CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
29
Yes Not if I don’t like it
Debate Score:55
Arguments:53
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (20)
 
 Not if I don’t like it (24)

Debate Creator

excon(14583) pic



Should people be free to choose what they do with their own body?

Hello, 

 I don’t smoke cigarettes but they should be legal. I don’t do heroin, but it should be legal too. I don’t like abortions but women should be free to get them.  I like motorcycle helmets, but riders should be free to not wear one. I’m not into homosexuality, but it’s none of my business.

Do you get my drift or do I need to explain further?

excon

Yes

Side Score: 26
VS.

Not if I don’t like it

Side Score: 29
4 points

People should be free to choose to do as they wish with their own bodies providing it does not harm others or the environment.

Smoking in public causes cancer and coronary artery disease to non-smokers through passive smoking.

A significant number of violent crimes are committed every day against innocent civilians by heroin junkies who need to finance their addiction by whatever means necessary.

Women should most certainly have the right to terminate a pregnancy at any time within the legal time limits.

Many people, if not most people need to be forced, through legislation to protect themselves and others by employing the many well proven safety measures which are available.

Of course homosexuals, and all others sexual deviants should be free to do whatever it is they do.

Side: Yes
1 point

People should be free to choose to do as they wish with their own bodies providing it does not harm others or the environment.

Hello A:

So, we agree too..

Of course, if I had my druthers, heroine would be CHEAP and READILY available, thereby eliminating the need to mug your neighbor.

You're not suggesting, are you, that there's some chemical component in illegal drugs that COMPELLS people to rob??? Nahh… You wouldn't say that.

excon

Side: Yes
Antrim(1297) Clarified
4 points

If heroin was cheap it would, depending on how cheap, reduce the number of violent crimes committed to fund the purchase of this opioid drug but would not reduce the type of crime/ anti-social behaviour connected to its use.

You have slyly introduced the if factor, the unfairness of doing so can be illustrated in the old adage;- IF your granny had balls she'd be your grandad.

I haven't the remotest idea what the chemical constituents of heroin are but its use is attributed to numerous criminal activities.

Side: Yes
seanB(959) Disputed
1 point

Smoking in public causes cancer and coronary artery disease to non-smokers through passive smoking

This is weak sauce. Petrol fumes contain more carcinogens than cigarettes, and do more damage to the environment.

A significant number of violent crimes are committed every day against innocent civilians by heroin junkies who need to finance their addiction by whatever means necessary

True, but the same can be said of people who drink alcohol committing acts of recklessness and violence due to intoxication. Alcohol is also extremely addictive, yet alcohol is legal.

Side: Not if I don’t like it
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Well then why do you burn Petrol in what every country you exist in?????? Come Dummy i would like to hear this response LMMFAO

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Wait What is there airplanes in your dark hole of the world ?????????? LMMFAO

Then we have us a Real Dummy comparing Heroin to Alcohol !!!

Demented is what you people are !!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Do you spend your days at the end of a tailpipe that is a Petrol burner ? Sure seems to be LMMFAO

Side: Yes

You don't like people saying MAGA, but they should be able to. You don't like employers like the NFL being able to stop political statements on their property, on their time, but they should be able to. You don't like Natives waggling the shame finger at the Democrats, but they should be able to.

Side: Yes
excon(14583) Disputed
1 point

Hello bront:

Jeez.. I thought we were gonna discuss REAL shit - not the crap you make up..

1) I'm FINE with people saying MAGA.

2) I'm FINE with employers stopping political statements on their property and time.. However, the property you speak of was FUNDED by the public. It is NOT private property. And, the owners time you speak of, is between the whistles..

3) I'm FINE finger waggling Natives..

excon

Side: Not if I don’t like it
1 point

I'm FINE with employers stopping political statements on their property and time.. However, the property you speak of was FUNDED by the public. It is NOT private property. And, the owners time you speak of, is between the whistles..

The cities choose to make those deals by their own choice and vote. The NFL is an employer with a brand. Even if you claim that the stadium is "rented" or "owned by the people" (which is meaningless legally), the employer still has the right to not allow political speech at the workplace.

3) I'm FINE finger waggling Natives..

