- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
They are both consumables.
So is rat poison. A law against feeding it to babies is hardly the same as a law that says you can't feed babies food.
If you care about one and not the other, then you aren’t against laws concerning consumables as such, but only specific consumables.
See above. Then refer to my "don't give a rat's ass what you put in your body" point from earlier.
It shows that meth addiction being prevalent in commonly conservative areas does not indicate that conservatives are for legalizing drugs, even if its conservatives who are using them.
Not a particularly convincing argument seeing your position was "right wingers want to control what you put into your body" all while not controlling what they put into their bodies and even sharing it with each other while not caring some more.
Not great. One party is pushing further and further toward more and more extreme views.
It made a point too.
Not one that helped your position. Rush doing opiods has little to do with a position that you don't even know if he takes, and it has zero to do with illegalizing steak.
Oh. I though it was that The left wants to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies. That’s not exclusively a left wing thing.
You still haven't shown any equivalence between drugs vs food. Illegalizing water isn't equivalent to illegalizing hair products, and in this analogy, the group is letting go of illegalizing hair products and moving center.
I’m assuming you don’t actually care that the left wants to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies
I created a debate about that very thing. You then created a red herring (drugs) to avoid the actual topic (food) all together.
but rather what they tell us we can or cannot put in our bodies
Illegalizing food is a rather disturbing position. Illegalizing a drug with known side effects is hardly comparable to illegalizing food. Agree or disagree?
I don’t think it’s the case that all social security fraud is a felony
2)All Social Security fraud is a crime at minimum.
Even if you do find that one type of crime is more prevalent among immigrants, you haven’t shown that crime rates in general are higher.
It looks like he has. He provided data showing that almost all illegals commit at minimum two crimes. Being in the country illegaly and social security fraud. Most Americans are guilty of neither, and no Americans are guilty of being in the country illegaly.
A) The Right moving Left doesn’t prove their original position to be Left.
It proves only one wing is moving toward the center rather than further into the extremist position.
B) Rush Limbaugh got addicted to pain pills. That doesn’t mean he is for legalization of opioids.
C) Personally? I’d rather be told I can’t do what I already don’t do. That’s not really the point though. The point is that your debate topic applies to the right on a different issue.
The topic is a left wing loon wanting to make steak illegal. You've ignored that point for 15 to 20 straight posts now.
The fact that there is an article that says “hey republicans too” makes my point.
Not really. It proves that what you said concerning who advocates for legal pot was objectively false.
Pointing out that Right wingers too want to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies does not justify what Left wingers are doing. Maybe change the title slightly.
I am assuming you cede that drug enforcement is hardly comparable to food enforcement, seeing you ignored debating the point.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!