I got one: “Tension #6: Liberty and Decriminalisation”. I disagree with it!! (surprise, surprise)
Can we please ourselves? In order not to be in contradiction here, you must make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user.
Someone who is a heroin addict is a drain on society. Their continued addiction perpetuates the criminality inherent in the trade of drugs, which costs money to police and can result in innocent people being affected, for example when people thieve to fund their habit. Even if it were legalised and the second argument thus partially invalidated, an addict is useless and a burden on other non-addicts to rehabilitate. To remove a functional member of society and replace them with a cost is a demonstrable harm to other people.
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits.
Am I being a muppet? What else can you judge someone on but their merits? Are you suggesting anti-merits (ie flaws) don’t count?
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.
This is phrased in a slightly weird way. I was forced to agree because governments should be allowed to do whatever they want. That doesn’t mean that they should do it, though.
Interesting idea, though. Pitting beliefs against what you think in practice will probably show up some amusing inconsistencies…