RPG OtakuBoards Survivor 4

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][quote name='Darren']We all know that marijuana is a powerful pain killer, but what about its other treatments? What would normally be viewed as harmful, such as lowering blood pressure, is the preferred treatment of Glaucoma patients for its ability to lower pressure to the eye.[/quote]Actually this is what advocates of marijuana for medical purposes would like you to believe, the truth is far from that claim. To understand why this claim is inaccurate it helps to understand the nature of glaucoma. A person?s eye has pressure in it much in the same way you have blood pressure, this intraocular pressure (IOP) can damage the optic nerve if it is too high. Resulting in decreased peripheral vision and eventual blindness if it is not treated.

When studies on the effects of using marijuana to treat glaucoma were done it was shown that a high dose was required to produce an effect good enough to help reduce IOP in patients. And this required constant inhalation, as much as every three hours. It also only had this effect in about 60-65% of those who used it. Because the amount of marijuana actually required would cause significant side effects, for such a short duration of actual beneficial effects, it was considered a poor treatment and was not recommended for glaucoma treatment. Especially when there are other treatments that not only have fewer side effects but also only require being applied as little as just once a day.

It?s important to remember that there is no cure for glaucoma and any drug is merely a controlling factor as the only sure treatment, at this time, of this disease is surgical. And with constant improvements in surgical techniques it is often the best method to keep this disease under control.

The problem with advocating marijuana for this is not only are there better drugs to keep it under control, but it is not something that would cure the disease as lowering IOP is merely treating the symptoms not the cause. The approach currently being taken by experts is to find ways to protect the optic nerve cells by strengthening them to prevent damage and to map the genetics so they can understand which ones are responsible for starting the process leading to the increased IOP in the first place. Currently work is being done to develop vaccines to protect the optical nerve and to develop gene therapy to prevent glaucoma from developing in the first place.

Another misconception going on here is the part about marijuana lowering blood pressure, and yet studies have indicated that a user's risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana. Such an effect is most likely due to marijuana's effects on blood pressure by lowering it and yet increasing the heart rate as well as from the reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. Which considering that most of the people who suffer from glaucoma are over 40 is yet another reason why it was never considered a good treatment for reducing IOP as the additional risk of a heart attack was considered to be an unacceptable risk. [quote name='Darren]Also, Cannabis has been proven to help with analgesia[/quote]I must admit I am confused by this statement here as analgesia is defined as:[I] A deadening or absence of the sense of pain without loss of consciousness.[/I] So I really don?t see how cannabis can help something like that. Unless you were trying to say it actually makes a good analgesic? In which case it is a simple matter to look up and find that there is already a vast amount of well documented and proven medicines that provide pain relief without most of the negative side effects one would get from using marijuana. [quote=Darren]many users get used to the psychological effects after two or three times. Also, taking the right dosage and not smoking cannabis plays a key role in preventing negative side-effects. [/quote]Actually that?s not quite right. Users of it may get use to the effects but the actual effect on a person?s system does not change. After you smoke marijuana, its ingredients reach their peak levels in your body within minutes, and effects can last up to an hour and a half. These effects include impairments in learning, memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts are short term effects that occur every single time it is introduced to the system. The same is true if it is eaten instead of smoked. Since when marijuana is eaten as it has to pass through the stomach and intestine and can take up to one hour to experience the "high" effects which can last up to 12 hours. So the only difference is it takes longer for the effects to occur, whether or not the user has ?gotten use? to them. The effects do not disappear or go away after continued use. [quote=Darren'] marijuana is used illegally across the globe, and it still hasn?t even gotten close to the death rate of alcohol[/quote]Though the death rate from alcohol is shocking, what they don?t tell you is the problems that could arise from legalizing marijuana as the two of them together are a lethal combination. Taking both at the same time in low to moderate doses results in a person being incapable of safe driving for several hours. If we were to even consider legalizing marijuana for recreational use, there would need to be some form of system to keep people from smoking a joint and drinking because unlike alcohol, there is not test that can reveal whether a driver has taken cannabis in quantities high enough to impair driving before they actually did. Since current tests only detect if they have used it as it looks for a very small level of the substance in one?s system and marijuana can show up on a test as much as 90 days after it was initially consumed.

As a result there is no set guideline to determine if a high level of marijuana contributed to an accident if alcohol was also involved. Alcohol is far easier to immediately determine if they have enough in their system at the time and as a result it is always blamed for the accident regardless if traces of other substances are found in a person?s system. It would be foolhardy to legalize something without addressing the real possibility that marijuana is indeed a contributing factor to car accidents where both substances were used. Especially when quite a few drivers do use both. And it?s been confirmed that even if taken alone marijuana impairs a driver?s judgment making them unsafe drivers while they are high.[quote name='Darren'] marijuana is used illegally across the globe, and it still hasn?t even gotten close to the death rate of alcohol or other prescription medication, such as sleeping pills or muscle relaxers. If we?re worried about the effects of Cannabis, why don?t we make everything that impairs our judgment illegal? [/quote]If only it were that simple. The distinction here, other than the alcohol one as I?ve already addressed it, is sleeping pills or muscle relaxants are not killers if taken according to intended dosage. But rather can result in death due to overdose or combining them with other drugs or substances like alcohol, which they were not intended to be taken with.

And the argument to remove everything that impairs judgment isn?t a good one. Why? Because we are talking about legalizing marijuana for far more than medical purposes, sleeping pills and muscle relaxants are not used for recreational purposes but for medical ones and the more powerful and dangerous ones out there that require careful monitoring and a prescription from a doctor, you can?t just go and buy it at the store for a good reason. Alcohol is a good example, but the millions of drugs for medical purposes only are not as they are already strictly regulated to help prevent needless deaths. [quote name='Darren'] In no way am I suggesting that we legalize cannabis on a large scale, making it available for everyone. I?m simply pointing out that for the benefit of health and medicine, as well as the people, it would greatly improve our society to legalize cannabis/marijuana for prescription medical purposes.[/quote]Here?s where the true problem is, it?s one thing to make researching it legal and yet another to make it legal for everyone. It would be irresponsible to simple make it legal when the only real benefits would come from checking it out further for medical reasons. But the push to make it legal is all about putting it in everyone?s hands not just for medical purposes. And though you may be suggesting that you are for making it legal for medical only, the current push is for making it completely legal. Something I do not support since most of the medical reasons given are already addressed by better treatments.

