“ I provided evidences to you: the complexity of this earth and human predisposition.”
You literally did not provide a single bit of evidence this *entire* debate dude. You don’t know what the word evidence means.
I’ll show you some more example of evidence. Claim: The crust on earth is in continuous motion. Evidence: the mid Atlantic ridge is a ridge where new crust is being made and pushed away. The new crust is then pushed away from the ridge. Which pushes older crust away into subduction zones where it is pushed back to the lower crust it mantle, melted, recycled. Glacial scarring from a singular ice sheet that left scarring in South America, Australia, Africa, and Antarctica. Did an ice sheet stretch across the oceans and curve wildly to do that? No, it happened because those continents used to be a single land mass called Gondwana.
That is evidence dude. Not ‘you don’t believe in god because he’s invisible, but air is invisible too, therefor god exists.’ That is nonsense man.
Holy mother of god this debate was so difficult to read. Thinking mind implemented more logical fallacies per sentence than just about anyone I’ve seen aside from maybe Karl Marx.
Let’s start simple, you don’t get to say things like ‘the proof for Y is X’ then provide literally 0 evidence for X being proof for anything. A question is not evidence, especially when the question isn’t actually a question, but a virtue signal. It’s a rhetorical, nonsensical question, ‘how can you think man-made things have a creator but greater things don’t.’ What exactly are these ‘greater’ things and what makes them ‘greater’ than human made objects? Do you think a salamander with no eyes is ‘greater’ than the device you are currently using (the most powerful information accessing device the world has ever seen) to argue with people on the internet? If you do, that’s fine, but in what way? And why does that increased ‘greatness’ prove the existence of a god? To go a step further, let’s assume you absolutely 100% prove there is a god, you have to then find proof that this god is what you think it is. You have to prove it is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all forgiving, a blue elephant, or whatever description of god your religion provides.
We can back up though, because I’m trying to address flaws in ways of thinking, not flaws with specific arguments.
You make the same argument over and over again ‘the complexity proves…’ how does the complexity prove it? You don’t to get to ask a question as evidence. You don’t get to criticize something else as evidence. That’s similar to arguments from incredulity or personal incredulity. ‘I don’t accept this answer, therefor god.’ ‘I can’t answer this question, therefor god.’ ‘You can’t explain this or answer this question, therefor god.’ That isn’t evidence, but it does have a name. ‘Negative evidence’
You need positive evidence. Positive evidence is direct proof. It doesn’t rely on criticizing something, dismissing questions, nothing, it is just direct proof. I’ll give you a few perfect examples. Claim: Parkinson’s disease is caused by the destruction of the dopamine system. Positive evidence (proof): in patients with Parkinson’s disease, brain scans show the death and destruction of dopaminergic neurons. (This next part is important) there is no other outcome of dopaminergic neuron death besides Parkinson’s disease. There is no other possible cause of Parkinson’s disease. Where there is destruction of the dopamine system, there is Parkinson’s and vice versa.
Example 2: Claim: MDMA causes its effects by causing a sudden wave of serotonin, called a serotonin dump. Positive Evidence: brain scans show a massive flood of serotonin after MDMA is ingested. In depth brain studies done on rats and mice show a flood of serotonin after MDMA ingestion. Any animal that has a serotonin system experiences the same pharmacodynamic and potentially even psycho-social effects. Why? Because MDMA causes a serotonin dump. That is what proof and evidence looks like man.
Another logical fallacy, false argument , false equivalence, and strawman. You claim atheists don’t believe in god because they can’t see him. That is simply not true, not a single atheist has ever made that a core of their belief system. Just because you cannot formulate an argument more complex than that, doesn’t mean everyone else struggles as well. You then say that intellect is invisible and therefor atheists should deny that if they want to remain philosophically consistent.
First and foremost, you’re now arguing with no one, no one is an atheist because they can’t see god. (No one is obviously an exaggeration but the point should be clear) second, since you made this argument up in your head (no one said it besides you) you push the argument over like a strawman and pretend that you doing that is evidence of your claim. Feel free to read my earlier explanation of what proof and evidence looks like, it has nothing to do with proving something else wrong, it has everything to do with just proving the claim.
