Medical Marijuana

Let me begin once again for apologizing for an error. My opponent is correct, Manheimer is a police officer, but nothing in my source stated this. Perhaps I should have been more thourough, and I apologize for confusion. My opponent has also, however, made multiple major logical fallacies or plain and simple lack thereof. Here are jsut a few: My opponent has stated, and I quote, "I'm only solving for medical marijuana so the whole drug cartel argument should be just thrown out the window. Then my opponent goes on to call me illogical, I've been here a year and this is his first debate." I'm sorry, but how long you have been in debate is irrelevant to the logic of your arguments. You are illogical, I proved that in round 4, and no matter how long you stay and no matter how experienced I am, nothing will change the fact that what you stated was illogical. My opponent has also stated, and I quote, "My opponent goes to quote some of my sources, however the sources state both good and bad effects of marijuana and my source from Avvo states 7 ways America would change if it was legal." "However"? How does the fact that his sources state both pro and con evidence make my points less valid? My opponent has made multiple attacks on the validity of my arguments, culminating in a major ad hominem attack, but more on that later. Long story short, his validity arguments are all ridiculous (with the exception of the Manheimer mis- cite, and again I apologize for that) and his arguments are, on the whole, illogical except for his harms contention. Here, I have defeated his arguments through proving, with his sources no less, that public safety will suffer and the quality of life in our communities will deteriorate (see round 4 arguments). And now to a major breach in debate ethics. My opponent made an Ad Hominem attack on me, in the form of stating, and one last time I quote, "Then my opponent goes on to call me illogical, I've been here a year and this is his first debate." This is a classic example of Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is yet another logical fallacy, this one translating to "to the man". My opponent must defeat and attack my policy and reccomendations, not attack me. I am irrelavant to the validity of my arguments. Ad Hominem is insulting and degrading, and I am greatly offended by it. Finally, his strange numbering of good vs. bad effects. He states that he is winning 18-1, but this is not true. First of all, it would at least be 18-2 because of threat to self and threat to others. Second of all, all 18 of his advantages are irrelavent because of my alternate drug argument. And thirdly, how does he weigh these arguments? What unit of measurement besides number of points does he bring to the table? I could say that there are many advantages to Nuclear war, such as defeat of all our enemies, American Hegemony, Global Democracy, etc, but all of those pale in the face of just one counter- argument, that being that half of the world would die screaming. Do you see my point here? So, to wrap up, my opponent is being illogical in his counter- arguments, insulting in his Ad- Hominem attack, and defeated on all points by alternate drugs, a rise in Cartel crime, and negative side effects. All of these points have been proven, all points extended, and the only reasonable and logical conclusion is to vote Con. Thank you for your participation in our debate and please, do not vote for the legalization of Marijuana, as it can only lead to problems for all of us with little positive gain.