Having a debate

Well, What is your stand point on the above issues? Obviously you are ok with homosexuals, but on pot? I would also assume you are pro choice

 

As far as pro choice, I am actually covering this in ethics class atm, here is a great argument

You wake in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his body as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would have never permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”
The question, as you might suspect, is “It is morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?” Well, consider:

[1] Every person has a right to life.

[2] The violinist is a person.

[3] So, the violinist has a right to life.

[4] Granted, you have a right to say what happens to your body. But when dealing with matters of life and death, one’s right to say what happens to one’s body is of little consequence—the violinist’s right to life outweighs your right to say what happens to your body, even more so, since your life is not in danger.

[5] Therefore, the violinist may not be killed.

[6] Thus, it would be morally wrong of you to unplug yourself from the violinist.

Ah, yes—in this case, you want to escape the conclusion by saying that you were kidnapped and didn’t have a choice in the matter, and this makes all the difference in the world. Should we, then, make an exception in the case of rape? Can the conservative run this line? Well, he or she might say “Alright, all persons have a right to life, but those persons who came into existence because of rape have less of a right.” As Thomson notes, this sounds rather harsh. Should someone’s right to life be thwarted because he or she was conceived as the result of rape, something over which he or she had no control?


As far as pot, I have no clue really... never used it, never researched it much....

 

As a debater, I've always followed the simple rule of not debating controversial issues as the ones mentioned above. These types of topics are the kind that people take very personal, and tend to get very emotional. I'm not saying you shouldn't debate these things with him, but just know the discussion probably won't go anywhere.

Also, I've taken the liberty to edit your thread title to correct the spelling mistake.

 

Take into consideration you can twist that argument into "Why should you sacrifice nine months of your life ((really the rest of your life with a baby)) for something you never wanted to happen?

Having a baby changes everything, seriously, I love my daughter, but it is HARD being a mom...

---------- Post added 28th Oct 2011 at 10:38 AM ----------

Oh! thanks to some googling... i found a pro=pot argument!!!

Economic stimulation! The buying, selling, and taxing of pot could greatly help the economy.... apparently it is predicted we could seriously lessen the american debt by taxing weed...

 

I personally could never have an abortion, the instant I found out I was pregnant I loved my child as she grew within me... HOWEVER I think it IS a woman's right to make the decision for herself.... Rape is one case I am defiantly a supporter of abortion in.... especially of younger girls, why should an 11 year old girl have to go through a pregnancy when she was raped? She will forever be labeled in school, and her life will change drastically, even if she were to give the child up for adoption.... just another example

 

Did you take into account if...
1) Someone was raped at all or incestually?
Like what if they were going to have their dad/brother/uncles baby?
That child might have birth defects as well. And who wants to deal with the trauma of being raped and have that child. Some might be strong enough to deal. Some may not. It should be their choice

2) What if childbirth is dangerous to the mother/carrier of the fetus?
Like if they have that child or try to carry a pregnancy, they BOTH will die?

That's all I've got lol

 

Instead of being pro-choice, Be anti-Life, Pot is bad for you, It kills from the inside and homosexuals are gaaaaaaaay

 

Since he is so religious a good one would be "the bible has 10 commendments and none of them say Dont be gay"

 

Haaaaa!
you're funny:roflmao:

 

well on the Jesus side of things just bring up all the hypocrisy in the Bible.
Love thy neighbor...unless they are gay, not white, a women, or don't believe exactly as you do then it's ok to kill them.

Turn the other cheek.......or eye for an eye.

And don't let him give you any of that old and new testament crap, deities are not allowed to go find themselves, after all that wouldn't make them omnipotent, now would it.

People who are gay should be killed, but priests who boink the alter boys should be protected.

 

This parallel actually begs the question. It assumes that an unborn fetus is a human. The pro-choice/pro-life debate is centered around determining whether or not a fetus should be considered human and have its rights protected as such. Now I'm not taking a side here. I'm just saying for this argument to work, you have to prove that an unborn fetus should be considered human.

 

Well obviously I'm with you on the homosexual side, but I doubt I have much to add to it that hasn't already been said.

As far as pot goes, the war on drugs is one of the stupidest things about America. They waste so much money on a drug that has been confirmed harmless... oh wait, there isn't substantial "research" to prove that it is harmless. That is because our government literally has it illegal (or at least nearly impossible) for scientists to use it in research, simply because they know it would show up harmless.

But wait. If its harmless why would or government want us to think its illegal? No.

Turns out it was originally lobbied to be illegal for a few reasons.

1. Hemp was a much more efficient way of producing paper. Not to mention substantially better for the environment. Well of course with, all of our logging and paper companies would go out of business, so they lobby to ban marijuana for its harmful effects and suddenly hemp is no longer a threat.

2. Because it was minorities who originally started smoking, they used it as a way of persecuting minorities.

These reasons may not be relative today, but there are many reasons people still lobby for prohibition today. Most, if any, do not serve the public good, but rather private businesses.