The sad truth is that the push to legalize this substance is more about gaining legal access to a substance for personal use than any real desire to help the community. Regardless of the very real issues I already mentioned in my opening statement as to the problems using it can cause. [/COLOR]

[Darren]

First off, I'm going to have to quote the resolution just so there's absolutely no confusion about this debate hence forth:

[QUOTE=Sandy]
[center][B]Second Debate: Legalizing Cannabis[/B][/center]
[/QUOTE]

Nowhere in this statement by Sandy does it state that I must argue to legalize cannabis for public consumption, nor does prevent me from making an arguement based on legalizing it simply for scientific research and medical purposes. Since I'm not contradicting the resolution in any way, you'll find that most of your arguements fall through, since you clearly stated that medical & scientific research was fine as long as it wasn't available for unbounded public consumption.

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']It?s one thing to make it legal for legitimate medical purposes, but to make it legal for everyone would be irresponsible and dangerous to society as a whole. [/COLOR][/quote]

Also stated here:

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']Here?s where the true problem is, it?s one thing to make researching it legal and yet another to make it legal for everyone. It would be irresponsible to simple make it legal when the only real benefits would come from checking it out further for medical reasons. But the push to make it legal is all about putting it in everyone?s hands not just for medical purposes. And though you may be suggesting that you are for making it legal for medical only, the current push is for making it completely legal. Something I do not support since most of the medical reasons given are already addressed by better treatments.[/COLOR][/quote]

To require me to provide an argument as to why it should be completely legal gives you an unfair advantage. And while I feel that this entire debate catches you on a technicality, you should have been more careful in reading the topic and in choosing your words.

[QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue]I do not support making Cannabis/Marijuana legal for a number of reasons. For starters it helps to understand just what this substance does to the body. The active ingredient is tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. When introduced to the body it has a wide range of effects that include a sense of well being, relaxation, enhanced sociability, difficulty concentrating, distortions in sense of time, vision and hearing and at high doses, auditory and visual hallucinations. It also increases the heart rate, causes reddening of the eyes, sedation, and increased appetite and decreased muscle tone.

As a result problems from using this substance include:

[INDENT]~Impaired memory and ability to learn.
~Difficulty thinking and problem solving.
~Anxiety attacks or feelings of paranoia.
~Impaired muscle coordination and judgment.
~Increased susceptibility to infections.
~Dangerous impairment of driving skills. Studies show that it impairs braking time, attention to traffic signals and other driving behaviors.
~Cardiac problems for people with heart disease or high blood pressure, because marijuana increases the heart rate.[/INDENT]
In short the push to make this legal on the basis that it is harmless is a myth. Cannabis/Marijuana is harmful in many ways from memory loss to distorted perceptions, to trouble with thinking and problem solving, young kids and students are the most vulnerable to the damaging effects of using it. It?s one thing to make it legal for legitimate medical purposes, but to make it legal for everyone would be irresponsible and dangerous to society as a whole. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Once again, we're really on the same page here. A lot of these negative side-effects are caused by THC, and I would never wish to damage today's society by putting something like this behind a counter in a convenient store. It's just not logical. Also, in my opening statement, I gave several advantages to legalizing cannabis for research purposes. One being that scientists are sure that only a few of the side-effects are caused by THC. Marijuana is a mysterious plant and there are several possible dirivatives of the plant that could be helpful if we were able to harness them individually.

I'm not going to quote the entire passage that you wrote about glaucoma, but I am going to challenge your source. You failed to provide a source to some potentially contradicting evidence. So, to enforce my statement and revoke your own, I'll supply you with some of my own evidence. [URL=http://www.agingeye.net/glaucoma/glaucomadrugtreatment.php]HERE[/URL]

[quote name='The Eye Digest]Studies in the early 1970s show that marijuana, when smoked, lowers intraocular pressure in people with normal pressure and those with glaucoma. In an effort to determing whether marijuana, or drugs derived from marijuana, might be effective as glaucoma treatement, the National Eye Institue supported research studies from 1978 to 1984. These studies demonstrated that some [B]derivatives[/B] of marijuana helped lower intraocular pressure when administered [B]orally, intravenously, or by smoking,[/B] but not when topically applied to the eye. However, none of these studies demonstrated that marijuana -- or any of its components -- [B']could safetly and effectively lower intraocular pressure any more than a variety of drugs then on the market.[/B][/quote]

There's more on the site. I'm sure you'll notice that I bolded several words and phrases in this caption and I'll broaden on that more. derivatives literally means anything that can be derived from marijuana, which means that it didn't have to have the affects of THC. (which is what is causing such a ruckus in all of your statements thus far) The treament worked effectively when smoked, yes. But treatment also worked when used orally or intravenously. Also, the smoked marijuana didn't have to be inhaled for such a long period of time and it didn't have only have that effect on 60-65% of the patients that had this method. Lastly, as quoted, the results showed that using marijuana was no more effective than any other drugs available. This means that it is just as effective as other drugs.
Honestly, with the credibility of my source compared to yours, I can only urge Sandy to disregard your statement completely unless you provide me with a proper link.
The only thing to address is the possibility of negative side-effects arising, such as lowering blood pressure, while increasing heart-rate. This could pose serious problems for certain people that would be have glaucoma treatment, but just like many other prescription and over-the-counter drugs, they come with warnings and stipulations, such as "You should not take this drug if you are over the age of 40 or have any type of heart disease or history of heart disease in your family." Of course that may not be the exact wording, but I'm sure you can relate that to some sort of drug you have lying around at your house. And in the end, cannabis may wind up not being the best approach to treatment for this particular disease, but as I stated, the progression of technology and science will show that it IS possible to derive a safe drug from marijuana if only they were provided a chance.

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']Actually that?s not quite right. Users of it may get use to the effects but the actual effect on a person?s system does not change. After you smoke marijuana, its ingredients reach their peak levels in your body within minutes, and effects can last up to an hour and a half. These effects include impairments in learning, memory, perception, and judgment - difficulty speaking, listening effectively, thinking, retaining knowledge, problem solving, and forming concepts are short term effects that occur every single time it is introduced to the system. The same is true if it is eaten instead of smoked. Since when marijuana is eaten as it has to pass through the stomach and intestine and can take up to one hour to experience the "high" effects which can last up to 12 hours. So the only difference is it takes longer for the effects to occur, whether or not the user has ?gotten use? to them. The effects do not disappear or go away after continued use.[/COLOR][/quote]

All I can do here is provide a comparison:
Take alcohol, for instance. You have two guys, both equal in height, weight, build, ect. The only difference is that one man is an alcoholic and the other has never even tasted beer before. If you provide both men with a two shots of vodka, the alcoholic (9 times out of 10) will not be affected at all. Conversely, the new drinker would be pretty tipsy after only one shot. However, that's not to say the internal effects are any different. The alcohol is still running it's natural course on the inside, effecting both men's bodies equally.
It's the same with marijuana users. A first time user (or even someone who chooses to smoke it or take too much) would be affected outwardly. It would be obvious to passer-by that he/she was high. But if someone used the drug properly, (which is what my plan aims to achieve through medical usage only) they wouldn't display any effects at all. And if the drug were legalized for research, we wouldn't even have to worry about the potential interal effects.

