Mary Jane should be Legal

With that, I will go into a summary of the round and explain why my opponent just isn't doing enough work to prove his BOP and why he will be losing today's debate. His response about how exceptions point to something other than marijuana being the cause for a lack of success is both a) new, nowhere else in this debate was this mentioned, and b) just false. I cited specific studies that showed that, compared to non-users, marijuana users were statistically less likely to be successful in life and were statistically more likely to have lower levels of income compared to non-users. These were not touched. Clear extension. *Note, this is not a new argument. All I am doing is telling you to reference material brought up in previous rounds. No new argument made*All of the sources he quoted as to how marijuana is not addictive is 100% new. Actually, all of the arguments he put on the addictiveness of marijuana are new. No previously-mentioned arguments were brought up again. Since I refuted all the other arguments and/or outweighed the previous arguments, this is a clear extension. But even if marijuana isn't addictive, you can extend the analysis I give saying that this would only lead to higher levels of abuse due to the minimal risk of addiction. He says "Lets talk about that. .. " but never actually does. This is a clear conceded point. So if you are buying that marijuana isn't addictive, it then only links harder into the harms of marijuana use. Clear extension of this response. He then mentions he already said marijuana doesn't affect the T-Lymphocytes in the blood. I never contested this point. My point was that it raises heart pressure and causes serious problems for those with diabetis and heart diseases. This went uncontested throughout the entire debate, and thus is conceded. Clear extension. He also tried to cite a new source, but a) this source already conceded that an hour after smoking marijuana, one's heart attack risk goes up. He tries to play it off by a miscite, but that doesn't mean the result is invalid. It just means that the DEA is lazy when citing evidence. Thus, his own evidence confirms mine. So a clear extension here. On the evidence that marijuana negatively affects the brain, he again tries to make new arguments and nothing else. He references an old argument, but that argument only confirms that when we smoke marijuana, negative things happen to the brain. His only non-new argument confirms my evidence. Clear extension. On marijuana causing cancer, my opponent only brings up new points and sources here, again. Nothing non-new was mentioned against this point. Thusly, this point can be extended as unrefuted in the final round. He tries to say I dropped the hemp having benefits argument but 1) I already showed how our health outweighs benefits to the economy and 2) I already showed that we can use hemp for other things while prohibiting marijuana. So under this point, I have the same offense as he does. He tries to bring up that the Prohibition of alcohol is the same as prohibiting marijuana, but I already showed you that these two things are entirely unrelated. He garnered all of his offense off of this connection, and I severed it last round. No offense off of this point. Nothing was dropped here, despite my opponent's whining that it was. I have disproven how marijuana is a good medicine, and that it only causes harm or, at the least, causes worse harm than it could possibly help fix. All he does to try and prove it is point to his new arguments in this round, but nothing non-new was mentioned to support this conclusion. I've already shown you how new arguments in the final round are a) unfair to me and b) abusive in debate. So he has nothing to support this conclusion, thus the conclusion is false. He tries to extend all the other smaller diseases it has shown benefit to fixing. But I already shown that causing cancer outweighs fixing ADD or ADHD. Would you rather have a hard time paying attention or would you rather be dead or dying? Cancer clearly outweighs, as I have already pointed out. I will argue dropped points, since you have had this entire debate to refute them, and have still failed. But that will come later. My opponent tries to shake off his BOP and instead tell you to vote with you agree with. However, I've already clearly shown you that the BOP rests flat on my opponent to prove why we ought to legalize marijuana. He's failing to do this, and thus ought to lose the round. With everything my opponent said last round refuted by non-new arguments, let's look to the arguments of mine that went conceded throughout this entire debate.1. He still conceded that second-hand marijuana smoke is harmful to other people.2. He still concedes that marijuana causes negative personality afflictions to the user.3. He still concedes that marijuana causes a decrease in a male's serum testosterone levels, sperm count, and sperm motility.4. He still ocncedes that marijuana causes harmful psychological and neuropsychiatric disorders and side-effects. The other two previously conceded points (Marijuana causing a decrease in coordination and marijuana shown to be bad for the human body) were only refuted in this round by entirely new arguments. Thusly, these two can clearly be extended. So at the end of the debate, the rounds break down pretty clearly:1. He's failing to meet his BOP, and instead tries to shift it to others or remove it entirely. This merits a loss.2. He has no applicable offense that isn't either a) refuted, b) co-opted, or c) outweighed coming off of his case. Thusly, he cannot possibly win.3. I'm showing clear extension on all of my points brought up from my case. This includes five contested points, that I showed you I am clearly winning on, and six conceded points. Thusly, there are eleven reasons in this debate, aside from the BOP and lack of pro offense, to vote for con. With that, it's clear that the only reasonable vote would be a vote to negate the resolution.