What do you mean by “insane?” Do you mean someone being violent? Abusive? What? Those things are already illegal, there’s no need to add drug possession and use into the mix of charges. There’s already laws protecting people from dangerous and harmful behavior towards others.
This was a very good debate, prolly the most interesting one I’ve had so far. As you can prolly tell cannabis is the one I’m used to debating the least, I’m usually discussing the “hard drugs” and their legalization and their pharmacology. Mainly because cannabis doesn’t interest me much, and it’s a pretty simple drug. I think it should be legalized but I also think the cannabis crowd is as annoying as the hippie psychedelic crowd so I try to engage in many discussions about because people only want to talk about how “healthy” it is. I still had a fun debate regardless.
I never had a problem with necessarily claiming that cannabis causes some people to be more aggressive. The claim I was trying to make is that the majority of cannabis users do not experience that. That is evident by the 20% statistic you cited.
Hey, I may be misreading your vote, or misunderstanding, it seems you disagree with me. Is that is the case I just wanted to make sure you know I am Pro and Lancelot is Con. I disagree with some of what your vote said, however if you think Lancelot deserved your vote, which is what im getting from your reasoning, I wanted you to know that he is Con and I am pro so you can make sure you voted for the right person.
If you meant to give me the nod, maybe I misunderstood your vote or didn’t read it carefully enough.
Hey guys, i don’t want any sympathy votes or anything, so please stil vote objectively. I don’t know if I’ll be able to do the argument today, I’ll try not to forfeit. My company’s private plane went down and killed everyone on board today and I lost a buddy, and some other people I knew. So if I end up forfeiting that’s why, but I will try not to.
Well that’s good, your arguments are philosophically sound and coherent I just simply disagree with your stance. I also think your evidence leaves a lot to be desired most of it is assumptions based off of other assumptions
Hey guys, I’ll be at work until about 8:00 tonight. I may have time to respond during work but most likely not.
You have good arguments. I feel like the biggest issue here is simple philosophical disagreements. And that’s fine, I respect you for at least being educated and using evidence to support your beliefs. This next round will solely be dedicated to combatting your points, the final round will be solely dedicated to putting my points forward regardless of yours.
Good debate. I know we talk shit but I respect you more than most anti-drug advocates.
Thanks for doing this debate honestly. I think you’re taking the wrong approach to it as a whole, but you seem to be well versed enough to st least give some reasons for your beliefs. I just think your beliefs on this topic are constructed by looking at these risks you put forward in the wrong way. You’re not uneducated on this topic. I just think you’re maybe using a little bit of confirmation bias at the least. I also think you’re seeing these issues as something solely brought on by cannabis, and not the social aspects of being a cannabis user, bad science surrounding cannabis use, and the lack of education surrounding the use of drugs in general. There is such thing as bad science, studies can be poorly conducted, data can be misinterpreted, etc. which is what I think you seem to be doing or at less the sources you are citing seem to be doing. Which is why the study i published presented an actual mechanism for aggression responses in cannabis users, where yours was based off of cases that could have many more variables integrated into the situation besides just cannabis use. That is where the issues of most social studies interpreting drug risks start to fail. They aren’t establishing a mechanism for their claim, for example, what exactly is happening in the brain to make people more aggressive? Or was cannabis the only factor in these cases of violence where cannabis was in the system? If not how did we rule out these other factors as possible causes for these 14 cases your study mentioned? It’s much more complicated than just looking at violent offenders who use cannabis and saying cannabis caused it.
I had a lot more to say, but I ran out of characters, my next argument will be less focused on your points and trying to convince the judges of my points.
You said a lot of good stuff, however I just think you approaching this issue and these statistics in the wrong way. I will show the judges and you, the way I approach the issues and risks of drug use, cannabis specifically in this debate, and see if I can convince people.
Just wanna let the judges know, I’m working 15 hours a day at an oil spill. I’m usually very good about responding quickly but I may be responding late at night for this entire debate.
Yeah I’m down for that. I’m working 15
Hours a day with no days off right now so I may be responding to the debates a little late, but I’m down to do it.
Also nah Lancelot I think I’m done shit talking you lol, just a little too much to deal with tbh.
The amount of sore loser, sour puss, retards on this site is astounding. You guys should go to school and do something constructive with your life lol. I’m in a position where I can say stuff like that. I make more money in 2 months than you guys do in a year. And it’s because of my education and knowledge. So go do something with yourselves instead of boosting your childish ego by trolling people.
Yeah I just checked, not a single vote in your favor on our global warming debate.