Your argument for combining marijuana and alcohol falls through since you addressed it as a problem for recreational use. Since that's not the kind of legalization I'm speaking of, it's not really important for me to address it.

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']The distinction here, other than the alcohol one as I?ve already addressed it, is sleeping pills or muscle relaxants are not killers if taken according to intended dosage. But rather can result in death due to overdose or combining them with other drugs or substances like alcohol, which they were not intended to be taken with.[/COLOR][/quote]

There's a double standard here. If muscle relaxants and sleeping pills are safe when taken in the recommended dosage, and you've seen the evidence that I've provided, then who's to say that if you take marijuana in the reccomended dosage that it won't cause problems? And speaking of prescription medications: I'm not even talking about them being mixed with alcohol. That's why most muscle relaxants and sleeping pills have a clear warning that says something along the lines of, "you should not operate machinery or drive until you know how [this drug] effects you." Hypothetically speaking, if cannabis were to be legalized for medical purposes, there wouldn't be a problem if it were labeled like that as well. And even if a user did mix the prescription medication or take too much of it, it doesn't make the drug any less legal. It just makes it the user's fault if he/she causes injury or death. However, if it were the latter scenario, I can definately say the user wouldn't be thrown in jail for falling asleep at the wheel.

In the end, my stance still remains without opposition: There's no plausible reason why cannabis/marijuana shouldn't be legalized for scientific research or medical purposes. It's already been proven to help with a number of diseases and ailments. With the proper research, scientists can identify the exact compound that's causing certain effects and utilize these compounds to prevent negative outcomes. Furthermore, if marijuana dirivatives were introduced in small doses for medical purposes, it would provide a very affective drug that aids in the recovery of literally hundreds of illnesses. It's imperitave to look at the big picture in order to see all the benifits that could come from legalizing this drug. If you do that, you'll see that the good things far outweigh the bad.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Since we are coming to our closing arguments I do want to take a moment to clarify something here: [QUOTE=Darren]First off, I'm going to have to quote the resolution just so there's absolutely no confusion about this debate hence forth:
[quote name='Sandy][font=Century Gothic][B]Second Debate: Legalizing Cannabis[/B][/font][/QUOTE']Nowhere in this statement by Sandy does it state that I must argue to legalize cannabis for public consumption, nor does prevent me from making an arguement based on legalizing it simply for scientific research and medical purposes. Since I'm not contradicting the resolution in any way, you'll find that most of your arguements fall through, since you clearly stated that medical & scientific research was fine as long as it wasn't available for unbounded public consumption.[/quote]Just as you say no where does that statement prevent you from making an argument for medical only, it doesn?t say [b]medical use only.[/b] If we are going to debate about making it legal, so long as it is not explained further one cannot take the stance you are talking about. Because nowhere does it say: Legalizing Cannabis [U]for Medical Purposes only[/U]. Just a few words added on, but a world of difference. Especially when a quick check online will show that the push is to make it legal for so much more than medical purposes.

Your first statement which has quoted the topic to be debated is clearly a fallacy due to it being an appeal to ignorance on the assumption that simply because it doesn't say you must argue for a specific point regarding the more general standpoint of legalizing cannabis, it does not make it logically acceptable that you completely forsakes that side of the argument because [B]it is [/B]under the jurisdiction of your overall responsibility to explain [b]why[/b] cannabis should be legalized.

As for the glaucoma: [quote name='Darren'] Honestly, with the credibility of my source compared to yours, I can only urge Sandy to disregard your statement completely unless you provide me with a proper link.[/quote] Other than to quote one doctor and a book, you did not provide any real references as to your claims either. Dr Weil is a proponent of integrative medicine, which combines the best ideas and practices of alternative and conventional medicine in order to maximize the body's natural healing mechanisms. He doesn?t even come close to being qualified to recommend treatment for glaucoma. I have dealt with friends who suffer from glaucoma and taking the medicine as well as having had surgery so I was already well acquainted with the disease. But that was not enough as I also researched it as well to make sure I remembered what I had learned about it.

If we are going to talk about creditability of one?s sources, try going to the source of doctors who actually do study to treat this disease. Along with the organizations that do research to find a cure. And with that in mind here are my sources:

[url]http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/medical_marijua.html[/url]
[url]http://www.glaucomafoundation.org/news_story.php?i=18[/url]
[url]http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?page=2_13116.htm[/url]
[quote name='Darren'] In the end, my stance still remains without opposition: There's no plausible reason why cannabis/marijuana shouldn't be legalized for scientific research or medical purposes.[/quote]I cannot accept that stance since it ever so conveniently allows you to pretty much ignore a huge part of my argument since you are trying to have my points dismissed over a lack of comprehension. Think about it, if the wording were that lose as far as legalizing cannabis goes, it wouldn?t even be considered until it was clarified that it was for medical purposes only. So my stance at this point is that if my argument is going to be made redundant, so is yours since from the very beginning it clearly said Legalizing Cannabis, not ?Legalizing Cannabis [U]for medical use only[/U]? And once that point is clear I will present my final statement. [/COLOR]

[Sandy]

[font=Century Gothic]Thank you, Beth and Darren, you can now post your closing statements!

[strike]Due to murmuring heard from the ranks of players, I have decided to merge the next two rounds so that two debates will take place simultaneously. After that we'll check the situation if it will be necessary to have rounds 5 and 6.

Bear with me, Survivors! You also have to survive these slow-paced challenges if you want to win.[/strike]

I have decided to discontinue this challenge after this round, and award both The Mercenaries and whichever team wins this debate. The two losing teams won't be punished, though. The reason is that I want to vitalize this game with a more active challenge.

Hope nobody feels bad for this decision. The heat is on, Survivors![/font]

[Darren]

I feel like a large portion of this debate was focused more so on Glaucoma treatment, rather than the actual topic at hand: legalizing cannabis. And as my opponent stated that she is very knowlegable in areas concerning glaucoma, I am also just as knowlegable in the area concerning debate. So, just so there's no further confusion about this debate and what we're actually debating about, I'll present you with this common debate term:

[B]Prima Facie[/B]. It's a Latin word that literally means, "At first glance." It's commonly used in court cases to denote evidence that is sufficient, if not rebutted, to prove a particular proposition or fact.
However, in common debates, (such as the one we're in) the term Prima Facie is used to provide the affimative (that's me) with the right to decipher the resolution's meaning themselves as long as it doesn't directly contradict the wording.

