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

PrologueIn other words, Pro can't refute anymore, so he resorts to multiple use of ad hominem. Pro has constantly lied about what his sources contained, and has been entirely unfair this whole debate. He dropped literally all of the arguments proposed, and claims that I am unreasonable - the hypocrisy.Rebuttals"Con says I have accused him of ad homonym. Never said it.""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."That sounds like an ad hominem accusation to me. And I have already refuted why it isn't ad hominem - you did lie. You lied in over ten sources. Just read my round two. "Con continues to ignore serious data and (the huge elephant in the room) and is not reasonable in mind."What serious data? My entire argument remains uncontested. I refuted every argument you made!"It is so sad that Con can't make an argument that could convince others, instead hides behind the rules of debate without getting to the issue at hand. Is alcohol nearly as dangerous as marijuana? Of course not."It's sad that this is how a new comer gets treated. I don't think Pro even read my case - the whole thing still stands. I have debated fairly this entire debate."Con makes wild claims about "carcinogens" and "smoke" and "cancer", but provides no sources for them. If it is the study I'm thinking, it has already been debunked."What?! Did you even read my round two? My case for cancer: "Marijuana is a known carcinogen (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). We all know that smoking cigarettes kills millions of people every year, due to the harsh chemicals in the smoke... Well, source one states that "Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke." Source two helps corroborate that marijuana causes cancer, it mentions that "Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers." This is just a couple of examples from the sources... If needed, I will provide more evidence... " I will repost the sources as well, plus the seven that Pro posted that affirms my case. Therefore, there is a total of 15 sources that affirm my case, that remain sound. It cites immediate and long-term problems of marijuana, including cancer."Con denies his argument is a straw man, but provides no info."I did provide information actually. What Pro forgets is that he dropped every single argument. And how your sources are appeal to extreme fallacies."Con wildly throws around terms like "cancer", implying some deaths are from marijuana, but provides no data."I posted five sources that ratify that argument, you just haven't refuted it yet."Con creates imaginary rules for debate.org and reads them to me."Pro obviously didn't read the source that's named "new members read me", which gives all of the information on how to debate on this site."Con again claims not to understand articles sited or specific figures. Go figure."Which ones are you referring to? The ones that are irrelevant? Or the sources you lied about?ConclusionMy entire argument remains uncontested. There have been 15 sources posted in this argument that affirm my case. The only sources that Pro posted were either: irrelevant, lied about, appeal to extreme fallacies, or non-existent. The only sources I accepted, is that people die more often from alcohol. Yet, I proved why that is irrelevant, because: one, it's an appeal to extremes fallacy, two: more people drink than smoke marijuana. So, obviously more people who drink are going to die. It's like comparing the annual deaths of people in China, to Madagascar, then concluding that Madagascar is definitely safer. I have most definitely fulfilled my burden of proof. And I win this debate. Thanks Pro for this argument.(1) http://www.drugfreeworld.org......(2) http://www.cancerresearchuk.org......(3) https://www.psychologytoday.com......(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......(5) http://www.cancer.gov......(6) http://www.drugfreeworld.org......(7) http://en.wikipedia.org......(8) http://www.drugabuse.gov......(9) http://www.jneurosci.org...... (10) http://www.thelancet.com......(11) http://www.nytimes.com......(12) http://jama.jamanetwork.com......(13) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... (14) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......(15) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com......