Debate: Should Marijuana be legalized?
Side: Like, yeah man

I'm sorry. I can't find anything of value in this argument. I say this to be realistic, not mean. I'll go through it by points. "you would respect my point of view as a faction of the democratic comity"People can be wrong, yes? That is why we debate... Or put this way: In a debate, your "opinion" (it should be argument) should be as respected as much as it is powerful. Democracy has nothing to do with this. "When I say that I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana, what I mean is for recreational use. Medicinal use is fine..."This debate is listed as: " 'Informal conversation' on medical marijuana," but from here on I will consider only recreational use. "What I don't like about weed, is what it does to people, and I am sure this is the reason it has been made illegal and mainly, why it has stayed illegal. I have seen the original arguments against it's recreational use, and I think that is absurd, it doesn't make you crazy, it doesn't make you blood thirsty, etc."Um, wow. Ok... The fact that you don't like weed means almost nothing. It proves nothing, it demonstrates nothing. Again, your opinion is not valid in a debate. Plus not a thing that you are saying is backed up. Let me paraphrase you to demonstrate: "Weed is bad because I lose respect for people who are high. I feel that this must be the reason it's illegal, simply because I feel like it. I've heard arguments for using it and they are all wrong." I'm not trying to be mean, but this paragraph is worthless. This lists only your feelings, and doesn't actually critique any arguments. But, let's continue.OK. In your next paragraph you do not demonstrate how pot is a cancer (matter-of-fact it reduces cancer, though I realize that's not what you mean). WHY IS POT BAD FOR SOCIETY. Just saying it is bad for society is not informative or argumentatively sound. Also, "Alcohol use, which with it brings tons of social deviance because it's a mind altering drug." While alcohol is a mind altering drug, that is not the reason it brings social deviance. That is a fallacy. There are other things, but let's continue...The next paragraph says that the government should secure domestic peace. (I'm trying to make what you said correct, because that is not the only function of government.)The next one is all wrong. I having trouble deciphering it. I think you are trying to say that the government's job is hard cause there are "many" (try thousands if not more) drugs and more would complicate things. The problem with this is that the world is complicated, and you have not argued why less complication (when in opposition to things like personal freedom) is the de facto standard. Again, you have in no way backed up your claim. Also, weed is already a complication because the government must spend MASSIVE time and energy trying to stop it. Honestly I think it would be less complicated if it were legal.In the next paragraph, you are concerned because more people will smoke and maybe do it in public. Again, why is any of this a problem. There are laws now that you cannot drink or be intoxicated in public (except in designated areas like bars... Speaking of bars, they are doing quite well so I'm not sure why you believe that most people stay home to drink). There is nothing stopping laws making it illegal to smoke in public. Not that it matters cause you have not demonstrated why this should be a concern.OK, next. sign The addictive properties of a substance do not change when the legality of a substance changes. Also, marijuana truly is less addictive then both alcohol and nicotine. If necessary I will provide proof. Next. There are plenty of people who want to deal with this subject, as evidenced by the "hotness" of this debate. The fact that you do not wish to is of no concern. What would get worse, and why/how would it get there if it were legalized. Again you have not once demonstrated what is actually wrong with marijuana aside from the fact that you don't like it.Skip to the last paragraph. You argue that "childish and petty insults" "suppress the voices of the citizens." And you argue this... This is actually pretty cool because you have made yourself a demonstration of the fallacy of your argument... Do you see? You have spoke your "voice" of outrage at the "childish and petty insults" that prevent you from speaking your voice.I'm truly not trying to insult you, but your skills of argumentation are very poor. I would suggest taking a Logic and Critical Thinking course.