I would like to say that I know the resolution says plainly, "Legalizing Cannabis." And without the words "for Medical Use," it makes my plan seem insignificant. However, I would also like to point out that the case doesn't say, "Legalizing Cannabis [B]for public consumption[/B]."

My opponent argues that I'm not within the bounds of the debate because I ignore public consumption and only progress with medical use. But how can I, if I follow the rules which she thought were right, debate about public consumption when that phrase is also absent from the wording. It's topics like these that the word Prima Facie comes into play. Since there are so many aspects that can be debated under simply legalizing cannabis, (and to debate all of them would take more than a few posts on a forum; it would take weeks) it was my job to decide which angle I wanted to take in my opening statement. I chose medical and scientific research, and even after the opening staments were made, my opponent still chose to argue with something that I hadn't even brought up, therefor losing all of those arguements. I really don't have much to else to say, but I will address all the "attacks" that my opponent has made against me:

As I said earlier, I feel that the majority of this case has been debated over glaucoma. Even after I asked for sources to prove the contradicting evidence, I still couldn't find any information that my opponent used in her argument about the following information:

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']When studies on the effects of using marijuana to treat glaucoma were done it was shown that a high dose was required to produce an effect good enough to help reduce IOP in patients. And this required constant inhalation, as much as every three hours. It also only had this effect in about 60-65% of those who used it. Because the amount of marijuana actually required would cause significant side effects, for such a short duration of actual beneficial effects, it was considered a poor treatment and was not recommended for glaucoma treatment. Especially when there are other treatments that not only have fewer side effects but also only require being applied as little as just once a day. [/COLOR][/quote]

After reading the three sources, I found aboslutely no evidence contradicting my own about how 60-65% of those who used it lowered IOP. Or that patients had to inhale the smoke for up to six hours... Of course I only skimmed through it, so I may have missed it, but I highly doubt that it was a credible source either way, comparing it to my own.

My opponent has stated that I have failed to also provide legitimate evidence throughout this debate and I would just like to point out that a lot of my information required little to no evidence at all. As I stated at the end of my arguement, "There's no plausible reason why marijuana should not be legalized for scientific research or medical purposes," with plausible being the operative word. The two sources that I have provided were both credible in their own aspect. By presenting Dr. Weil as a source, I was merely trying to state that people who use marijuana properly, may be affected at first, but that eventually fades away with consistant use. I was never addressing Dr. Weil as a source for Glaucoma treatment.

So with everything that I've presented, it takes me back to what I said in my argument: There's no reason why marijuana shouldn't be legalized for scientific research or medical purposes. To legalize it for public consumption would be societal suicide. And now that everything's clear as how I'm perfectly allowed to debate legalization for medical use only, I feel that this is as much as I can possibly say without becoming redundant. I can only urge Sandy to see the huge differences in both of our cases and urge him to give the victory to the LOLs.

Thank You.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]As part of my closing statement I?d like to take a moment to go a little deeper into the meaning of Prima Facie that my opponent has brought up. Though they are referring to debates it is also well known that in most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party.

My opponent is proposing that all of my arguments be dismissed as you can see here:[quote name='Darren] Honestly, with the [B]credibility of my source compared to yours[/B], I can only urge Sandy to disregard your statement completely unless you provide me with a proper link.[/quote]And here:[quote=Darren] After reading the three sources, I found aboslutely no evidence contradicting my own about how 60-65% of those who used it lowered IOP. Or that patients had to inhale the smoke for up to six hours... Of course[B] I only skimmed through it[/B], so I may have missed it, but[B] I highly doubt that it was a credible source either way, comparing it to my own.[/B][/quote]In spite of failing to provide proper credit and reliable sources for their claims in their opening statements which can be seen here: [quote=Darren] We all know that marijuana is a powerful pain killer, but what about its other treatments? What would normally be viewed as harmful, such as lowering blood pressure, is the preferred treatment of Glaucoma patients for its ability to lower pressure to the eye. Also, Cannabis has been proven to help with analgesia, neurological and movement disorders, cancer-related disorders, and cachexia among others.[/quote]Or this claim:[quote=Darren'] Scientists believe that many of the negative effects of cannabis could be avoided, especially in the medical field, if they were allowed to study it better and discover just what was causing all these side-effects, since THC is only responsible for neurological symptoms.[/quote]And yet looking through their arguments only one reference is made to a Dr Weil. Further information on them can be found here: [url]http://www.drweil.com/drw/ecs/index.html[/url]
who as I pointed out earlier is not a creditable source for any of these claims, and since no other references other than a link to an article by The Eye Digest which other than to show that marijuana could work for glaucoma based on research that was over twenty years old, nothing was provided. And even the link they provided also went on further to state: ?[B]In addition, some potentially serious side effects were noted, including an increased heart rate and a decrease in blood pressure in studies using smoked marijuana.[/B]? One of the very things I had quoted as being considered an issue and part of why the research was abandoned, as there were too many issues.

But that is not really the point here. The point is that my opponent is trying to prove that their sources are more creditable, [I]I highlighted where they made this claim in the very first quote, and again in the second quote[/I] when they have in fact not provided any sources at all to back their claims. Other than at one time marijuana was researched as a [I]potential[/I] treatment for glaucoma.

My opponent would have my own arguments dismissed and even boldly states:[quote name='Darren]I would just like to point out that a lot of[B] my information required little to no evidence at all[/B'].[/quote]And yet still failed to explain why my information required evidence and theirs did not. They did not "[B]present prima facie evidence of all the facts essential to their case[/B]" In other words they did not back up their claims with any form of supporting evidence and I would ask Sandy to consider the fallacy of this statement that would require one person to provide evidence and yet not the other person. You cannot make a stance and then fail to back it up when requested or challenged. And since I have been challenged as not providing proper credit I am going to do so, I am going to present the [I]prima facie [/I]evidence that is essential to my case.

