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

Con questions how cited intimate crimes study relates to alcohol. My mistake. But the study does support my argument that when marijuana is involved, fewer intimacy crimes take place. When alcohol is involved, intimacy crimes escalate. 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. (4) Con questions whether the study concludes marijuana is 100 times safer than alcohol. Again, I was incorrect. The January 2015 Scientific Reports study according to Newsweek was in actually in slightly different wording to read "the mortality risk posed by cannabis to individuals was approximately 114 times less than that of alcohol" (5) I do not wish to debunk Con"s sources on the harms of marijuana since they are irrelevant, and not "nearly" close to the dangers of alcohol cited. At one point, Con makes the statement, "Literally all of Pro's proposed sources are irrelevant or non-existent." Yet this statement has to be untrue if this statement is to be taken "literally" since Con contradicts this statement more than once, later "conceding" the sources. Con states: "Source 19 is a red herring. It's their own foolishness for overindulging in the first place... It's like saying milk is safer than water, because x amount of people drown in the ocean each year..." Whether or not college youth overindulge in alcohol is indeed greatly pertinent to this debate because of fatalities occurring! (?) I don"t believe Con"s "ocean" example supports his statement that Source 19 is a "red herring". But nowhere does the study encourage students to smoke pot because there are deaths associated with alcohol. Nor does the article rest blame on the students themselves for drinking alcohol in the first place, or discourage them from attending college altogether to avoid such issues. Perhaps Con determines a youth"s intelligence as criteria for worthiness and infers it is youths fault for not refraining from drinking. 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". Considering there are no known deaths from overdosing, or as a direct effect from consuming marijuana (3), is another true reason why marijuana is obviously not as nearly as dangerous as alcohol. The article by the National Institutes of Health has an abundance of data on the dangers of alcohol and college youth. If Con wishes to focus on the deaths due to indirect consumption of both drugs, alcohol is still a factor in many times greater in fatalities than marijuana when it involves driving a car, as I had provided in round 1. (6) It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana"s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: 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. 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. This is because there is no data that even could suggest that marijuana has caused a single death"ever (with no prior health or other drug history) as a direct result of consuming the marijuana. Con does not dispute the fact that alcohol kills thousands annually as a direct effect of consuming alcohol. 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. According to one frequently cited study, a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount of THC in a joint in order to be at risk of dying. (3) Of course it will be up to the audience to use their own judgement to decide if Con has proven whether alcohol is "nearly" as dangerous as marijuana. I believe after they have read all of the evidence provided, they should vote me as the winner, because Con has not justified his statement that marijuana is "nearly" as dangerous as alcohol. In essence, the measure of "nearly" is an ambiguous term, or open to more than one interpretation. But comparing the thousands of mortalities with one drug to virtually no mortalities with the other drug, I hope that one would believe "almost" to be a number close to the other in the number of deaths. I concede to Con that I used an anecdotal fallacy by discussing my own experience with family and friends dying from alcohol. However, Con misquoted what I stated , "He says that alcohol is extremely dangerous, because one of his close friends died of alcohol poisoning." But the actual statement I made was, "I've been personally effected by close friends and family killed by alcohol poisoning." I ask that Con avoid dishonesty when quoting my statements. Con contends I did not clearly define the resolution and states we must follow Cons format. But, per debate rules, both parties must agree upon the resolution format. Therefore, I reject Cons format and believe we currently have one. Con states "I have provided more than enough evidence for why marijuana is worse than alcohol, which awaits to be refuted. My BoP is fulfilled." Yet I do not find this evidence, or believe the evidence Con has provided does not meet this criteria. Con"s "BoP" reference does not carry any meaning. Con makes accusations frequently ("why are you lying!", ..."Pro seems to be lying",... "why are you lying about your sources?"). I caution that unless Con knows for sure that I'm lying, suggest Con refrain from using insulting statements. One lying in a debate would logically serve to support one"s argument. Where Con makes accusations doesn't meet the criteria, therefore can't be lies. Con claims I have lied about the study, "Marijuana use and mortality" study published by the American Journal of Public Health (7), in my statement, ""65,000 folks in the U.S. and discovered that pot use had no effect whatsoever on the mortality in healthy men and women." I see again that I have once again made an error. The figure is actually 65 million, which supports my argument even more, so it would not be logical for me to misrepresent this study. 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) 1. Hingson, R.W.; Zha, W.; and Weitzman, E.R. Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18"24, 1998"2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs Supplement 16:12"20, 2009. 2. Hingson, R.W.; Heeren, T.; Zakocs, R.C.; et al. Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18"24. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63(2):136"144, 2002. 3. http://www.americanscientist.org... 4. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... 5. http://www.newsweek.com... 6. http://www.cuinjuryresearch.org... 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8. http://www.pbs.org...