The Instigator
HeWhoKnowsAll
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Darface
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
HeWhoKnowsAll
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 27890
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

HeWhoKnowsAll

Pro

The government should allow the American people the right to decide what they eat, drink, smoke and wear. American people should have the right to put a cross in their yard, the star of David, crescent moon, statue of Buddha, statue of Darwin or whatever they want as long as it is not pornography or violent. The statue of Venus or statue of Apollo is not porn it is nudity and art. Violent would be something depicting murder, rape or torture.

Too many of our freedoms have been trampled by the past 2 administrations and it is time the American people had a voice again.

I don't believe people should lose insurance for pre-existing conditions but if you are over 100 pounds overweight and are extremely unhealthy then health care should not be available. But if If I want to drink 100 0z of coke at a time and stuff my face with greasy bacon burgers and fries, I should have that right and realize that I would not have insurance and die. If I decide to live longer and have insurance than I will limit my intake of things bad for my health. It should be MY choice!
Darface

Con

America has been know as the Christian country, yes, also america is known as the land of the free. but our founding fathers built america were firm believers in god. smoking is bad for ones health, that is why they are called death sticks.
Debate Round No. 1
HeWhoKnowsAll

Pro

America was settled by people professing to believe in protestant Christianity. There were some Catholics and Jews. Most of our forefathers were masons who are rooted in Jewish illuminati, they saw the evils of Europe and how the Catholic church ran the Holy Roman Empire and how Henry VIII made his own church (the church of England) because he wanted to be able to divorce and remarry. The forefathers wanted to grant everyone freedom; men, women, blacks, Indians... everyone. They had a lot of resistance from others and although Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were way more merciful towards their slaves they still owned some. They knew that there had to be a separation of church and state but they compromised on more than they wanted.
It is not our government's or religion's right to decide what to do with our bodies. Smoking IS bad for you but the chemicals that our government has allowed to be put in cigarettes is hundreds of times worse. If the government wants to regulate something let they say only tobacco and natural flavors can be used in smoking materials (pipe tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and chewing tobacco). They forced way too many other unhealthy things on the American people including; pasteurized milk, pasteurized eggs, NPK fertilizer for farms, allowing cows and pigs to be fed corn and allowing genetically altered food to be grown, just to name a few.
If a woman can decide to kill a fetus body inside her, why can we not choose to slowly kill ourselves?
Darface

Con

The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), those who identify themselves as Catholics make up about 25% of the adult population, while "other Christians" account for another 51%. The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to another survey, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.
Debate Round No. 2
HeWhoKnowsAll

Pro

Why are you getting off track and onto religion. The topic is Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke. The government should not be regulating or desires or habits as long as it doesn't hurt others. Instead of banning smoking in restaurants so people smoke outside and pollute the air, why not demand if you are going to have a smoking facility you must provide separate rooms and an air scrubber system that would remove the harmful chemicals from the air? Businesses should have a certain amount of regulation, my position is don't trample on the individual rights.
You claim 73% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. That is great but if we didn't have the right of freedom of religion how do you think the other 27% would feel?
That is why I state and affirm Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke
Darface

Con

with in 30 years, 3083 men (53.4%) died. Compared with never smokers who did not drink, men who both smoked and drank 15+ units/week had the highest all-cause mortality (relative rate = 2.71 (95% confidence interval 2.31-3.19)). Relative rates for CHD mortality were high for current smokers, with a possible protective effect of some alcohol consumption in never smokers. Stroke mortality increased with both smoking and alcohol consumption. Smoking affected respiratory mortality with little effect of alcohol. Adjusting for a wide range of confounders attenuated the relative rates but the effects of alcohol and smoking still remained. Premature mortality was particularly high in smokers who drank 15 or more units, with a quarter of the men not surviving to age 65. 30% of men with manual occupations both smoked and drank 15+ units/week compared with only 13% with non-manual ones.
Smoking and drinking 15+ units/week was the riskiest behaviour for all causes of death.
Debate Round No. 3
HeWhoKnowsAll

Pro

Now you are off on another subject. The title is Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke. What part of that do you not comprehend??? I never said it was healthy and as I said in the first round I don't think others should be responsible for our poor health choices. If I want to kill myself with poor choices that is my right. My eating BBQ ribs everyday does not effect the rest of the world! Bill Clinton had two stents inserted into one of his coronary arteries in February of 2010 because he loves ribs and that was on taxpayer dollars. Who complained about that?
GOD gave us freedom of choice. Is the American government above GOD? How do they have the right to decide things for us???
Darface