We have both focused on an aspect of the fight, mine was more directed towards being against legalizing it for everyone, his was more towards making it legal for medical purposes. However in the end legalizing it at all would be a big mistake. For starters as I already stated there are serious health issues such as:

[INDENT]· Memory and learning problems
· Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)
· Difficulty in thinking and problem solving
· Loss of coordination
· Increased heart rate
· Anxiety
· Panic attacks
· Daily cough and phlegm
· Symptoms of chronic bronchitis
· More frequent chest colds[/INDENT]
And many more problems, all of which can be verified at the following sites:
[url]http://psychologytoday.com/conditions/marijuana.html[/url]
[url]http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/harmful-effects-of-marijuana.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html[/url]

Just as there are health issues there are other compelling reasons to not even consider the medical argument for cannabis. For starters:

[INDENT] Marijuana is a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act ([url]http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html[/url]). Schedule I drugs are classified as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[/INDENT] The source for that information can be found here: [url]http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html[/url]

Also another thing to consider is that as recent as 2006 marijuana was denied for use for medical use and the reasons can been seen here:
[CENTER]
[B]Marijuana For Medical Use Turned Down By FDA[/B][/CENTER]

[INDENT] The three criteria for placement in Schedule I, says the FDA (21 U.S.C 812b 1) are currently met by Marijuana. It listed as the three main reasons against the use of marijuana for medical use as:

1. It has a high potential for abuse
2. It has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the USA
3. It has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision

The FDA also added that current evidence shows marijuana is harmful to human health. It cited several studies and reports done by HHS, FDA, SAMHSA and NIDA, which indicate that scientific evidence supporting marijuana's medical use is lacking (for treatment in the USA). Also, the FDA said animal or human data supporting efficacy and safety of marijuana for general medical use is lacking.

There are alternatives (approved by the FDA) to smoking marijuana for medical use, said the agency. [/INDENT]
The source for that information can be found here:
[url]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=42060[/url]

My opponent is arguing as you can see here:[quote name='Darren']There's no reason why marijuana shouldn't be legalized for scientific research or medical purposes.[/quote]That there is no reason why it shouldn?t be legalized. However as you saw in the last bit where it was turned down by the FDA ?[B]There are alternatives (approved by the FDA) to smoking marijuana for medical use[/B]? There is no need to legalize marijuana as there are alternatives already synthesized, that serve the same purpose. Something that can be seen here: [url]http://www.aphios.com/pipeline/Delta9Cannabinoids.htm[/url]

Also another thing to consider about legalizing it for medical purposes as can be seen here in part of a document issued by: [B]Office Of National Drug Control Policy[/B] where I've highlighted the relevant points:
[CENTER][B]Medical marijuana[/B][/CENTER][INDENT]?Our medical system relies on proven scientific research, not polling results.
? About 100 years ago, leaders in this country created the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make sure that medicine falls under the ?safe and effective? standard before it is sold on the open market.
? Research has not demonstrated that smoked marijuana is helpful as medicine.53
? [B]A component in marijuana?THC?has been approved in pill form by the FDA. It?s called Marinol, and though it is not frequently prescribed, the U.S. supports the right of doctors to prescribe this drug if they feel it would best serve their patients? needs. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) even lowered the scheduling on Marinol to make it easier for doctors to prescribe the drug.[/B]
? Marijuana smoke contains more than 400 chemicals and increases the risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes.54
? [B]The U.S. continues to support research into the medical efficacy of certain isolated properties of marijuana.[/B]
? Even if smoking marijuana makes people ?feel better,? that is not enough to call it a medicine. If that were the case, tobacco cigarettes could be called medicine because they are often said to make people feel better. For that matter, heroin certainly makes people ?feel better? (at least initially), but no one would suggest using heroin to treat a sick person.
? Marijuana use causes precancerous changes in the body similar to those caused by tobacco use. Smoking pot delivers 3 to 5 times the amount of tars and carbon monoxide into the body. It also damages pulmonary immunity and impairs oxygen diffusion.55 How could changes such as these be good for someone dying of cancer or AIDS?[/INDENT]
The source for that information can be found here:
[url]http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.org/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf[/url]

I highly recommend taking the time to read this document as it covers many important aspects of problems associated with marijuana, helping to clear up a lot of the myths and misconceptions out there about this drug. Making the decision to keep it illegal more clear.

My final statement is that there is no need to legalize it medically as aspects of the effects of THC as well as other elements are already approved. So in the end legalizing marijuana would be a mistake due to the heath concerns were it to become available to the public and for being unsuitable for use in medicine when alternatives are already being researched that do the same thing. As well as synthesized versions of the Cannabinoids which already are legal and available for treating patients.[/COLOR]

[Sandy]

[FONT=Century Gothic]After reading this debate thoroughly, I have to say it was [I]fierce[/I]! Nice job, Beth and Darren! Both of you were great debaters, you really assaulted each others' arguments and in the end provided good resources for your claims.

Now I admit that the subject was hard to defend, Darren, but I didn't quite like the fact that you constantly appealed to the judge (ie. me) to back you up instead of focusing to bringing your opponent down with your own strong arguments. A minor flaw, I admit, but it was the only one that separated the two of you.

Thus, I announce the winner of this second debate to be [B]Beth[/B] from [COLOR=Blue]The Titans[/COLOR].

---

As said, this fourth challenge will end now, after taking way too much time. The two winning teams, [COLOR=DarkRed]The Mercenaries[/COLOR] and [COLOR=Blue]The Titans[/COLOR], will both get the chance to choose [B]one evicted player to rejoin the game[/B]. The people you choose can be any of the seven players that have left the game, from any of the four teams.

Hope you like the award, since this is the first and last time in this game that such resurrection will occur. After the two teams have made up their minds, we will move onto the [I]fifth[/I] challenge, where things get lyrical...[/FONT]

[TheResplendent]

[center][FONT=Tahoma]Well the prize is definitly interesting, and worth winning. Congrats to us and The Mercenaries, though i'm afraid we've got out pick in already ;P. By means of a majority vote, The [color=blue]Titans[/color] hereby invite [b][color=red]Ezekiel[/color][/b] to join our mighty ranks. [/FONT][/center]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

Well the [COLOR=Blue]Titans[/COLOR] may have gotten to choose first, but that does not change the fact that there are other excellent members to consider asking to return to the game. And with that in mind we invite Rachmaninoff to return and join the [COLOR=DarkRed]Mercenaries[/COLOR]. :catgirl:

Oh and by the way Sandy, did you want the team captains to pm the person they asked? Or is that something you are going to do? Or does the person need to post here saying they accept?

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]
Oh and by the way Sandy, did you want the team captains to pm the person they asked? Or is that something you are going to do? Or does the person need to post here saying they accept?[/QUOTE]

[FONT=Century Gothic]I'll handle that, Kathy, don't you worry. So, if only Rachmaninoff accepts, he will become a part of your team like Ezekiel is now part of the Titans.