Also thank you guys for talking to me, it makes me feel so good about myself knowing I’m not a complete idiot, who gets entertainment out of trolling people on a debate website lol. Y’all are hilarious, thanks guys it made my day.
Again, I have never defriended, reported a vote, or blocked anyone on this site ever. That is all you. You trolling like this is hilariously childish. You’re an idiot mate.
I don’t think you have a single vote for you in the global warming debate. You were the one claiming the effects were over exaggerated. You sir are an idiot or a troll, both are equally as embarrassing. I wouldn’t be surprised if both of the accounts I’m arguing with is you.
No you nerd I stopped responding because I had an hour long drive to the hotel from the oil spill site.
Yeah I can comprehend you TWS, what I’m saying, which apparently you can’t comprehend, is that I would have a debate with you on this topic, in the debate section, not in the forum.
I never have and never will. You however, have done that. Stop projecting and being a blatant hypocrite you fool. I would never report a vote because it’s absolutely embarrassing.
Well I’ve never reported a vote, never blocked someone, never removed anyone from a friends list lmao. Because I respect peoples right to voice their opinion without it being removed. I will combat the vote with arguing with them, but I would never report it. I have no cares about Mike removing that ability because I would’ve never used it. It’s like taking a picture calendar away from a blind man, pointless.
And if you think I’d value this idiots vote on something he knows nothing about, you’re wrong lol. That simple, I don’t value opinions from people who have no knowledge in a particular topic. Just like I wouldn’t expect someone to value my political opinion, or my opinion on anything other than pharmacology and climate change, because I am insanely uneducated in just about everything else.
No see, I do know what you don’t know. Because you are making claims that are patently false and don’t hold up to scrutiny and you’re willing to die on that hill. Which tells me you have very little knowledge on this topic. Which is why you have yet to counter anything I’ve said with data or evidence. Invite me to a debate, I will settle it with you there.’other than that, I have worked 15 hours today at an oil spill and simply don’t have the energy to argue with ignorance anymore.
Again you can say that all you’d like, however only one person in that debate had empirical evidence and data to support their claim. The other forfeited a round and made very ignorant claims that they had no evidence for. I’m sure you know which one is which. So take pride in being ignorant in a topic, just like rational madman did, and he lost the debate, and he performed better kn the debate than you did.
See man, you have presented nothing to prove me wrong. You have cited coroner and toxicology reports, sure, but you don’t know how to read them. I’ve stated explicitly why those reports don’t mean what you think they mean, and you’ve yet to counter.
Also there is no such thing as a “lethal dose” as if there’s a dose that every person would die from. It changes dramatically with weight and tolerance. Which is why LD50’s are listed in the unit of mg PER kg. Meaning as the weight of the subject increases, the lethal dose for the average person that weight, will increase.
People you have out argued know just as little about pharmacology and toxicology as you do.
Believe me I’m not flustered by what you’re saying, I’m a little embarrassed for you because I would hate to be arguing something I know nothing about. It’s very Fox News and CNN esque. Also I never said anything about political beliefs besides saying people who claim other people are brainwashed are usually brain washed by the beliefs they hold. You completely proved my point when you pointed the finger a political orientation and called them all sheep. That was exactly what I was saying, that you think you’re not a sheep, even though you lack the ability to consider other view points from people who disagree with you. Which makes you a close minded ignorant person. The YouTube algorithm and modern American politics has ruined your ability (and many other peoples) ability to critically think about anything. It’s just you vs them, no matter the other side says you will disagree with. That should be a problem to you, but you’re brainwashed so you don’t see it. That simple fact is also why you lack the ability to talk about scientific topic in a nuanced, careful, and objective way. It’s only what your side argues, they could argue he died from anything drug related and you’d jump on it regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not.
And you can call me whatever you please, however, you know nothing about this topic, which is why you haven’t addressed anything I’ve said about what that toxicology report actually means besides saying I’m drinking the Kool-aid. You have presented 0 empirical evidence to support that he had a fentanyl overdose, besides highly uneducated takes like “he had enough in his system to kill twelve people” what is your evidence for that? Is it the coroner saying they’ve seen death caused with as little as 2 nano grams per milliliter and that he had 22 in his system?
If that’s the case you haven’t looked into this enough, because that low of a lethal dose is usually indicative of a very small person (like a baby) ingesting a drug. Or that someone had an allergic reaction. You are over simplifying this subject because you have to. You don’t know enough about this topic to have an intricate understanding and conduct deep research, which is why people who have the knowledge, education, and ability to do those things disagree with you. It’s not because we are drinking the kool-aid or trying to promote the idea of racist cops. It’s because we know more about this topic and you are simply wrong.
