I would rather my kids use marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as dangerous.

ProloguePro dropped a lot of arguments that round. Six out of his seventeen sources affirmed my case. He tries to defend three of his eleven sources in his rebuttal - ignoring the rest... He entirely dropped my argument how marijuana is a carcinogen and still neglects all the evidence I have posted! And since the resolution wasn't clear, per debating rules, I get to define it. This is how debating works... As long as it is reasonable, it's ok. My definition pertains to the context of the resolution. You have to agree to my terms. From that logic, I could just deny your proposal, and it could be in an infinite progression. And for Con's accusations of ad hominem (1) reads "You are saying something dishonest" does not constitute as ad hominem. "Why are you lying" definitely constitutes as that. I have proven that you lied about what your sources contained, and you admitted to that in this round. Rebuttal"But the study does support my argument that when marijuana is involved, fewer intimacy crimes take place."Bare in mind, that's because many more people drink than take marijuana - bare in mind, one is legal, the other isn't."A study suggests 25% of American women have been raped, and half of those involve alcohol. This is very "conservative" figure since it is common for victims to not report a rape has taken place. "This is a red herring. Nothing in this source says that alcohol was a 'cause' of the crime. You completely dropped this argument. I proved why this is an irrelevant factor, which you haven't refuted yet. *For voters* this is still irrelevant!"the mortality risk posed by cannabis to individuals was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol"This completely neglects the factor that marijuana is a known carcinogen, that has 50-70% more cancer causing chemicals than tobacco smoke. It might not kill anyone directly, but it causes something that does kill. So, this stat is very misleading. Pro actually lied about this as well... The source actually read "You are 114 times more likely to die from overdosing on alcohol than you are from cannabis, a recent study has found." Overdosing would definitely constitute as an appeal to extremes fallacy. So, this is still an irrelevant factor. My stats show that after casual use, one can develop numerous types of cancer!"Whether or not college youth overindulge in alcohol is indeed greatly pertinent to this debate because of fatalities occurring!"It is known as an appeal to extremes fallacy. Overindulging in anything can be bad - especially alcohol. Overindulging in the first place is their own foolishness, not the drinks fault. "Con determines a youth"s intelligence as criteria for worthiness and infers it is youths fault for not refraining from drinking"No. Just 'over drinking', because it's dangerous. It's their fault for puting themselves at risk." In essence Con once again creates a straw man logical fallacy inferring Pro"s argument is "kids SHOULD smoke pot because so many kids die drinking alcohol".The resolution implies a hypothetical situation, which I defined with my argument. You didn't define it in all of the time you have been arguing. This is not a strawman.Pro's third source neglects the fact that marijuana is a cancer causing drug. The deaths caused from overindulgence in alcohol is an appeal to extremes fallacy. It's like saying, water is worse than milk, because people drown more often in water!" alcohol is still a factor in many times greater in fatalities than marijuana when it involves driving a car"This is still illegal. Pro dropped this argument. This is a red herring, because the user knowingly puts themselves at risk! " Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol."This is because, more people drink alcohol, so there is obviously going to be more casualties. This is still an appeal to extremes fallacy."Con states what is needed to win this debate is to show that marijuana is just close or "nearly" as dangerous as alcohol. So far, Con has not provided this data. Rather, Con has provided data on the detriments of marijuana consumption, but none of the data provided about marijuana states causal death"Did you read my case? "Marijuana is a known carcinogen (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)". Death isn't the only factor in whether something is safer than the other. That's an appeal to extremes fallacy. Your drug causes cancer which does kill."Again, I challenge Con to enlighten the audience and give factual data about how marijuana has killed anyone whatsoever as a direct effect of the consumption of marijuana itself."This is known as 'moving the goalposts'. I have more than fulfilled my BoP. I have shown that alcohol is the better substance, never mind getting it near marijuana. You still neglect that it causes cancer!"But comparing the thousands of mortalities with one drug to virtually no mortalities with the other drug,"That's because millions of more people drink alcohol, to smoke marijuana. Because one is illegal and the other isn't."I hope that one would believe "almost" to be a number close to the other in the number of deaths."This is a completely irrelevant factor, because all the sources you listed are deemed as 'an appeal to extremes' fallacy. Not to mention, millions of more people indulge alcohol rather than marijuana! "But, per debate rules, both parties must agree upon the resolution format."This is untrue. I defined the terms, it matches the resolution. "The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first" (1)"Con"s "BoP" reference does not carry any meaning."It means "burden of proof". Which I have fulfilled, because you dropped the arguments about marijuana being dangerous.(look into the prologue for a refutation of the ad hominem accusations)"The figure is actually 65 million, which supports my argument even more"I am looking at the source, but I am not seeing anything of the sort. Nothing on the provided source asserts this..."A Harvard policy analyst concluded from the study that ""marijuana has produced remarkably little laboratory or epidemiological evidence of serious health damage done by the drug." (8)" Pro still neglects the mounds of evidence that I provided earlier.ConclusionI have shown that we should debate under my pretenses, for that is debate custom. Bare in mind that my pretenses are the resolution. I have provided mounds of evidence to why marijuana is bad, not to mention the first 6 sources in Pro's round two, actually contribute to my case. Pro, tried to compare the number of mortalities between the two, however, the causes of death for alcohol, were deemed as 'appeal to extremes' logical fallacies. Pro compares the actual mortality rate, even though, millions more drink alcohol than smoke marijuana, so the comparison is extremely flawed. In round two, Pro committed an ad hominem fallacy. Pro dropped my entire case to why marijuana is bad. From the effects I listed, we can clearly see that alcohol is near the level of safety, if not, even safer than marijuana. From the evidence brought forward, Pro dropped many arguments that claim he lied. So my accusation of him lying is justified. So, it's therefore, not ad hominem, as read in source one. Pro opines that alcohol is related in crime. Ok, I concede that. However, nothing says that it causes them to commit the crime - it is a red herring. Alcohol in accidents is also a red herring, because it is illegal to drink and drive. They are all red herrings. (1) http://www.debate.org...