Now is also time for any of the teams to [B]change their captain[/B] if they so wish. To remind you, anybody can send me a PM explaining who he or she wants to see as the new captain of his or her team, and then that team will vote about it.

After any possible captain swaps, we move onto the aforementioned fifth challenge.

---

[center][size=5]Fifth Challenge: Smells Like Team Spirit[/size][/center]

And onwards we go! As I mentioned earlier, this challenge has everything to do with [B]lyrics[/B], and it tests the musical abilities of the teams. The task [I]sounds[/I] quite simple: each team has to make up a [B]team song[/B]. But of course there will be a twist to it. Here are the specific rules.
[indent][B]1.[/B] The team song must be [B]adapted[/B] to a [B]popular melody[/B] or tune, something that is recognizable to everybody. It can be a top chart hit, a classic song, a children's lullaby, a rock song, a theme song... [I]Anything[/I] just as long people know it. The adaption doesn't have to be a professional one, just as long as the lyrics fit the rhythm and rhyme and the team has fun doing it.
[B]2.[/B] In the lyrics, the names of [B]all current team members[/B] must be mentioned. You can also describe the progress of your team in this game, or how superdupercool your team is, or anything else related. The [B]lenght[/B] of the lyrics is up to you, but I'd prefer a catchy if a bit short song to a longwinded ballad.
[B]3.[/B] Aside from the lyrics and the adaption, the teams must [B]present[/B] the song in [B]this thread[/B]. A link or an "MP3-bar" (in lack of better word for it) to the melody is a [I]must[/I], and background graphics are always nifty. This also guarantees that there's work for all team members in every team, and I'd like the [B]captains[/B] to make sure that everybody contributes at least in some way.
[B]4.[/B] After all songs are finished and sent in, I will judge the winning team by their creativity, contribution to this challenge and of course their finished product. All three losing teams will face the Team Council.[/indent]

So I hope you are all ready for this, because again the future of your team is at stake here. But let's not get overly serious, I hope you all have fun with this challenge! Now, [B]Survivors GO![/B][/FONT]

[Shy]

[size=1]When is the final product due? Also, congrats on 5 years at OB Sandy. Can you believe how long we've been here? Scary!

-Shy[/size]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Shy][size=1]When is the final product due? Also, congrats on 5 years at OB Sandy. Can you believe how long we've been here? Scary!

-Shy[/size][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Century Gothic]Oh My Gay, I missed my anniversary! 8( It was Saturday... Well, I put an event in the calendar for it a while ago anyway, maybe that's enough self-love. ;D

[I]Anyways[/I], I'd like people to get the creative process in function as soon as possible for this challenge, but I can wait for the finished songs, I'm not going anywhere. Just don't let it linger on for too long, or else I'll have to intrude... Would two weeks be generous enough?[/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Sandy][FONT=Century Gothic']Oh My Gay, I missed my anniversary![/FONT][/quote]
:therock:

[FONT=Arial]Uh-[I]hunh[/I].

[quote name='Sandy][FONT=Century Gothic']Would two weeks be generous enough?[/FONT][/quote]
Three would be better. Life is hurting me right now; I have huge concert Sunday, I'll be out for a studio trip starting Wednesday (until Saturday, I think), I have a recording project I'm working on, Residential Life is breathing down my neck about not having a roommate (while I was under the impression that that was [I]their[/I] responsibility :animeangr), and to top everything off, the guys next door to me seem to be having late-night dorm gaming parties until around Early o'Dark in the morning.

I won't be completely out of action, but neither will I be able to spend hours at a time brainstorming, as is my usual wont.

This is all pending your discretion, of course. (The deadline, I mean.) I just want to make sure I can give my team something if they ask for it.[/FONT]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

In regards to the music Sandy, I was wanting to know if a link to a music video of the song at a place like YouTube would be considered acceptable? I am thinking it would be, but I wish to be sure of this.

[Sandy]

[font=Century Gothic]I [I]would[/I] prefer a MIDI/MP3 without the original lyrics, Kathy, but if you can't find one, a link to a music video is just fine. I just need some version of the song to play on the background as I read the lyrics to hear how well they fit.

---

[B]Team Captains[/B], please report the progress of your team in this challenge to this thread. Elaborate which team members are doing what, and in what stage your team song is at. Thanks![/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Sandy][font=Century Gothic][B]Team Captains[/B'], please report the progress of your team in this challenge to this thread. Elaborate which team members are doing what, and in what stage your team song is at. Thanks![/font][/quote]Our team is close to being finished. Anomaly, Rachmaninoff and myself have been working on the lyrics. I am in fact going over them to make changes and then send them back to see what the others think. To get the final approval if you will.

Aaryanna is working on the graphics, but hit a snag when the graphics program on our computer crashed, corrupting everything. I'm currently looking for the disk as it looks like we are going to have to uninstall and then reinstall the program completely. :animesigh

However, if I can't find the disk, Aaryanna will make due with an older version of the program that we still have to redo the graphics.

So with all that I expect that within the next day or two we will be completely done and ready to present it. :catgirl:

[TheResplendent]

[FONT=Tahoma]Our progress thus far sees our song nearly finished with only 2 sections of it needing to be finished still. [b]Myself, Mary, White[/b], and [b]Beth[/b] are on lyric duty while [b]Zeke[/b] has already provided us with an awesome graphic idea. It is unfortunate, but [b]Mike[/b] has not peeked his head into the team thread since before the previous challenge, I am unsure of his active status.

Everything seems to be on track however, and completion in a few days seems probable.[/FONT]

[Dragon Warrior]

[size=1]Having finally made a full team decision and decided on one song (there's only three of us anyways, so really there wasn't much debate), we have began a search for the MP3/MIDI and have began to write the lyrics out. The main thing now is just simply finding the music and uploading it. Otherwise, the lyrics themselves are running quite smoothly. Like I said before, decision on the song was done by all team members, Darren and myself have been collaborating to write the lyrics, and Kitty has taken it onto herself to provide special graphics. We are all working together to find the MP3/Midi.[/size]

[Sandy]

[font=Century Gothic][B]Notice to all Teams:[/B] all team songs for this challenge must be completed [I]by the end of this week[/I], the sooner the better.

Also, I still haven't got a rundown on the progress of Team Argo, so I just hope they're making some... :/[/font]

[Riku]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1][FONT=Tahoma]That's because we're so top secret that we keep it even from you, Sandy. :P

Anyway, as for the rundown of what's going on in Team Argo, everything is going rather smoothly yet probably hectic as well.