Okay. Why have the Democrats been giving away Native American lands for 188 years straight without stop and bringing in minorities to do the work "whites won't do"?

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Water Boy people don't have private property ??? Private Property is funded by the PUBLIC ??? LMMFAO You are insane

Side: Yes
1 point

NFL players have the right to free speech..............................................................................

Side: Not if I don’t like it
Zuul(69) Disputed
0 points

It's a business issue. You don't actually have "free speech" at work if the employer says no. Otherwise employees could start bickering about politics, customers would leave and not buy your product, the employer would face boycotts, damage to their brand and product, and the rest.

Other examples where you don't have free speech are when you shout "fire" in a crowded building, you tell a coworker sexual things you want to do with them, counter to company policy and sexual harrasment laws, and saying homophobic or bigoted things at work. A KKK member cannot begin calling a black coworker racist slurs at work. He can yell it at his house all day long. Likewise, an NFL player, who's employer is the NFL, cannot make political statements at work, during a game, if it goes against the NFL's company policy. It has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with company policy, and the NFL is now saying "no".

Based on the law, free speech has nothing to do with employers, but has to do with the government making laws prohibiting speech or prosecuting speech.

Excerpt from article-

"Employees don't have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution's right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it's not absolute. ... So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work."

https://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

Side: Yes

definately. My body, my choice.....................................................................

Side: Yes

This is my body, this is my right, for my body, I will fight, this is my body, only MINE, back off of me, you'll be just fine!

Side: Yes
1 point

Like many have pointed out, as long as it doesn't harm others, yes.

That doesn't mean they are free from consequences or criticism.

Side: Yes

I need a fucking cigarette.........................................................................................................

Side: Yes
achilles_(51) Disputed
1 point

I need a fucking cigarette.........................................................................................................

No you don't

Side: Not if I don’t like it
2 points

Your right to do as you wish with your body ultimately ends when it infringes upon the rights of someone else. People smoke, yes, but it should not be allowed in tobacco-free environments (which I hope it isn't, considering it's tobacco-free). Heroin... that's hard stuff. It can potentially kill you.... which is murder... which is illegal. Hmmm, abortion.. that infringes upon the rights of another, in my opinion. If it has a heartbeat, it's alive. You have no right to kill it. Other stuff... harmless stuff, I see no wrong. I'm not saying what should be illegal or legal, but if it hurts someone other than yourself and you condone it, it should be illegal.

Side: Not if I don’t like it

You are speaking common sense! If you vote for the Democrat Party, you are supporting No Restriction abortions.

I hope you are true to your convictions.

Side: Not if I don’t like it
1 point

Your right to do what you want with your body ends when in infringes the rights of another. You have the right to swing your arms wildly. That right stops when it means you’re stiking someone. You should have the right to destroy yourself with chemicals, unless those chemicals make you an enherent hazard to others (not all drugs are equal). You have the right to get all kinds of elective surgeries, you should not have the right to kill someone in the process.

Side: Not if I don’t like it
1 point

Your right to do what you want with your body ends when in infringes the rights of another

Hello A,

So, we agree, then.. But, please.. Don't go off on tangents.. Snorting cocaine is WAYYYYY different than robbing a 7/Eleven because you need to feed your habit..

excon

Side: Not if I don’t like it
Amarel(5135) Clarified
1 point

Snorting cocaine is WAYYYYY different than robbing a 7/Eleven because you need to feed your habit..

When people are completely disconnected from reality, we remove them from society for their own and other’s safety. If one cannot be allowed walking about dilusional, then why should one be allowed to take substances that make them dilusional? They shouldn’t. Though still, not all hallucinogens are equal.

Then there are substances like meth, which are highly addictive and literally change your moral compass. Meth heads will do things to loved ones and children that they would never have done while clean.

Some drugs are enherently hazardous to more than their user.

Also, we likely disagree about elective surgery, but you may not have been reading closely enough.

Side: Yes

Should people be free to choose what they do with their own body?

What if they are mentally handicapped and are beating their head against a wall Con?

Side: Not if I don’t like it
excon(14583) Disputed
1 point

What if they are mentally handicapped and are beating their head against a wall

Hello again, bront:

Dude! I really thought you'd be able to pick up what I'm laying down.. No, huh?

