The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

I'd also like to address the fact that while a lot of your speech is very informational, it also uses emotional aspects as well. Thanks for doing that. It's refreshing and interesting to finally debate against somebody who doesn't fall upon their facts all the time. Thank you for clarifying on the statement that I asked for. While I do have a couple of arguments for E-cigarettes, I believe that the debate is pretty much ending, so I won't bring those up. Rebuttal: You state that "not every druggie is going to take Pondera," and you would technically correct in saying that. However, I said that Pondera reduces "an average of 95% drug cases that it was tested on"! That's a lot, for a product to reduce addictions! Granted, there are a lot of drug addicts who aren't going to take Pondera, but they plan on taking drugs for the rest of their life. They are the 'chaff' that should be separated (I'll address that point later on in my speech). Have you ever heard of the term "cornered animal? " While these 'hardcore' drug addicts won't necessarily reflect this term, people who want to quit drugs are a very good example for this idiom. A cornered animal wants to get out of their corner, and they are desperate for anything that might help them. Lots of drug addicts are willing to quit, but haven't found the resources. The desperation that these drug addicts face will eventually turn towards something that might reduce their addiction. Pondera can help the people who want to quit. You even said it yourself: "Those who do take it will see that the harms of the drugs will go away. " This contradicts your statements in that paragraph, and it really does make drugs harmless. I would like to talk about the fact that Pondera is actually sponsored by a few government agencies, and will be sponsored by many more within the coming years. So when you say that getting the cure to all drug addicts in America will be complicated, that could definitely change within a couple of years. Who knows? Maybe the drug threat will be neutralized in a couple of years! Rebuttal 2: "Most druggies will be willing to stay addicted no matter what 'life hacks' you throw at them. " First of all, you should never insult Life-Hacks. Ever. Anyway, when I stated my source, you didn't need to use the source. I do appreciate your enthusiasm, though. I'm glad to be against an opponent who is always willing to contribute and learn from their opponent. I also apologize if I misinterpreted your definition of "security. " But either way, you can find an easy way to feel secure and happy. You said that drug addicts are "being robbed of their life and money by drug dealers and companies. " But don't you think that they would realize that? You know, druggies might smell weird or do crime, but they aren't exactly completely oblivious to their financial situation. Sure, they might not be completely sure about their situation, but most don't just spend money until they are out of cash. "Oh, that sucks. I'm in debt because of buying drugs. " That's the stereotypical druggie in the movies, not the people in real life. It's a simple misconception, don't worry. Granted, there is at least one constantly drunk guy who's running in the red because he spent too much on drugs, but that's not everyone. Therefore, any argument talking about 'snickering capitalistic pigs,' or 'greedy companies who don't care about human lives' has been countered. Rebuttal 3: Cars. .. 'veering' off topic. .. Whether or not that pun was intended, I can't deny the fact that the joke was pretty great. But let's get back on track. (Train puns, anybody? Darn, I need to 'train' harder for these puns) First of all, I'd like to repeat one of the points that I have made clear throughout the debate. The people who do drugs already know the dangers of using these drugs, and they don't need lame cigarette warnings to tell them that. I acknowledge the fact that these warnings suck butt, and it came from that source. You said it yourself: "The drug companies sell products that WILL kill you if you use them correctly. " If you know that, then there are undoubtedly billions of people who know that fact (don't take that the wrong way, just trying to prove a point). Even though druggies know that, they continue to do drugs. Therefore, people who die from drugs deserve to die, because that they knew that and never quit. If they tried to quit, but never quit, then they were obviously not trying hard enough. Rebuttal 4: Killing the poor people in Asia and Africa might solve a couple of problems, but this will just cause more problems than it solves. It would cause many protests. But has anyone ever protested for people dying from drugs? I doubt it. Your example might appear the same, but there are some major differences between them. Once again, I have to repeat the point: the people who do drugs knew the risks. I am altogether very sure that you get the gist already. The poor people aren't breaking any laws by being poor. But people who do illegal drugs break laws, and that's why they deserve to die. Poor people might die, but they don't necessarily deserve it. Who knows? Maybe the drug industry is all just a plot by our government to control population or weed out the bad from the good to make a perfect society. You don't really know, do you? Unless you have an argument for them, I advise that you be more careful until you say that somebody's points are "completely flawed. " Rebuttal 5: We are not "letting them die," as you have said in your speech. Why do you think we have hospitals? We try to make them live, and they go right back to doing drugs. You also asked,"Wouldn't WE be breaking the laws of society by allowing this to happen to drug addicts? " I'd like to repeat that we are not just letting them die. We're not breaking the laws of society. If anyone is to be blamed, it's the government. And no, this is not some conspiracy that I made up on the spot. Instead, we should blame the government because they're not banning the industry that is causing all these deaths. It's ironic, isn't it? The government is the one who made these laws, but they break them by keeping the drug companies around. Since it is nearing the end of the debate, I often point out all the arguments or rebuttals that my opponent dropped in their speeches. You didn't drop many arguments; I believe that you only dropped one that I could remember. There might be a couple more, but I forgot. Tell me in the next round if you wish to agree with me, or if you want to make a rebuttal. Arguments dropped: There are lots of people willing to help drug addicts, despite what you said. This is not the reason why smokers want to quit but never do. (2nd round, 1st rebuttal) Also, I ask you to not make any new arguments for this debate; that always makes things more complicated. I won't have enough rounds to argue against it, nor will you. Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.