[B]Shy[/B] has been doing an amazing job with our lyrics, seeing as how his is probably the most greatest I've ever seen.

As for [B]Allamorph[/B], he's also helping out with the lyrics and keeping us together, thus being our cheerleader and officer at the same time. XD

And for [B]KWs[/B] status, she's so f***ing lazy that she should automatically be kicked off the team because she's too d*** lazy for her own good.... just kidding. (Though, The Titans might say otherwise... hahahaha @ you guys. >>) Anyway, I'm doing the awesome graphics and working at it, so, I'm pretty busy as well.

Overall, things are going great and probability of the song completion by the end of the week is 100%. Good luck to you guys at trying to win this from us. ;][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[COLOR=DarkRed][CENTER][IMG]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5310/songintroer1.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

First we present a link to the music video should you need a reminder as to how the song should sound. ;)

[B]Music Video:[/B] [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNO6vp4V8L4][COLOR=DarkRed][U]Music Video[/U][/COLOR][/URL]

Second we present a link to our music video with the instrumental version of the song.

[B]Instrumental:[/B] [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcfEcc6qLME][COLOR=DarkRed][U]Instrumental Music Video[/U][/COLOR][/URL]

[B]Third we present the lyrics to go along with the music:[/B]

[CENTER][IMG]http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2236/songtemplate04rh4.jpg[/IMG] [/CENTER][/COLOR]

[TheResplendent]

[CENTER][font=tahoma][b]Narrator[/b]: On the last episode of Otakuboards Survivor 4...

[quote=Sandy]After reading this debate thoroughly, I have to say it was fierce! Nice job, Beth and Darren! Both of you were great debaters, you really assaulted each others' arguments and in the end provided good resources for your claims.

Now I admit that the subject was hard to defend, Darren, but I didn't quite like the fact that you constantly appealed to the judge (ie. me) to back you up instead of focusing to bringing your opponent down with your own strong arguments. A minor flaw, I admit, but it was the only one that separated the two of you.

Thus, I announce the winner of this second debate to be [b]Beth[/b] from [color=blue]The Titans.[/color][/quote]

[b]Mary[/b]: Yes!

The Titans gather around Beth after the announcement of victory, cheering and showing indomitable support and unity. A confident expression comes across Beth's face, as well as the other members. Matt places his hand on Beth's shoulder and gives her a sincere nod.

[b]Matt[/b]: Way to go Beth! We totally kicked their asses! Great work.

[b]White[/b]: Ha, as if we'd lose to these guys.

White adjusts himself, pointing with his thumb toward the other teams.

[b]Beth[/b]: Hehe, It was nothing. Just one more victory for The Titans!

Beth thrusts her arm in the air confidently, followed by her teammates.

[quote=Sandy]The two winning teams, [color=darkred]The Mercenaries[/color] and [color=blue]The Titans[/color], will both get the chance to choose one evicted player to rejoin the game. The people you choose can be any of the seven players that have left the game, from any of the four teams.

Hope you like the award, since this is the first and last time in this game that such resurrection will occur.[/quote]

[b]Matt[/b]: Alright team, this means we get another member. Let's make sure we choose wisely.

[b]Mary[/b]: I think I know who you have in mind, Matt. I totally think we should make the choice!

Matt nods in acknowledgement toward his faithful teammate.

[b]Matt[/b]: What about you guys?

Matt looks in Beth, White, and Mike's direction. Mike nods silently and glances away mysteriously.

[b]Beth[/b]: It's definitly a good choice, let's tell her right away.

[b]White[/b]: Hmph, it's fine with me.

[quote name='Matt]Well the prize is definitly interesting, and worth winning. Congrats to us and The Mercenaries, though i'm afraid we've got out pick in already ;P. By means of a majority vote, The [color=blue]Titans[/color] hereby invite [b]Ezekiel[/b'] to join our mighty ranks![/quote]

Sandy stands atop the OBS4 pedestal, watching down toward The Titan's team captain as he reveals the team's pick.

[quote name='Sandy]Your team grows superlarge as [b]Ezekiel[/b'] rejoins the game becoming your sixth member.[/quote]

The door behind Sandy opens up as the graphics goddess herself walks through. Zeke smirks as she stands before her new team, left hand resting on her hip.

[b]Zeke[/b]: Well well, guess I'm back! Time to kick some ass, right guys!


[b]Narrator[/b]: The Titans have strengthened their immense ranks further with the addition of the graphics goddess Ezekiel! Is there any way this powerful team can be beat!? The Titans aim to dominate the competition further, join us for another adventure of...


[size=4][b]OTAKUBOARDS SURVIVOR 4![/size][/b]
[/font]

[/center]

Pokemon- TV Theme ... [COLOR=yellow][center] [size=3][font=comic sans MS] The Titans are the very best Something you will see is true With Matt and White on the case There is nothing we can't do Come with us and you will find, All we tell are truths. Beth and Mike can take the test, If what you need is proof. The Titans! (gonna beat 'em all!) As you can see... When we fight our opponents flee! The Titans! Oooh, they're the best team or at least so it seems. The Titans! (gonna beat 'em all!) A fearless crew... Our record shows this is true. We're so great; you just ask Boo. The Ti-tans! Gonna beat 'em all! Gonna beat 'em all (yeah). From Down Under, we are graced With Mary?s expertise Our newest member, her name is Zeke Her graphics genius is the key Just trust us, our time is now We simply cannot lose. Our mighty band will defeat Any team that we will choose. The Titans! (gonna beat 'em all!) As you can see... When we fight our opponents flee! The Titans! Oooh, they're the best team or at least so it seems. The Titans! (gonna beat 'em all!) A fearless crew... Our record shows this is true. We're so great; you just ask Boo. The Ti-tans! Gonna beat 'em all! Gonna beat 'em all (yeah). Gonna beat 'em all. Gonna beat 'em all. Gonna beat 'em all! Yeah! [/size][/center][/font][/COLOR]

[center][b][size=4]Episode 5: The Titan's Lyrical Victory![/size][/b][/center]

[center]* * * * *[/center]

OOC: Tis a shame we could not find an ample instrumental version of the theme, but it is not particularly difficult to follow along with the chosen embedded version.

[Riku]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1][FONT=Tahoma]Aaaannnddd, coming through the left entrance is the all intelligent, all invincible and all powerful Otakuboards Survivor 4 team.... TEAM ARGO!!

*Rocky Theme plays and the whole crowd cheers*

*KW, Allamorph and Shy all raise their hands in acceptance, huge grins on their faces and cheering on along with their fans*
[B]
KW:[/B] Alright, let's get this party started!! Time to kick some major ass... OLD SKOOL, YO!

