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

PrologueAd hominem is always appreciated, Pro. In retrospect, all I need to do to win this debate, is to show that marijuana is "nearly as dangerous" as alcohol. So, I don't even need to affirm that alcohol is the better substance.RebuttalI will try to dispute the veracity of many of Con's sources:Con uses his 8th source to refute the previously mentioned sources that marijuana causes psychosis, heightens a risk of cancer etc.He states "But science is showing that all of these associations with marijuana are not known as causes, and it may be that folks that are predisposed to psychosis seem attracted to pot (8)." But, to my surprise, nothing on that website stated anything of the sort. The site only mentioned "phychosis", only one of the handful that Pro commends it refutes... And it doesn't even refute it. The entire page does not even mention 'marijuana'. Not even once... This makes me question the validity of all of Pro's assertions.Now, to the next source:Source "(9)". Pro actually references the source this time. However, this only makes the assertion that x number of people were under the influence of alcohol when they committed the crime; not the cause of the crime. The source states no evidence that it is a cause of the crime. This is a red herring. Source ten wasn't referenced, so I will not attack it.Pro uses source eleven to say that there is no link between marijuana and crime. Cool. Nothing that he has cited so far corroborates that alcohol is the cause of crime. So this point is completely irrelevant. It's like saying, x number of murderers had used cars as a mean of transport to get to their victim. It is completely irrelevant.Then, Pro states that his source twelve says this "In another study researchers scrambled to find what data there was to suggest those who abused marijuana were likely to die. None were found, but on the other hand, those who are young delinquent males and associated with alcohol abuse and died was 19 percent, or nearly 1 out of every 5 died" Nothing in his twelfth source even grazes on the subject of alcohol nor marijuana... This was a source about homicide! And for the part that was relevant, "and deaths were common amount 11 percent of delinquent females. Furthermore, even if the delinquent youth were detained for 5 years, they still had a 4.7 times greater risk of death from other causes like murder, than did others with no alcohol disorder" it is an appeal to extremes fallacy. We are considering your children using alcohol or marijuana. It does not entail that they will definitely become addicts/abuse the substance...Literally all of Pro's proposed sources are irrelevant or non-existent. Consider the crime section of this debate negated. Pro actually helped my case; his first six or seven sources affirm my case. He tried to dismiss them with his 8th source, but I have proven that the source is irrelevant. Pro states that marijuana is much safer than alcohol because "It's also important to think about health too. But again, pot is not even close to alcohol. Binge drinking was half of the 80,000 alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. in 2010 according to Center for Disease Control and Prevention". This is a red herring. We all know that some people die in "alcohol-related" deaths... Pro merely says that 40k of them are because of binge drinking... "Now let's chat about costs. It's been shown that the costs to our economy from alcohol abuse was estimated to be $225 billion. 17 percent of all drinkers are binge drinkers, and 28 percent of binge drinkers are 18 to 24 years of age. Binge drinking is usually people with a household income of $75 or more, defined as the middle class."Ok... I don't see how this pertains to the resolution. Costs does not mean one is 'safer' than the other. This is also a red herring. Not to mention, that there is no credible source to affirm this. Con merely opines that this is true. Con also seems to neglect the amount of money alcohol brings in...Pro uses his 14th source to say that no-one has died from marijuana. This might not be from marijuana directly. But it has been shown that it causes cancer, which does kill. In fact, his source states "The proportion of suicides increased sharply with the level of cannabis consumption." Well, that was self-refuting. It also says "The relative risk of death among high consumers of cannabis (use on more than 50 occasions) was 2.8%"Pro seems to be lying about what many of his sources cite. He says that his 15th source ratifies that marijuana has no effects on the mortality rate of healthy men and women... NOWHERE in his source says this. Why are you lying about your sources?Pro uses his 16th source to say that driving while being influenced by alcohol is more dangerous than when being influenced by pot. Firstly, this is a red herring. Driving while under both are illegal. It is due to the foolishness of the person to risk themselves while under substances that make you: dizzy, have a loss of coordination etc. it's not the substance's fault. The same could be said about putting a high person and a drunk person at the edge of a cliff... It doesn't matter which person falls off the cliff more often than the other. I haven't checked this source to attack its validity. Either way, its a red herring."Alcohol also fares poorly when compared to marijuana in these following areas: " Intimate partner violence (17) " Overall violence (17) " Dependency of substance after experimentation is 9 percent for pot; 20 percent for alcohol (18) " Thousands and thousands of young people end up in the E.R. every year from alcohol poisoning, of which more than 1,800 die each year (19)"Source 17 doesn't mention alcohol... Why are you lying! It only mentions marijuana.I'll give Con source 18. However, I dispute its accuracy: "alcohol (n=28,907), cannabis (n=7389)"They tested 28k people for alcohol, and 7k people for cannabis. When there is a such a drastic difference in numbers, we can't tell whether the result is a true depiction of the most definite rendition.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...Literally all of Con's sources are either:irrelevant ordoes not contain the information that Pro says it doesThe only valid information that Pro has displayed is that people are more likely to become dependent on alcohol than marijuana. Albeit, it is only by 11%, I will concede that factor. However, my sources remain uncontested and I have provided tangible evidence about the short and long term effects of marijuana. Since my evidence vastly outweighs Pro's, I have successfully defended my first premise. Therefore, I win the argument. Pro achieves maximum euphoria when he decides to call me a simpleton. *For voters* bare this in mind when you're trying to decide who the conduct point is going to go to.Pro cites 2 sources in round three and claims that one says "marijuana is safer (over 100 times safer". Well, I certainly did not find that in the source. That was his only refutation. He did not deny the proposed effects of marijuana that I posted in round 2. He accuses me of committing the deductive fallacy, yet provided no justification for it. Therefore, it can be dismissed.He constructs his next argument on an anecdotal fallacy. He says that alcohol is extremely dangerous, because one of his close friends died of alcohol poisoning. I am very sorry to hear this, but it does not affirm your case (not trying to be mean).Con left the resolution very vague. I am affirming based on a vague implication of what it might of been. Since I am the first person to define the resolution (I did this by first stating what my argument would be) we debate under my pretenses (per debating rules).I have provided more than enough evidence for why marijuana is worse than alcohol, which awaits to be refuted. My BoP is fulfilled.