Also ao have no political affiliation with any group, and refuse to, because people who argue and engage in politics are wasting their time and their life because it is a pointless topic with no right answers. It’s ok that you don’t know anything about this topic, which you have repeatedly proven. Just stop arguing about it with someone who does know about it.
If Lancelot thinks he embarrassed he is an idiot lol. Couldn’t argue a single point I made, without basically advocating for anything dangerous to be made illegal. So again you can say stupid stuff like that all day. Has no bearing over me at all.
You have less argumentative power than RM does on that topic and it’s saying something, you also forfeited a round, so it doesn’t concern me if you think you won lol. It won’t even concern me if the voters vote for you, because you are wrong. You have no knowledge on the topic, and anyone who votes for you is in the same boat.
It’s cool if you think I’m insecure lol. Also You’re roving my point. You are willing to die on a hill, call people sheep basically,
While presenting 0 reason to agree with you on anything you’re saying. Call me insecure all you please, you are wrong, and know nothing about this topic. You also still force big vocabulary, because you’re likely nothing special on the intelligence front, and that’s fine. Just stop making claims about stuff you have no knowledge in.
I’m not making an argument for breaking the law.
What do you mean by “insane?” Do you mean someone being violent? Abusive? What? Those things are already illegal, there’s no need to add drug possession and use into the mix of charges. There’s already laws protecting people from dangerous and harmful behavior towards others.
Interested?
The “more harm than good” has already gone out the window with Pros own stats. 1:800 is not more harm than good, it’s 800x more good than harm.
You’d be surprised how many cannabis enthusiasts think cannabis is healthy to consume.
To who ever my opponent is: I am working Night Shift at my job , I will likely be replying late in the night.
I don’t know who I should tag in this, but anyone who forfeits all rounds of a debate should face a minimum week long ban from everything on the site.
Guys drop a vote on this debate doesn’t have any yet
You only have 12 hours left for your vote are you gonna be able to do it?
This was a very good debate, prolly the most interesting one I’ve had so far. As you can prolly tell cannabis is the one I’m used to debating the least, I’m usually discussing the “hard drugs” and their legalization and their pharmacology. Mainly because cannabis doesn’t interest me much, and it’s a pretty simple drug. I think it should be legalized but I also think the cannabis crowd is as annoying as the hippie psychedelic crowd so I try to engage in many discussions about because people only want to talk about how “healthy” it is. I still had a fun debate regardless.
You didn’t lol I’m joking
I never had a problem with necessarily claiming that cannabis causes some people to be more aggressive. The claim I was trying to make is that the majority of cannabis users do not experience that. That is evident by the 20% statistic you cited.
Don’t patronize me lmao
Nvm I read your vote more carefully.
Also post mortem blood tests are almost never useful which is why they’re usually pushed by people trying to push a certain rhetoric about drugs.
Hey, I may be misreading your vote, or misunderstanding, it seems you disagree with me. Is that is the case I just wanted to make sure you know I am Pro and Lancelot is Con. I disagree with some of what your vote said, however if you think Lancelot deserved your vote, which is what im getting from your reasoning, I wanted you to know that he is Con and I am pro so you can make sure you voted for the right person.
If you meant to give me the nod, maybe I misunderstood your vote or didn’t read it carefully enough.
Hey guys, i don’t want any sympathy votes or anything, so please stil vote objectively. I don’t know if I’ll be able to do the argument today, I’ll try not to forfeit. My company’s private plane went down and killed everyone on board today and I lost a buddy, and some other people I knew. So if I end up forfeiting that’s why, but I will try not to.
Thanks mate, I look forward to the final round.
I will be thoroughly impressed if the judges read all of this. I wouldn’t blame you if you guys closed your eyes and pressed random buttons lol
Well that’s good, your arguments are philosophically sound and coherent I just simply disagree with your stance. I also think your evidence leaves a lot to be desired most of it is assumptions based off of other assumptions
Hey guys, I’ll be at work until about 8:00 tonight. I may have time to respond during work but most likely not.
You have good arguments. I feel like the biggest issue here is simple philosophical disagreements. And that’s fine, I respect you for at least being educated and using evidence to support your beliefs. This next round will solely be dedicated to combatting your points, the final round will be solely dedicated to putting my points forward regardless of yours.
Good debate. I know we talk shit but I respect you more than most anti-drug advocates.