Third, you say intellect is invisible. It isn’t invisible, at all lol, we can see intellect when someone does math, writes a book, draws a picture, makes a watch, invents something, etc etc etc. intellect is not invisible, and even if it were, isn’t evidence for a god existing it’s evidence that people believe intellect exists lmao nothing more.
I suggest enrolling in some college level philosophy courses. You need to learn how to think.
I know this is like a year old but I just read the HOF thing you wrote. I’d like to address something there. You said this “ He even brought up date-rape drugs, to which pro had zero defense for their legalization.”
I’m not asking you to change it, just thought it a good chance to educate. I didn’t address that and I’m not sure why, I think I meant to and got caught in something else.
There is no such thing as ‘date rape drugs’ it’s not an actual classification of drugs. If we are referring to drugs people give to others with the intention of raping them after they’ve become intoxicated, alcohol is far and away the most widely used ‘date rape drug’ in history. No one is calling for its prohibition. ‘Date rape drug’ is a rhetorical term that doesn’t actually mean anything. So, it’s not that I don’t have an argument for legalizing them, it’s that they literally don’t actually exist. You can give a person pretty many different drug and they’ll have their inhibitions loosened which can lead to unfortunate things. Yet there is no class of drugs with that title.
That entire premise is false and misleading and doesn’t hold up to any type of scrutiny. Keep that in mind.
What do you think rising temperatures indicate? Why does that mean humans are the driving force?
The fact around this entire debate is that the data are incredibly uncertain. I am a geoscientist with a degree that focuses in data analytics. I can explain to you in as much detail as you do or don’t want as to why the data is uncertain. Uncertainty in science means no concrete claims are made. Which is typically the path most scientists take in regard to this discussion, even though the media tries their hardest to pretend otherwise.
I am a geoscientist by profession. I know the majority of my debates on this site are about drugs, however, geoscience is what I do for a living.
I completely disagree with the title of this debate in every way. I would be willing to have this debate with you. Although the proposition is weird. If I can make a case that I don’t find it wishful thinking at all does that mean I win? Or do I need to actually explain why I am not willing to certainly say humans are the cause of the current climate change? Either way, I’ll debate you on this topic.
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.
“ I provided evidences to you: the complexity of this earth and human predisposition.”
You literally did not provide a single bit of evidence this *entire* debate dude. You don’t know what the word evidence means.
I’ll show you some more example of evidence. Claim: The crust on earth is in continuous motion. Evidence: the mid Atlantic ridge is a ridge where new crust is being made and pushed away. The new crust is then pushed away from the ridge. Which pushes older crust away into subduction zones where it is pushed back to the lower crust it mantle, melted, recycled. Glacial scarring from a singular ice sheet that left scarring in South America, Australia, Africa, and Antarctica. Did an ice sheet stretch across the oceans and curve wildly to do that? No, it happened because those continents used to be a single land mass called Gondwana.
That is evidence dude. Not ‘you don’t believe in god because he’s invisible, but air is invisible too, therefor god exists.’ That is nonsense man.
Holy mother of god this debate was so difficult to read. Thinking mind implemented more logical fallacies per sentence than just about anyone I’ve seen aside from maybe Karl Marx.
Let’s start simple, you don’t get to say things like ‘the proof for Y is X’ then provide literally 0 evidence for X being proof for anything. A question is not evidence, especially when the question isn’t actually a question, but a virtue signal. It’s a rhetorical, nonsensical question, ‘how can you think man-made things have a creator but greater things don’t.’ What exactly are these ‘greater’ things and what makes them ‘greater’ than human made objects? Do you think a salamander with no eyes is ‘greater’ than the device you are currently using (the most powerful information accessing device the world has ever seen) to argue with people on the internet? If you do, that’s fine, but in what way? And why does that increased ‘greatness’ prove the existence of a god? To go a step further, let’s assume you absolutely 100% prove there is a god, you have to then find proof that this god is what you think it is. You have to prove it is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all forgiving, a blue elephant, or whatever description of god your religion provides.
We can back up though, because I’m trying to address flaws in ways of thinking, not flaws with specific arguments.
