The Instigator
orville
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
figoitalia
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points

Advertising Cigarettes should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,262 times Debate No: 2543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

orville

Pro

When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you`ll find below it a warning pasted,"Government Warning: Cigarette Smoking is addictive." or it could also be said as dangerous you your health in the television. What`s so vague about it is that the government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads. After all, it`s still the same old story at the end of the day. A guy or a girl lights a stick of cigarette, years later, he or she`s diagnosed with lung cancer. With this, i propose.
figoitalia

Con

I am going to begin by clarifying the topic of this debate. You state that smoking advertisements should be banned, but already in society many forms of advertising already are. For example, cigarette companies are unable to use commercials or the school library additions of a few major magazines, including Times and Sports Illustrated. Therefore I am assuming that you are taking the position that all forms of advertising should be banned.

With this said, i will begin by addressing your arguments.

You only give one reason as to why you feel advertising should be banned, and half of it is based on assumption. You state that:

government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads

basically you are saying that smoking is bad for health therefore government should ban advertisements.

first: by your rational, the government would have the privilege to ban the advertisements of everything it thinks harmful to people. This is a total negation to the freedom of speech in our first amendment. In our society, every person, or business has the right to express their ideas, and make their products known, this is an important part to a capitalistic society.

second: This rationale creates a host of other problems. Just about everything can be considered unhealthy if over used, or used improperly. A major example is the fast food industry, which is closely linked with the second highest behavior cause of death: obesity/dietary pattern. Yet year after year MacDonald's spends about two billion dollars on advertising, and this is not even limited. MacDonald's routinely focuses advertisements on children through commercials and toys. The 3rd highest behavioral cause of death is alcohol, followed closely by microbial agents. Does this mean alcohol and travel advertisements to areas with a high microbial rate ought to be banned as well? of course not, this is why your rational fails

third: Just because you may not want other people to smoke, does not give you, or the government to regulate it. All advertisements have a warning already on them. So your pursuit of banning further advertisements does not serve to spread awareness of the dangers of smoking, rather only illustrates your prejudice.

Forth: this relates to your assumption that if advertisements are banned, the number of people smoking would decrease. what basis do you have for this argument? Advertisements for Crystal Meth are illegal, as is the drug itself, yet each year more people use it. And also, what action should the government take against people who offer cigarettes? word of mouth is one of the most successful means of advertisements.

Fifth: This is just something i noticed when i was looking at you info. You are both a libertarian, and a supporter of drug legalization. how can you be a supporter of less government control, legalized drugs, and government bans on smoking ads?

so in summary your argument fails because
1: it violates the first amendment
2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads
3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business
4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates
5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation

haha and this is defiantly not part of the debate, but did you know the Nazi's banned smoking? are you a Nazi Orville?
Debate Round No. 1
orville

Pro

Banning advertisements about Cigarettes will and shall help. Ladies and Gentlemen, fists things firsts... I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people. Nor did I think or will say that this goes out to all detrimental things in this world, such as Alcohol. The issue I raised in this debate is very specific, and that is to ban the advertising of Cigarettes. How does this affect the society? Very simple ladies and gentlemen, it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to.

Just like the issue in the Philippines, where I come from, a certain organization has declared their rights for alcohol advertisements and the use of contraceptives, particularly condom that makes the youth more indulgent to sex. for this matter, I would like to clarify in advance that I am not saying sex is bad. But rather, I am saying that it will minimize the curiousity of the young people to have sex or the society defines it as "premarital sex". And it has already been approved.

The relevance of this statement to the issue I dare raised is for the people. particularly the parents to be aware of the status-quo. Is this will be approved by the government, it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government`s ears.
figoitalia

Con

Ok orville, in your last argument you stated, "I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people" but at the very end of that same paragraph you say, "it[banning smoking advertising] will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but[buy] a pack of cigarettes and smoke". Just so you know, if you lower the number of people that smoke, you lower the rate. And you essentially said the same thing in your first argument by saying the government should ban advertising because people are getting lung cancer...

So lets say for a second that you don't think smoking adds would diminish smoking rates, ok? what exactly are you arguing? that government should ban the adds for no reason? what is their reason for banning the adds if it doesn't decrease smoking? You stated government has reason, because people will be healthier, well if the ban does lower smoking rates how are people going to be healthier? does a ban in adds mean a cure for lung cancer? no.

Ok back to reality.

you also had a argument about condoms, and stated how the commercials cause people to have underage sex, and therefore are going to be banned in the Philippines. Are you really naive enough to think that people want to have sex because they saw a condom commercial? Hormones, peer pressure, puberty, porn, lifestyle, media, all have more impact than a condom commercial. i have seen more risque material on shampoo commercials then for condoms. But anyways back to cigarettes, you have still given no proof to your claim. The examples i used against condom use can carry over to this. lifestyle, peer pressure, education, stress level, movies, all have a much more significant impact then adds. And let me make one thing clear, in all of these forms, there is no warning on the dangers of cigarettes. At least in the adds you can see a warning that says cigarettes cause cancer.

then finally you mention that, "it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government`s ears" This just does not make sense. I am going to assume you want the government to listen to parents who do not want there kids smoking. Well a democracy is not run by parents who are un able to control their children. and also, why are you holding the tobacco adds totally responsible. Its the person who buys cigarettes that are the most responsible.