Ran out of characters again, 10,000 isn’t enough to discuss a topic this intricate. I have some sources for you guys
MPTP toxicity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27974/
Cannabis use among high schooler trends: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629476/
Thanks for doing this debate honestly. I think you’re taking the wrong approach to it as a whole, but you seem to be well versed enough to st least give some reasons for your beliefs. I just think your beliefs on this topic are constructed by looking at these risks you put forward in the wrong way. You’re not uneducated on this topic. I just think you’re maybe using a little bit of confirmation bias at the least. I also think you’re seeing these issues as something solely brought on by cannabis, and not the social aspects of being a cannabis user, bad science surrounding cannabis use, and the lack of education surrounding the use of drugs in general. There is such thing as bad science, studies can be poorly conducted, data can be misinterpreted, etc. which is what I think you seem to be doing or at less the sources you are citing seem to be doing. Which is why the study i published presented an actual mechanism for aggression responses in cannabis users, where yours was based off of cases that could have many more variables integrated into the situation besides just cannabis use. That is where the issues of most social studies interpreting drug risks start to fail. They aren’t establishing a mechanism for their claim, for example, what exactly is happening in the brain to make people more aggressive? Or was cannabis the only factor in these cases of violence where cannabis was in the system? If not how did we rule out these other factors as possible causes for these 14 cases your study mentioned? It’s much more complicated than just looking at violent offenders who use cannabis and saying cannabis caused it.
I had a lot more to say, but I ran out of characters, my next argument will be less focused on your points and trying to convince the judges of my points.
You said a lot of good stuff, however I just think you approaching this issue and these statistics in the wrong way. I will show the judges and you, the way I approach the issues and risks of drug use, cannabis specifically in this debate, and see if I can convince people.
Good debate.
In my opinion the burden of proof lies on pro, so he shouldn’t have to wait for his opponent to say something.
I don’t like people who forfeit, however, the BOP is on pro, so he should be able to make an argument without one from con.
Just wanna let the judges know, I’m working 15 hours a day at an oil spill. I’m usually very good about responding quickly but I may be responding late at night for this entire debate.
Gotcha, never done a debate like this.
What happens if the judges don’t accept here.
Bet, if I have time while I’m at work, which is doubtful I’ll try to get an argument done early. If not it’ll be a in about 8-10 hours from now.
Yeah I’m down for that. I’m working 15
Hours a day with no days off right now so I may be responding to the debates a little late, but I’m down to do it.
Also nah Lancelot I think I’m done shit talking you lol, just a little too much to deal with tbh.
I don’t have to take a more knowledgeable approach… because I’m winning the debate lol. And haven’t reported a vote and never will.
Aight mate can’t talk to you anymore. Later.
The amount of sore loser, sour puss, retards on this site is astounding. You guys should go to school and do something constructive with your life lol. I’m in a position where I can say stuff like that. I make more money in 2 months than you guys do in a year. And it’s because of my education and knowledge. So go do something with yourselves instead of boosting your childish ego by trolling people.
Yeah I just checked, not a single vote in your favor on our global warming debate.
Also thank you guys for talking to me, it makes me feel so good about myself knowing I’m not a complete idiot, who gets entertainment out of trolling people on a debate website lol. Y’all are hilarious, thanks guys it made my day.
Again, I have never defriended, reported a vote, or blocked anyone on this site ever. That is all you. You trolling like this is hilariously childish. You’re an idiot mate.
I don’t think you have a single vote for you in the global warming debate. You were the one claiming the effects were over exaggerated. You sir are an idiot or a troll, both are equally as embarrassing. I wouldn’t be surprised if both of the accounts I’m arguing with is you.
No you nerd I stopped responding because I had an hour long drive to the hotel from the oil spill site.
Yeah I can comprehend you TWS, what I’m saying, which apparently you can’t comprehend, is that I would have a debate with you on this topic, in the debate section, not in the forum.
You can easily go look if I’ve ever reported a vote, takes about 5 minutes.
I never have and never will. You however, have done that. Stop projecting and being a blatant hypocrite you fool. I would never report a vote because it’s absolutely embarrassing.
No dumb ass, I know you are going to report the first vote against you. I would never report any vote, because I’m not a child lol
Well I’ve never reported a vote, never blocked someone, never removed anyone from a friends list lmao. Because I respect peoples right to voice their opinion without it being removed. I will combat the vote with arguing with them, but I would never report it. I have no cares about Mike removing that ability because I would’ve never used it. It’s like taking a picture calendar away from a blind man, pointless.
I’m very excited to see the first vote against you on that debate get reported though. Can’t wait for that lol
And if you think I’d value this idiots vote on something he knows nothing about, you’re wrong lol. That simple, I don’t value opinions from people who have no knowledge in a particular topic. Just like I wouldn’t expect someone to value my political opinion, or my opinion on anything other than pharmacology and climate change, because I am insanely uneducated in just about everything else.
I wouldn’t report the vote anyway lol, because I’m not an insecure child like yourself Lancelot.
No see, I do know what you don’t know. Because you are making claims that are patently false and don’t hold up to scrutiny and you’re willing to die on that hill. Which tells me you have very little knowledge on this topic. Which is why you have yet to counter anything I’ve said with data or evidence. Invite me to a debate, I will settle it with you there.’other than that, I have worked 15 hours today at an oil spill and simply don’t have the energy to argue with ignorance anymore.
Since you are so confident in your ability to understand this complicated situation. Send me an invite to a debate on this specific topic.
Again you can say that all you’d like, however only one person in that debate had empirical evidence and data to support their claim. The other forfeited a round and made very ignorant claims that they had no evidence for. I’m sure you know which one is which. So take pride in being ignorant in a topic, just like rational madman did, and he lost the debate, and he performed better kn the debate than you did.
See man, you have presented nothing to prove me wrong. You have cited coroner and toxicology reports, sure, but you don’t know how to read them. I’ve stated explicitly why those reports don’t mean what you think they mean, and you’ve yet to counter.
Also there is no such thing as a “lethal dose” as if there’s a dose that every person would die from. It changes dramatically with weight and tolerance. Which is why LD50’s are listed in the unit of mg PER kg. Meaning as the weight of the subject increases, the lethal dose for the average person that weight, will increase.
People you have out argued know just as little about pharmacology and toxicology as you do.
Believe me I’m not flustered by what you’re saying, I’m a little embarrassed for you because I would hate to be arguing something I know nothing about. It’s very Fox News and CNN esque. Also I never said anything about political beliefs besides saying people who claim other people are brainwashed are usually brain washed by the beliefs they hold. You completely proved my point when you pointed the finger a political orientation and called them all sheep. That was exactly what I was saying, that you think you’re not a sheep, even though you lack the ability to consider other view points from people who disagree with you. Which makes you a close minded ignorant person. The YouTube algorithm and modern American politics has ruined your ability (and many other peoples) ability to critically think about anything. It’s just you vs them, no matter the other side says you will disagree with. That should be a problem to you, but you’re brainwashed so you don’t see it. That simple fact is also why you lack the ability to talk about scientific topic in a nuanced, careful, and objective way. It’s only what your side argues, they could argue he died from anything drug related and you’d jump on it regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not.
And you can call me whatever you please, however, you know nothing about this topic, which is why you haven’t addressed anything I’ve said about what that toxicology report actually means besides saying I’m drinking the Kool-aid. You have presented 0 empirical evidence to support that he had a fentanyl overdose, besides highly uneducated takes like “he had enough in his system to kill twelve people” what is your evidence for that? Is it the coroner saying they’ve seen death caused with as little as 2 nano grams per milliliter and that he had 22 in his system?
If that’s the case you haven’t looked into this enough, because that low of a lethal dose is usually indicative of a very small person (like a baby) ingesting a drug. Or that someone had an allergic reaction. You are over simplifying this subject because you have to. You don’t know enough about this topic to have an intricate understanding and conduct deep research, which is why people who have the knowledge, education, and ability to do those things disagree with you. It’s not because we are drinking the kool-aid or trying to promote the idea of racist cops. It’s because we know more about this topic and you are simply wrong.
Also ao have no political affiliation with any group, and refuse to, because people who argue and engage in politics are wasting their time and their life because it is a pointless topic with no right answers. It’s ok that you don’t know anything about this topic, which you have repeatedly proven. Just stop arguing about it with someone who does know about it.
Lmao ok pal. You’d lose 10/10 times in a test of understanding of drugs and you know that. Just trolling, which is worse than being dumb lol
You haven’t won anything mate, and I never said anything was unfair so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
You haven’t won anything mate, and I never said anything was unfair so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
If Lancelot thinks he embarrassed he is an idiot lol. Couldn’t argue a single point I made, without basically advocating for anything dangerous to be made illegal. So again you can say stupid stuff like that all day. Has no bearing over me at all.
You have less argumentative power than RM does on that topic and it’s saying something, you also forfeited a round, so it doesn’t concern me if you think you won lol. It won’t even concern me if the voters vote for you, because you are wrong. You have no knowledge on the topic, and anyone who votes for you is in the same boat.
It’s cool if you think I’m insecure lol. Also You’re roving my point. You are willing to die on a hill, call people sheep basically,
While presenting 0 reason to agree with you on anything you’re saying. Call me insecure all you please, you are wrong, and know nothing about this topic. You also still force big vocabulary, because you’re likely nothing special on the intelligence front, and that’s fine. Just stop making claims about stuff you have no knowledge in.