1. Many prisons in this country are privately owned. I don't know off the top of my head, but I believe its at least half of them. Since many of the prisoner's in this country are in there for marijuana offenses, they obviously don't want it to be legalized because they are making money off of otherwise innocent "criminals."

2. Without marijuana, the war on drugs becomes completely pointless. Something like 2% of people that ever smoke pot try "hard drugs," but like 99.8% of people who have done hard drugs smoke pot. so they go, HEY LOOK AT ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO DID HARD DRUGS, THEY ALL SMOKED WEED FIRST!!! THAT'S WHY!!!! but that is correlation without causation. Its the government using bad statistics to show they want to show.

The fact is, the VAST majority of the war on drugs budget goes to stopping marijuana, not because its a problem, but because it shows its making progress to people dumb enough to believe marijuana is a problem. Without marijuana, there would be so few "drug users" that there would be no need for the war on drugs... not that there is now...

3. Drugs tests. Drugs tests can detect marijuana in someone system for up to 28 days. Like every other drug on the planet is only detectable for up to 3 days. This basically means without marijuana, these tests would be an utterly useless waste of money, and they companies that make them would go out of business.

But doesn't this mean that it is sending the message that if you are looking for a job or have the potential to be otherwise drug tested, you would be much safer on it to do "hard drugs" where they aren't as likely to show up? Well, in a sense yes you are. Drug tests encourage people to climb up to harder drugs. It makes no sense, and does far more harm than good.

4. Marijuana could turn out to be a wonder drug. Isn't this a good thing? Well to most of us yes. To the pharmacutical industry it could be devastating. Because its a plant, they cannot copyright and sell it. In fact, they have said numerous times it shows to have no evidence to show beneficial effects from marijuana, yet at the same time have worked tirelessly to research drugs like "marinol," a drug that has an almost identical chemical makeup to THC.

For some reason, they've never been able to reproduce the same effects the plant has though, so they lobby to keep it illegal so they can keep selling their often harmful medications for depression, insomnia, social anxiety, and many other cases that have shown significant improvement under medical marijuana.

For that matter, I'm a psychology major. In ALL of my classes I have not heard one bad thing about marijuana. In fact almost all of my professor's have basically claimed to have found not one negative psychological effect from smoking it. Early in the field people used the propaganda that smoking weed from an early age harmed development and adults who were pot heads in their youth never grew out of their childlike personality. Again, correlation without causation. Isn't it more likely that someone who is an irresponsible bum is much more likely to sit at home and smoke weed all day!?

The fact is there is not one shred of evidence that there is any physical or psychological evidence that it is harmful besides the damage smoking plant matter can have on your lungs, yet some research shows evidence that a chemical in marijuana may actually prevent cancer!

If you know anything about history, you'll know that everything got worse when alcohol prohibition was going on. Marijuana prohibition is fueling crime. Where do you think organized crime makes its money? By selling pot. Prohibition of marijuana is like writing organized crime a free check every year. Plus, surveys of youth show that it is far easier to get marijuana that is sold by criminals, then it is to get alcohol which is regulated by our government. Plus then then government could tax it and make money!!!

If you have netflix I would highly recommend the documentary "The Union" if you are interested in most of the details I've been talking about.

Also there was a really good one about how hemp could be like a wonder product that is easily produced (it is literally a weed) and could be used for food, paper, bio-fuel, clothes, and I don't even remember but a crazy amount of stuff.

You might guess by now I smoke weed, lol. I do, but what might surprise you is that I do very occasionally. Its probably been like 4 months at least since the last time I smoked. I'm not crazy about it, I'm just really passionate about it because it is a prohibition that harms our country tremendously and is based ENTIRELY on propaganda and ignorance.

Now, ummm... oh yeah. I'm more or less pro-life so I can't help you on that one.

 

It's not harmless, When burned, It produces Carcinogens. Heavy use can cause serious brain damage and memory loss, and use at all can cause a series of mental health issues.

But hey, if the guy doesn't know any of this, Go for it.

 

Actually there is no evidence to suggest it does any of those things. Most of those beliefs came from a study that Ronald Reagan funded during his presidency. The study was done with monkey that showed brain damage, which was claimed to come from inhaling THC.

The truth is that they literally had the monkey's hooked up so all they could breathe was massive amounts of smoke with no Oxygen and the brain damage came about as a result of the brain being deprived of oxygen rather then exposure to THC.

 

To add a bit more to my argument... in one of my Psychology classes today, our professor informed us of a research study that found a reliably significant positive correlation in college students between whether they smoked marijuana and their average GPA's.

What this means is that students how partake in marijuana have a higher mean GPA then those who do not smoke at all. This does not necessarily imply that marijuana causes people to do better in their classes. My own personal belief is that it is probably the opposite relation. Smarter college students are more likely to realize that marijuana isn't really harmful and therefore try it. As with any correlation it really impossible to determine what is causing the relationship however.