so again here are my points that i would now like to elaborate on:
1: it violates the first amendment
- i do understand that you are in the philippenes, but this does not mean freedom of speech is less important.
2: it would allow government to ban all unhealthy ads
- you say you dont advicate this, but unfortunatly your rational does.
3: personal prejudice does not allow someone to control another persons business
- cross apply this with your statement with mothers unable to control children
4:you have not provided the link between the ban and low smoking rates
-this is crucial, i urge you to at least try
5: your personal beliefs are not as important as the other arguments but i think they do require an explanation
- this is outside of the debate, yes i know, but please if you can, explain it
Debate Round No. 2
orville

Pro

I could not help myself from smiling upon reading your rebuttal. My dear friend (i assume i can labell you that), it`s very simple, and obviously you`re obfuscated by my points or you don`t see it at all. If you see your little brother or sister or an older sibling perhaps, outside your home and puffing that stick of cigarette, would`nt you cry out for your voice to be heard as well? I am not merely focusing on the Mother`s cries, but for the rest of the people who found their loved ones other significant others in the hospital confined and diagnosed with lung cancer. I commend your kin and critical thinking though, but still, i affirm my points are very eveident. let me elaborate and fruther expound it then.

First, I don`t blame it solo on the tobacco companies why people indulge in smoking nor do I put the blame on smokers, but I blame it on the ads itself. What do I mean by this? Simple again, advertising place a paramount role on influence, I pressume you`d agree with me on this. Second, lung cancer isn`t the only reason why I propose that the government should ban it`s advertising; but morseso with the negative effect it furnishes on the people seeing an individual doing it.

It`s plain and simple, italia... I propose the banning of Cigarette advertising because it neglects the rights of those who are naives, and hence, influenced by what they see in television, such as an adult smoking. This constitutes to so many things on the amendments you`ve been stating. I am not taking away these people`s rights to smoke, ladies and gentlemen. But rather, imposing the awareness that is evident. With this, I propose firmly.
figoitalia

Con

Haha i don't see your points? I think your the confused one here, i am the one who pointed out the blatant contradiction in your second argument that you failed to correct, address, or even mention. (See my opening second argument). Also, your are the one who, again, has not refuted any of my arguments. And you are the one who has changed arguments 3 different times, without responding to your previous ones. just to give some evidence of this, you mentioned in your first argument that government should ban the adds, "to prevent lung cancer or what have they." i gave five points against this arguments, and in your second arguments you simply tried to give a whole new argument by saying, "it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to" unfortunately you failed to give proof to this statement, or any logical reasoning. Then i proceeded to show how other factors contribute to people smoking and it isn't a matter of the advertising. Again you didn't respond. Now in your third argument you tell me i have ignored your point of people's voices being heard. So let me refute this point.

People do not have the right to use the government to ban, or limit a private enterprise. When this happens it is called fascism. I am not arguing the fact that people's voices shouldn't be heard, but there are other alternatives to banning smoking adds. There are many anti-smoking commercials, groups to help quit, groups to make the awareness of disease more prevalent, search google and the majority of sights that come up are anti smoking. So obviously the people's voices are being heard. Its just that when they use the government to control private business, it becomes fascism.

so in review you have given two rational to why the these adds should be banned. So i would like to go over them.

Smoking is unhealthy
-Yes, but in advertisements, it is required to say that it is unhealthy.
-government cannot ban everything that is unhealthy, which you would be giving them the power to do(see my first argument)
-there are many other causes of a desire to smoke, that provide a much larger influence on naive people, therefore the government ban would be an unnecessary abuse of power.

second: the people need to be heard.
-i have shown how the people have other means of being heard
-private enterprise is not publicly owned
-there are already limits on advertisements

and just some more points in general:
The banning of these ads would violate freedom of speech.

and probably the most important point is that you have failed completely to provide proof connecting a smoking advertisement ban with a decrease in the smoking rate. Only once you can prove this, can you begin to make an argument, because everything in your argument depends on this being true. unfortunately, again, you failed to do so, and i have shown why it is false.
-illegal drugs are illegal in and of themselves, not just the advertisements, yet still continue to be a major problem.
-the ban on alcohol(prohibition)failed to significantly reduce the use.
-other factors are a much larger contributor to young smokers(peer pressure, and lifestyle)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by figoitalia 9 years ago
figoitalia
ciao haha, grazie te, ci sentiamo, a dopo.
ill look foreward to our next debate
Posted by orville 9 years ago
orville
very WELL said.. on the contrary, there`s an ad for smoking.. that`s obviously why i raised the issue.. but nevertheless, t`was a good debate for me.. i thank my opponent, italia for a job well done.. and perhaps, i could be your opponent the next time you`ll raise an issue..^_^ God bless friend.. cia0..
Posted by figoitalia 9 years ago
figoitalia
so ovri, my dear friend, are you Able to say anything about the blatant contradiction between libertarianism and ur ideas on banning smoking adds?
Posted by smith76 9 years ago
smith76
Yet again, the people that demand liberty and freedom are wanting the government to make common sense decisions for them.....what a shame.
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
driving/riding a car results in a lower life expectancy as well as smoking, but the government doesnt ban that.

the less government control, the better. people just need to make good decisions, not be told what to do.

and there are NO cigarette adds on television, but in your opening argument you seemed to think otherwise.
Posted by figoitalia 9 years ago
figoitalia
i know it doesn't... thats why i said it wasn't as important as your other arguments, but i just wondering if you had an explanation. no big deal
Posted by orville 9 years ago
orville
my personal information(s) does not object what I have to say. That`s why it`s called a debate, because not only is it about facts, but it`s also about conviction. Thank you.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ThePostmaster 9 years ago
ThePostmaster
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Agent 9 years ago
Agent
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by orville 9 years ago
orville
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
orvillefigoitaliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03