Two months ago, I read this Medium article, which started with ending the division between “hemp” and “cannabis.” :
8 Simple Steps to End Cannabis Prohibition Immediately
My apologies: this link is not likely to work if you are a Medium member
This article sounded like a sensible approach to regulating the cannabis industry. I believe I was mostly supportive of this work, and I commented accordingly. But my comment ended with:
“The less of the ‘consumable’ cannabis we use as a society, the better society we will be.”
Well, the author and one of her loyal readers jumped all over me, like a pack of hungry lions finding a gazelle with a broken leg. I have to admit that my comment was not fully developed. So I tried to explain myself a little better with a few more exchanges. But to no avail. The two lions were not listening to anything I was saying. They brought up the same two points several times:
1) My experience with marijuana in the 1980s is not valid.
2) People should not be chastised for their life choices.
If the contest was about who can shout the loudest and longest, they won. They gave no consideration for my support for their ideas. For me, this exchange was another example of how we have lost our sense of civil debate.
How to have a civil debate
We start with the resolution. I have reworded my original statement into a more debate-friendly form. Here is the resolution:
Be it resolved that society should discourage its citizens from cannabis usage.
Eleven words, which most Medium contributors should be able to understand. I will start the debate by arguing the “for” side.
For the resolution
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to express my perspectives and opinions on this weighty issue of society. The other side has prepared a well-written Medium article about possible laws for cannabis usage in society. But this resolution is not about the current or future laws. It is about whether we should discourage cannabis usage for bodily consumption, even if the laws are favorable for allowing that consumption. Madam Speaker, I will make three points to this matter.
First, is the smoke. We all know the long-term effects of inhaling cigarette smoke. We know that firefighters have too many health issues in later life. When forest fire smoke drifts into our cities, we recommend people stay indoors where the air is cleaner. Particulate matter in our lungs is harmful. Smoking marijuana is putting particulate matter into our lungs.
Second, is the chemical THC. It is a psychoactive drug, altering our brain chemistry. While many users are recreational and believe they do not have long-term damage, we know too many people are regular users. Some get addicted to THC. Some suffer long-term damage like psychosis and hallucinations. It is best for society to tell people that it would be better to not use cannabis for recreational purposes. We do not need these psychoactive chemicals in our bodies. Even small amounts. We should encourage people to find less harmful recreations.
Third, is our individual performance while under the influence of cannabis. For sure, we should not be driving a car or be working around heavy equipment when we are high. Unfortunately, there are still too many people not following this wise advice. If society could teach more citizens that we should not be engaging with cannabis recreationally, we will have fewer life-altering accidents. And for those occupations that are not so life-and-death, is the employer still getting full value when its workers are a little slow because of cannabis usage? Yes, Madam Speaker, I am suggesting that recreational cannabis usage has a detrimental effect on our economy.
To conclude my opening remarks, cannabis usage is not healthy, unnecessarily alters our brain chemistry, and takes some energy out of our economy. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Against the resolution
So are you game to debate me on this topic?
Here is how to lose this debate. Reply with:
1) Dave’s experience with marijuana in the 1980s is no longer valid (ad hominin attack).
2) People should not be chastised for their life choices (deflection from the resolution).
Even if these two replies are “right,” you will lose the debate. You have not spoken to the resolution. You have not provided any points for the “against” side. You have not made any attempt to refute the three points I have opened with.
If you take on my challenge, your opening response should include three opening points for the “against” side.
More rounds
Then we have a refutation round. I refute your three points. You refute mine.
Then we conclude. We can refute the refutations. Or we could provide further argument for our original points. We should not introduce new points.
Here comes the judge
In each round, each debater gets the same maximum word count. I used 365 words. I will give you 400.
Debates are judged. A professional debate judge should not allow his or her personal bias into the scores. Instead the judge will ask these questions. Did the point fit the resolution? Was the point well made? Was the point refuted by the opposite side? Which side won each point/counterpoint contest? These actions are what the judge should score on the debate. Judges award scores mostly on the refutations or lack thereof.
We don’t have judges for this debate. But still feel free to take me on (in 400 words or less) by opening with an “against” position. Or maybe offer a 400-word article to support the resolution in a different way than I. Or maybe go straight to refuting my three points. Whatever! But practice civility!
Real debates on Medium?
Last October, Luke Macmichael and Martin Rezny interviewed me and the TDG (my alternative democracy). They put that podcast on their website. If you want to see me in a podcast hotseat, here is the link.
Martin was an active formal debater in his formative years. He enjoys teaching young people about this verbal craft. He seemed to be looking for angles to help bring more “civil debating” in the online world. Initially, I declined this invitation; I just had too many other things going on in my life.
About 35 years ago, I spent one year in a debating society. I was trying to get skills to be an effective politician. Because I could see great value in civility and logical thinking that debating brings, Martin’s idea stuck with me. When preparing this article, the pieces came together. Here are my two objectives:
1. This debating society must work within a Medium pub.
2. I do not want to be a “slave” to this pub.
Most of my format is still in my head and needs to be written down. But briefly, each debate will require six people:
· One moderator to set up and administer the debate.
· Two debaters: one arguing “for” and the other “against.”
· Three judges, to decide the better debater and offer comments for both debaters to do better next time.
I will be the first moderator. As we get some experience and refine some rules, I will allow other people to be moderators, setting up and administering their own debates. In Medium speak, moderators will become co-owners of the pub. Debaters and judges will become writers for the pub.
To encourage me to move this idea forward, I would like a commitment of 10 Medium contributors to take an active role as debater or judge in these first debates. If I get 10 people, I will start writing my vision for a new Medium pub.
Remember, we will all be learning new skills with this online format. So real debate experience is not necessary.
If interested in being part of the “first 10,” simply reply to this Medium article.
Or try to debate “To Cannabis or Not to Cannabis.” Four hundred words!
Published on Medium 2024
Popular Ways to Improve Society
Addendum
Colby Hess took me in this debate. Here is his opening remarks for the "against" side:
1) Not all smoke is created equal. Not a single, sound scientific study has ever linked marijuana smoke to lung disease. (Of course, this may be a case of selection bias since its ongoing illegality makes it difficult for scientists to study.) But it appears that the healing effects of CBD largely offset whatever carcinogens may be in the smoke. Plus, the whole issue is rendered moot by edibles. Also, the world is on fire and not getting better anytime soon. If you're going to have to breathe wildfire smoke anyway, you might as well breathe some smoke that makes you happy and giggly and creative while you're at it.
2) Most indications are that THC can exacerbate preexisting mental health issues (such as schizophrenia) but has no ill effects whatsoever on normal, healthy brains and psychology. Personally, I've smoked pot nearly every day for thirty years straight and I'm still a happy, sane, productive citizen, loving father, etc., etc. I consider pot essential to the creative experience. If you enjoy my writing, you can thank pot for most of it.
3) Everyone in modern society is running around like headless chickens trying to be as busy as possible while we destroy the planet and our happiness in the process. To what end? If we're to have any hope of a better future, everyone needs to work less and chill more. To hell with work anyway. They pay you for what you produce, not in what manner or with what mindset. Some people do their best work stoned as it helps get them in the groove and allows them to approach problem solving in novel and creative ways or at least helps them cope after work with the mind-numbing, soul-destroying hell of cubicles and commutes. If companies really want to police slackers, they should cut off access to checking Medium stats on the clock and leave reefer alone!
In my opinion, Colby did not address the resolution well. His first point is a refutation of one of my original points. He should have presented his original thoughts in his opening. Also, he did not display enough civility. In a well-judged debate, he would have not won.
And we didn't go for the refutation round. That could have changed the outcome as well.