*Suddenly, everything grows dark and disco lights start flashing to the beat of YMCA*

[B]Allamorph:[/B] Heh, no one can beat our 70s disco theme to the beat of the greatest song EVAR!

[B]Shy:[/B] Indeed, fellow Survivors... this one's in the bag.

[B]KW:[/B] *Clenches fist* Right straight! We've all worked hard on this, but, it's time to unleash our secret weapon of our truly amazering song...
[CENTER]
[B]TEAM A-R-G-O!![/B]

And so, it begins in an all out battle of the 70s...[/CENTER]

I just wanted to say that I know you can't see the text all that great, but colours were stating to be a pain in the ass. I'll fix it up later today after I get back. Happy Easter![/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[CENTER]
[URL=http://youtube.com/watch?v=eLU_mPE8k0Y]Click For The YMCA Music Video[/URL][/CENTER]

[INDENT][FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=2][COLOR=SandyBrown]Members, if you want to survive Then just listen, and follow our stride There's a trio who want to compete Losers get up off your feet Members, there's a team you can join I said, member, one that you can enjoy We have the things you will need to survive There's no need to be unhappy It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O We will succeed in Team A-R-G-O We have everything to be number one Prepare to have some good fun... It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O We will succeed in Team A-R-G-O We'll go straight to the top, we'll defeat the rest Argo will pass every test Keyblade, she is our fearless leader Then there is Shade, what he does we're not sure And then Shy, Event Master of the past Together we are Argo! No man can do it all by himself There are others who want us up on their shelf Together we'll beat adversity It takes teamwork for victory It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O We will succeed in Team A-R-G-O We have everything to be number one Prepare to have some good fun... It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O We will succeed in Team A-R-G-O We'll go straight to the top, we'll defeat the rest Argo will pass every test Sandy, I hope you are prepared Our players will accept every dare There is nothing that Team Argo won't do Other teams will see their doom We are winners up to the end More that teammates, since we are all friends In Team Argo we all get along We worked together to make this song It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O We will succeed in Team A-R-G-O We have everything to be number one Prepare to have some good fun... It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O We will succeed in Team A-R-G-O Members, there's a team you can join I said, member, one that you can enjoy It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O It's fun to be in Team A-R-G-O Members. are you listening to me? Members, what do you want to be? A-R-G-O You'll find it in Team A-R-G-O Keyblade, she is our fearless leader Then there is Shade, what he does we're not sure A-R-G-O Then just join our Team A-R-G-O A-R-G-O Members, members. we were once in your shoes A-R-G-O Members, members, together Team Argo we cannot lose A-R-G-O[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/INDENT]

[Sandy]

[FONT=Century Gothic]The time is up, and [B]the fifth challenge is over[/B].

All in all, I'm very pleased with the amount of dedication and hard work you put into these songs, and the outcome was entertaining and quite imaginative.

As usual, I'll do a rundown for each team separately, and then announce the winner.

[COLOR=DarkGreen][B]The Laugh Out Louds[/B]: I'm sorry, but your team didn't send in your song in time, so I have to disqualify you. It's a shame, but I'll see you at the Team Council.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]The Mercenaries[/B]: I have to say I was a bit puzzled when I read you chose N'Sync's "Bye Bye Bye" for your base song, it was an unconventional choice, but in the end it worked. The lyrics you came up with were consistent throughout and had many fun parts. You gave each team member their own two lines, which was a good call, as it separated you into individuals. The graphics were top-notch, too.

There were some problems with rhythm, some of the longer lines didn't quite match up with the melody, and the instrumental version was a disaster, so it was good that you had a link to the music video as well. Great performance, anyhow![/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue][B]The Titans:[/B] Now there's a catchy and fun choice for a team song. The lyrics were simple and humorous, and the melody stuck to one's head. The graphics fitted both your team and the base song you chose, and the music file was of great quality. Dips on those points.

However, there were some inconsistencies within the lyrics, I think you should've given all members the equal amount of lines (like you discussed in your Team Thread), preferably not cramping them up like in the first two verses. Great going, Titans![/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][B]Team Argo[/B]: I admit, your team has been quite the underdog in these challenges. You chose a groovy song for this challenge, which was both catchy and legendary, I don't think there are very many people who can say they've never heard "YMCA". The lyrics matched the melody very well.

But nevertheless, there were some serious issues in the lyrics as well. First of all, they were too repetitive - you could've altered the words of the chorus since it was repeated so many times. You didn't really bring up great team spirit in the lyrics, either. Especially the line "Then there is Shade, what he does we're not sure" stuck out. The music from the link ended way before the lyrics did, and the ending was just confusing.

There were cosmetic flaws as well, which you, Tiana, said you'd fix but apparently never got around doing it. I loved the flashing background, but the text disappeared into it. Not that groovy, after all.[/COLOR]

---

With all being said and done, there can only be one winner. Two teams out of the four really hit it, but for more complex lyrics and taking a risk that was worth it, the victory goes to...

[CENTER][COLOR=DarkRed]The Mercenaries[/COLOR]![/CENTER]

Congrats, Mercs, you are safe from the Team Council. As for the rest of the teams, it's time for the...

[CENTER][size=5]Fourth Team Council[/size][/CENTER]

[COLOR=DarkGreen]The Lols[/COLOR]... [COLOR=Blue]The Titans[/COLOR]... [COLOR=DarkOrange]Team Argo[/COLOR]...

One player from each of your teams will have to leave the game now. Who will it be? Who has been a disappointment? Who has been holding back the team?

Survivors, it's time to [B]vote[/B].[/FONT]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Sandy][FONT=Century Gothic][COLOR=DarkRed]There were some problems with rhythm, some of the longer lines didn't quite match up with the melody, and the instrumental version was a disaster, so it was good that you had a link to the music video as well. Great performance, anyhow![/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]We knew that some of the longer lines didn't quite match. We decided to go with consistency instead of matching the song perfectly. I didn't mention it since it was possible you wouldn't notice. ;)

I am curious about one thing though, when you say the instrumental version was a disaster, I assume you are referring to how we were not able to insert the lyrics? Or did it not work for you at all?

I'm hoping it did work since we threw in some very simple graphics just for the fun of it and because you had stated that you wanted an instrumental version. Plus there was a tongue in cheek reference at the very end that I thought was kind of fun. In the end, we actually tailored the lyrics so you could have the music video playing in one tab while reading the lyrics as the song progressed. :catgirl: