CreateDebate


MisterB's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of MisterB's arguments, looking across every debate.
MisterB(30) Clarified
1 point

I apologize. I completely missed the part of your posts that categorized it as a clarification. I was not trying to be petty.

1 point

Technically, the debate is about legalizing marijuana; not about its affects. I am not insulting you. I am simply stating that your logic is not sound. I will agree with you by saying ABUSING marijuana is harmful to one's health. There is no science to back up your claim that marijuana USE is completely and utterly harmful. On the contrary, there is some science and a long history of people USING marijuana with little to no health affects to prove that responsible use is not harmful to one's health.

For one moment, let's pretend marijuana is harmful to one's health. By your logic anything deemed harmful should be illegal because people cannot be held accountable to maintain their own health. To continue with that logic... then refined sugars, refined flours, trans fats, unhealthy foods, pesticides, sharp knives, stinging bugs, prescription medication with too many side affects, driving over 20mph, etc. should be illegal too.

Something should not be banned just because it is harmful. Please value freedom over baby-proofing the world.

Your logic is flawed. I am not insulting you.

1 point

You are quite right in that following the law is being responsible. However, over-reaching laws restrict freedom. So, if you must argue technicalities... When a law criminalizes an act, one is no longer able to do that act without facing a potential legal consequence (loss of freedom and the opportunity to be responsible with said freedom). When that act is legal, one is free to responsibly do that act without legal consequence.

Responsiblity with freedom: The laws related to drug use should be geared towards irresponsiblity. Punishment should be dealt to those who take the freedom away from others because they were irresponsible. The laws should not be as they currently are for drug use and possession.

MisterB(30) Clarified
1 point

Thank you for pointing that out. Typo is fixed........................

1 point

Technically, there are people who have a "biological weapon" and have used that weapon; some states have criminalized the intentional transmission of HIV. The NRA bumper sticker is a slogan, but it is also very true.

You imply that guns should not be carried or owned by people because guns are dangerous. If that logic holds true then many dangerous objects should not be owned by people: knives, cutting instruments, sharp objects, rockets, bombs, poisonous substances, fire, medications, heights, anything that can cause asphyxiation, rope, rocks, bats, heavy sticks, cars, etc.

You, and many others, are focusing on the tool being used and controlling those tools instead of solutions to hatred, aggression, anger, mental illness, and many other reasons some people cause harm and destruction.

1 point

There are plenty of reasons a person should own a gun (automatic or otherwise); both sides of owning and prevention of owning is subjective. The fact is the US Constitution was designed to create a balance of freedoms for the people. Taking away those freedoms will not solve this problem. In addition and related to the recent Sandy Hook shooting, the guns used were not automatic weapons.

1 point

You contradict yourself. If you really want freedom then you wouldn't ban anything so people will be able to choose what they consume whether it is good or bad for them. Basically, you want to control others so you can have your own little bubble of freedom.

I can agree with protecting children from excessive abuse, but I believe freedom is far more important than controlling people's lives. That is the main reason to legalize marijuana. If someone is doing something near you that you don't like, then you have several options of actions; two of which are to leave or to ask that person to stop their actions.

I will not address the rest of you point because it is drifting away from the topic of legalizing marijuana.

1 point

The question and options for this debate are very narrow-minded and is extremely stupid.

1 point

The question and options for this debate are very narrow-minded and is extremely stupid.

1 point

Because people care more about their own trivial bullshit instead of responsibility, equality, and freedom. It has nothing to do with who brings it up.

1 point

Again... your post, about poor grammar and spelling, is not an argument.

1 point

Your post, about poor grammar and spelling, is not an argument.

2 points

This argument has no logic because there are plenty of harmful products that are legal. In addition, the so-called-harmful affects from marijuana use are pretty mild. However, there is not a lot of real science to back up how neutral, harmful, or truly beneficial ganja can be.

2 points

Legalize drugs to restore freedom and put the responsibility back into the hands of the people. Legalizing drugs would greatly reduce the black market and as such the violence associated with the black market would decrease. After, the resources being used to "fight" the drug black market could be funneled into education and research.

If you think drugs should remain illegal then you do not appreciate or value freedom enough.

Edit: typo. original text: "If you think drugs should remain legal then..."

1 point

Legalize it for all the reasons opposite of your argument. People should have the chance to prove that they can be responsible. Then once they are not responsible they should be punished through the legal system (similar as it is with drinking and driving).

Taking away freedom is taking away responsibility.

1 point

You argument has no merit. If health was a higher priority than freedom then there should be a lot of things made illegal such as food items with low- to no-nutritional value Your argument also does not have merit because not all people who use marijuana lose productivity.

2 points

That's pretty extreme. Also, your perspective of "vandalism" is not shared by all; some view it as art. Don't be so close-minded. Just because you don't agree with piercing doesn't justify a person "should be severely punished." Additionally, your point, as weak as it is, doesn't have anything to do with this debate.

1 point

But it is your own body. And having a piercing doesn't effect anyone else.

I completely support this aspect, with the caveat that when you are under the responsibility of guardians/parents, they have the financial responsibility if things go wrong and have to go to court. I would be very surprised if a minor, with their own money, could afford a lawyer. Thus, the parents/guardian should still have to give permission. So if the piercing goes wrong it can affect your guardians/parents.

Edit: FYI, affect is usually a verb and effect is usually a noun.

1 point

...legalizing it for minors,... ...would be irrelevant.

More relevant than you think. Passing one law that permits a minor to get pierced without permission does not address the entire US judicial/legal system based on people being 18+.

1 point

I wasn't "acting like it's a big deal." I am merely stating that there can be permanent affects of getting pierced. I agree that scars are quite common.

1 point

Piercings are not permanent...

This is not entirely true. It depends on the kind of piercing you get, if it does/doesn't get infected, if the piercing gets ripped out, if you stretch the piercing and how you stretch it, the kind of skin the person has, and the location of the piercing (and some other factors, I would imagine). The piercing itself might not be permanent, but the potential scars would be permanent.

I wore 14awg rings in my ears for about 10 years and took them out 2 years ago; the holes are still there.

1 point

No because with the current legal system in the US, a person is a legal adult when they are 18 years old. This means that until that age you are not able to participate in all legal matters, such as signing contracts. So if a younger-than-18-yo was able to get a piercing without permission and something went wrong where they had to go to court, then the young person would be at a serious disadvantage to the piercer and/or piercing company (maybe it's the other way around). Hence, the permission paper work is a way for the piercer and piercing company to interact with the legal guardians on an equal level in case problems went to court.

On a less legal note, as long as parents/guardians are responsible for you then they should have say for many things whether you can or cannot do it. That is the job of being a parent. It only makes sense that until you can take care of yourself responsibly then you cannot and should not make all your own decisions.

2 points

Yes. Gimme an RFID chip that contains my health history. In fact make it so it tracks my every movement and action. Additionally, I want it to shock me when I make a bad decision and whisper loving words to me when I feel sad, scared, or lonely. Let's just get it over with already. While we're at it let's ban all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Ban religion because too many people fight about it. Let's ban anything that is harmful or dangerous such as guns, sharp scissors, cars that go over 50mph(31kph) or create pollution, processed foods, processed sugars, trans-fats, and books that are controversial. Let's get rid of poisonous snakes and spiders. Ban UV rays because it causes skin cancer. BAN IT ALL! THIS WORLD NEEDS to be BABY-PROOFED! //sarcasm

1 point

Who gives a ^&$^@# *%#!?! The Atheist vs Theist debate is pointless and neither side can win.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]