DUDE!!

excon

Side: Yes
1 point

Con. If you wanted to discuss abortion, etc, say it plainly. I don't do beating around the bush. Otherwise you'll get sarcastic comments from a smart ass, namely me.

Side: Not if I don’t like it

The unbelievable hypocrisy of people like you is ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING!

You sit their talking abut allowing people the freedom to do what they want, and then you show your absolute intolerance for an unborn's right to life.

You tell everyone they can do what they want, and then you say a Baby has no right to KEEP LIVING!!!!!!!!!!

THERE ARE TWO BODIES INVOLVED IN ABORTION!!!!!!! THE MOTHER'S AND THE CHILD'S!!!!!!!

Spew your rights that all people should enjoy, and then deny a huge segment of our population their right to life.

The mother has many choices. She can choose to not have sex, to have sex with or without birth control. It's her choice if she wants to conceive another human life. NOT HER CHOICE TO END IT!

Only an absolute selfish inhuman moron would try to claim that unborn life is any different before or after traveling down the birth canal.

The Democrat Party supports killing viable babies for any reason up to birth!

THIS IS WHAT YOU SUPPORT WITH YOUR VOTE!

Try talking about the Baby's right to it's own body, and then get back with us sane people.

Side: Not if I don’t like it
0 points

What if the mother was raped, is 10 years old, whatever?.................................................................................................................

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

Get a life, no one is talking about extreme case abortions. You are going to get no closure on what happened in your life by trying to force everyone to agree with rape abortions.

You are going to have to ask God for forgiveness, and be honest about the fact that you support ALL ABORTIONS WHEN VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!

Side: Not if I don’t like it

No, not in my opinion. Addiction is a terrible disease and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, and drugs are very addictive. If we're trying to cure cancer and AIDS and everything else, why shouldn't we work towards making drugs illegal as well? As for abortions, I agree with what bananabri said: "Your right to do as you wish with your body ultimately ends when it infringes upon the rights of someone else."

Side: Not if I don’t like it
seanB(959) Disputed
1 point

Making drugs illegal, doesn't stop people taking drugs, searching for drugs, manufacturing drugs, buying drugs, or being interested in drugs. What it does do, is it creates a black market; gives income to those who rule that black market via violence and intimidation; it further isolates addicts; criminalises addiction, which is a medical problem, really, not a criminal one; it causes there to be high levels of impurity in drugs; it creates a fear culture around chemical substances; it stigmatises addiction; it leads to wars in countries where drugs are grown, and to gang violence in countries where drugs are distributed.

To see what happens when drugs are legalised, by contrast, look at Portugal. It has one of the lowest drug-crime rates in the world, along with some of the lowest rates of addiction, new HIV transmission, and drug-related deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

The drug problem can't be solved by criminalisation and the use of force and violence.

Side: Yes
1 point

Making drugs illegal, doesn't stop people taking drugs

Of course imaking them illegal doesn't stop people from taking or searching for drugs, but it makes them both physically and financially harder to obtain. That's why we, as a country, should do more than sign a bill and let it go. We need to campaign harder against drugs and drug addiction because it is a problem in the United States and a large one at that.

it further isolated addicts

Addiction isn't something we should normalize and it's why we have rehabilitation centers.

criminalises addiction

Fair point. Addiction shouldn't be inherently illegal, it should be the drugs themselves.

it creates a fear culture around chemical substances

If you're uneducated, yes. But, if you've gotten to 8th grade science, you have a basic understanding of chemicals and should understand that not all chemicals are the same deadly substance.

look at Portugal

Here's the thing: drugs are still not completely legal in Portugal. Taking, for example, cocaine, is treated as a slap on the wrist. A small fine, a warning, a local commission. And they've got the right idea; addiction shouldn't be criminalised. Addiction should be identified and treated accordingly if and when possible.

I don't believe that drugs themselves should be criminalised because it creates an unwinnable situation for the addicted. If an addict is caught with illegal drugs, whatever it may be, they're put in jail. When they get out, almost no jobs are available for them so they become criminals and the cycle repeats itself.

Side: Not if I don’t like it