyable drug. Xanax is used for many different things and is also very enjoyable. There is no such thing as a date rape drug. Benzodiazepines are the ones usually used for that type of behavior, outside of alcohol. But the vast, vast majority of people use those drugs to enjoy their night or life.
Drop a vote?
This debate was much, much better from both people including myself. Give a vote on thi one too when you get the time.
Thanks for the vote. I knew I was getting into an argument too much with him.
Drop a vote please sir.
you guys drop a vote on this one.
The worst part is I typed out a full response lmao. Just got up to do something and didn’t come back in time.
Basically what you said about alcohol being safer and easier to manage isn’t true. Heroin is far safer toxicologically than alcohol. So is ketamine, LSD, Oxycodone, psilocybin, etc. so my response was basically just saying that.
My bad man, totally forgot about this.
Yeah I’m down
Or at least he knows nothing about this topic and tried to pretend he’s an expert, which is probably common practice from him.
He’s an idiot lmao.
Hopefully Lancelot debates me through the final round this time. I would appreciate it if you weigh in and judge the end the debate, after our conversations. If Lancelot actually comes with some ammunition on this one, everyone who reads the debate could learn a lot.
Go on ahead
That is what I mean by “as alcohol and nicotine are” sold in the same fashion, regulated, controlled, and legal to posses, purchase and use. It has nothing to do with the differences in the drugs
I’m not even sure what you’re claiming or trying to say here.
Yes alcohol and nicotine are different drugs that act very differently in the brain. But are they sold differently? No. They’re sold in stores, the companies manufacturing and produces these drugs have to meet regulatory standards, Quality control requirements, etc.
is alcohol really only sold in bars? I was unaware of that, I could’ve sworn I’ve purchased many alcoholic beverages from stores, that had cashiers, displays, and refrigerators. Maybe I’m just tripping though.
I’m not calling for bars, has nicotine every been sold to you in a bar? I’m calling for these drugs to be sold in regulated environment that has quality controlled standards, just like alcohol and nicotine. There should be dispensaries that sell a wide range of psychoactive substances. Why do people who use alcohol get to have the peace of mind of not facing jail time, having their kids taken away, having their drug of choice quality controlled, etc. but people who like ketamine, or oxycodone, or heroin not deserve that? Why should I have to face prison time because I enjoy taking oxycodone every now and then? Why should I have to worry about my drug being contaminated with more potent substances and no way to test for it? Fentanyl test strips themselves are illegal is the majority of US states. You should’ve taken the debate.
It’s even more disappointing when the opponent is chirping in the comments the entire debate but not making arguments. I think he expected an easy debate with someone who doesn’t know anything about drugs.
When you’re free just go ahead and invite me to the debate with the same title or same general idea.
I’m working Night Shift so all of my replies will be late in the day if not very early in the morning. I’m in the eastern time zone.
There can be, are you interested in having the debate?
This is like people saying “drugs should be illegal because I was an addict” that’s just a projection of your issues in to everyone else who looks at porn. And like I said, I had an issue with it as well. It would be very irresponsible for me to project the problems I faced with this onto everyone else who uses porn. Porn has benefits and risks, to call it destructive because you used it in a destructive way is just bad thinking. It’s also playing the victim in a way because you’re blaming something besides yourself for mistakes and decisions you consciously made.
The word is, is too much for me to get behind. I have also had issues with porn use it almost destroyed a relationship with my girlfriend who I love more than everything. That is absolutely no one’s fault but mine. Porn CAN be destructive is something I could get behind.
I’m advocate for legalizing all drugs and a lot of the same things of drugs are valid for Porn. The vast majority of people who view porn do not form harmful viewership and that alone would mean saying porn IS destructive is wrong. Saying the word IS insinuates it is inherently destructive and will always lead viewers down a terrible path. That simply isn’t true.
If I invite you to a debate about the legalization of all drugs will you accept? I’m just gonna go ahead and do it. Let’s hash it out there, accept or not, up to you.
The document does not allow people to infringe on the rights of others simply by majority. Which is why they are considered unalienable rights. Along with life and Liberty. That would be like saying if the majority thinks we need to kill the Jews it should be legally covered by the document.
If you’re talking about prescription drugs for OCD. There’s normal SSRI’s that can help, Mirtazipine helped me for a while, Buspirone is very helpful. I’m not well versed in the huge selection of prescription drugs. Most of my research is on psychoactive substances people seek.
Ketamine has had decent success treating OCD in a clinical setting. I have OCD and I take Buspirone and that works very well for me. Only complaint is that it makes me dizzy as hell for about 30 minutes after I take it.
In terms of schizophrenia not really as of now besides stuff like lithium. That’s an illness we truly don’t understand well enough to treat yet.
Ketamine has also had some decent success with Bo-polar disorder. Which is interesting because we currently use lithium to treat that illness sometimes and lithium and ketamine have exactly opposite mechanisms, so we also don’t really understand that one either.
You brought three major illnesses that are not very well understood and outside of my expertise. But from what I’ve seen ketamine is having decent success with some of them. There is some evidence for drugs thag block the serotonin 2a receptors (5-ht2a receptors) can have some anti psychotic activity, but that still needs to be researched more.
If you disagree with me, go ahead and invite me to a debate about the legalization of all drugs. I’ll be able to lay everything more clearly. I studied chemistry in school, I have studied pharmacology for roughly 4 years, have conducted studies of my own on cannabis, I know my stuff with this topic. I’m not trying to sound cocky or anything like that, but if yo I want to have this debate, come prepared lol
And by the way. I do argue for the “dangerous” drugs you mentioned.
Heroin, PCP, fentanyl, cocaine, Methamphetamine, all of that should b e legal to purchase over the counter from dispensaries to adults.
Thank you for the kind words mate.