You make the same argument over and over again ‘the complexity proves…’ how does the complexity prove it? You don’t to get to ask a question as evidence. You don’t get to criticize something else as evidence. That’s similar to arguments from incredulity or personal incredulity. ‘I don’t accept this answer, therefor god.’ ‘I can’t answer this question, therefor god.’ ‘You can’t explain this or answer this question, therefor god.’ That isn’t evidence, but it does have a name. ‘Negative evidence’
You need positive evidence. Positive evidence is direct proof. It doesn’t rely on criticizing something, dismissing questions, nothing, it is just direct proof. I’ll give you a few perfect examples. Claim: Parkinson’s disease is caused by the destruction of the dopamine system. Positive evidence (proof): in patients with Parkinson’s disease, brain scans show the death and destruction of dopaminergic neurons. (This next part is important) there is no other outcome of dopaminergic neuron death besides Parkinson’s disease. There is no other possible cause of Parkinson’s disease. Where there is destruction of the dopamine system, there is Parkinson’s and vice versa.
Example 2: Claim: MDMA causes its effects by causing a sudden wave of serotonin, called a serotonin dump. Positive Evidence: brain scans show a massive flood of serotonin after MDMA is ingested. In depth brain studies done on rats and mice show a flood of serotonin after MDMA ingestion. Any animal that has a serotonin system experiences the same pharmacodynamic and potentially even psycho-social effects. Why? Because MDMA causes a serotonin dump. That is what proof and evidence looks like man.
Another logical fallacy, false argument , false equivalence, and strawman. You claim atheists don’t believe in god because they can’t see him. That is simply not true, not a single atheist has ever made that a core of their belief system. Just because you cannot formulate an argument more complex than that, doesn’t mean everyone else struggles as well. You then say that intellect is invisible and therefor atheists should deny that if they want to remain philosophically consistent.
First and foremost, you’re now arguing with no one, no one is an atheist because they can’t see god. (No one is obviously an exaggeration but the point should be clear) second, since you made this argument up in your head (no one said it besides you) you push the argument over like a strawman and pretend that you doing that is evidence of your claim. Feel free to read my earlier explanation of what proof and evidence looks like, it has nothing to do with proving something else wrong, it has everything to do with just proving the claim.
Third, you say intellect is invisible. It isn’t invisible, at all lol, we can see intellect when someone does math, writes a book, draws a picture, makes a watch, invents something, etc etc etc. intellect is not invisible, and even if it were, isn’t evidence for a god existing it’s evidence that people believe intellect exists lmao nothing more.
I suggest enrolling in some college level philosophy courses. You need to learn how to think.
I know this is like a year old but I just read the HOF thing you wrote. I’d like to address something there. You said this “ He even brought up date-rape drugs, to which pro had zero defense for their legalization.”
I’m not asking you to change it, just thought it a good chance to educate. I didn’t address that and I’m not sure why, I think I meant to and got caught in something else.
There is no such thing as ‘date rape drugs’ it’s not an actual classification of drugs. If we are referring to drugs people give to others with the intention of raping them after they’ve become intoxicated, alcohol is far and away the most widely used ‘date rape drug’ in history. No one is calling for its prohibition. ‘Date rape drug’ is a rhetorical term that doesn’t actually mean anything. So, it’s not that I don’t have an argument for legalizing them, it’s that they literally don’t actually exist. You can give a person pretty many different drug and they’ll have their inhibitions loosened which can lead to unfortunate things. Yet there is no class of drugs with that title.
That entire premise is false and misleading and doesn’t hold up to any type of scrutiny. Keep that in mind.
What do you think rising temperatures indicate? Why does that mean humans are the driving force?
The fact around this entire debate is that the data are incredibly uncertain. I am a geoscientist with a degree that focuses in data analytics. I can explain to you in as much detail as you do or don’t want as to why the data is uncertain. Uncertainty in science means no concrete claims are made. Which is typically the path most scientists take in regard to this discussion, even though the media tries their hardest to pretend otherwise.
I am a geoscientist by profession. I know the majority of my debates on this site are about drugs, however, geoscience is what I do for a living.
I completely disagree with the title of this debate in every way. I would be willing to have this debate with you. Although the proposition is weird. If I can make a case that I don’t find it wishful thinking at all does that mean I win? Or do I need to actually explain why I am not willing to certainly say humans are the cause of the current climate change? Either way, I’ll debate you on this topic.
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.