Con

It"s been said that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. For politicians, bureaucrats, and many activists, when the only tool they have is coercion, the cause of every problem looks like too much freedom.
Make no mistake: if you are committed to accomplishing your social goals by using government power, then by definition your only tool is the hammer of coercion. An observation often attributed to George Washington has it that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force." And when people choose to use government to accomplish their goals, they are choosing to use force, not reason and certainly not eloquence.
True to form, governments at all levels have affirmed Washington"s reputed observation. But I think state and local governments are the biggest culprits. Issues like eminent domain and gun control, where constitutional issues arise, tend to get widespread publicity and public scrutiny, but routine tyranny occurs with respect to day-to-day issues that are often considered legitimate local-government functions.
If a local grocery store"s produce department runs out of oranges or its deli has a shortage of roast beef, it doesn"t blame its customers for having too much freedom to purchase fruit and meat. It simply finds a way to accommodate that freedom and meet the demand. That"s not how governments respond.
The People Are Nails
Typical is Raleigh, North Carolina"s approach to solving its drought and water-shortage problems. The city for much of the past year has been running short of water, one of only a handful of goods it is charged with supplying. Its response has been to blame people for having too much freedom, including the freedoms to water their lawns, wash their cars, power-wash their homes, and most recently, to enjoy the conveniences of a garbage disposal. In the name of solving its water shortage, Raleigh has passed an ordinance banning the installation or replacement of all garbage disposals. Instead of city politicians" asking themselves, "How can we accommodate our citizens" free choices?," as the grocery store would, they immediately blame the problem on those freedoms. This is their nail, and their solution is the hammer of force.
Here"s another example. For years, city and regional transportation planners have faced traffic congestion in larger cities and medium-size communities around the country. Traffic congestion is much like a water shortage"it is a shortage of road space. Governments have massively failed to adequately accommodate people"s free choices regarding their transportation needs. And as with the water shortage, politicians think the traffic problem is caused by too much freedom, specifically, too much freedom in the use of cars.
Many states, instead of better managing the supply of roads, have adopted an approach euphemistically known as transportation-demand management (TDM). As the Nevada Department of Transportation describes it, TDM "is a general term for actions that encourage a decrease in the demand for the existing transportation system." And as noted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, "[M]ost TDM strategies deal with the modification of travel behaviors."
Ultimately, TDM is a collection of policies meant to force people out of their cars, either directly or through artificial incentives, and onto public transportation. But this is only feasible when people live in high-density communities. So not only does their freedom to make transportation decisions need to be "modified," but so does their freedom to choose living arrangements. Along with transportation-demand management comes "housing demand management" and "land-use demand management." To accommodate public-transportation systems and to discourage driving, TDM typically includes new zoning laws intended to cram people into areas with dozens of housing units per acre. Transportation planners have taken it on themselves to substitute congested living arrangements for congestion on the roads.
According to transportation planners in North Carolina the "vision [of TDM] extends far beyond public transportation. It embraces notions of how we want to live in the 21st Century and what we want our neighborhoods and communities to become."
It is quite clear that the "we" being referred to is not individual citizens and families. It is instead the paternalistic "we" of bureaucrats and government planners.
Environmental Regulation Is the New Hammer
Probably the most pernicious example of government-as-force-not-reason is the approach now being taken by many state governments ostensibly to fight global warming. While the federal government is looking at broad-brush policies such as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, state-level policies are much more aggressive in using global warming as an excuse to micromanage people"s choices. More than 25 states have hired an advocacy group, the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), that poses as an objective consultant to help devise policies that would force people to modify their behavior in order to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. CCS can charge bargain-basement consulting fees to the states because it is subsidized by a host of statist left foundations, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Heinz Endowments, Turner Foundation, and Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. (See the critical website www.climatestrategieswatch.com.)
While there are competing theories regarding the causes of global warming (for example, see research by Duke physicists Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West on the influence of the sun on climate change at http://tinyurl.com...), in hiring CCS, the states agree not to discuss these alternative theories when formulating policy. In fact, they must agree that the science is settled with regard to human-generated greenhouse gases.
This is ominous to those concerned about freedom because other theories, such as those related to natural climate variation, would not imply the need for coercive restrictions on people"s lifestyle choices. In other words, the only theory of global warming that these states are considering is the one that has freedom as the culprit. It is important to note that everything humans do, including breathing, emits carbon dioxide. The implication then is that all production and consumption activities are up for scrutiny and possible coercive control. The proposals CCS suggests to every state are generally the same. They include restrictions on the kinds of cars people can drive, fuels they can use to heat and light their homes, and auto insurance and appliances they are allowed to buy. The size of the lots they can build houses on and the size of those houses are also subject to the proposed restrictions.
The actual goals of such proposals are questionable. Indisputably, these restrictions will not reduce global temperatures, even if the whole world adopted them"and state officials and their CCS consultants know it. This implies that these proposals are not really about global warming, but are instead exercises in what could be called "lifestyle imperialism." Like laws against homosexuality or gambling, they are in fact an attempt to legislate morality.
Given the principles behind the founding of the United States, policymakers need to view individual freedom as a moral imperative. They should realize that it is not the role of government to solve all conceivable problems but to protect liberty. To the extent that government takes on a problem-solving role, the question decision-makers should continually ask themselves is: "How can we achieve our objective without limiting people"s freedom to live as they see fit?" Unfortunately, many, if not most, bureaucrats and policymakers seem more interested in asking which freedoms they can get away with limiting.
Debate Round No. 4
HeWhoKnowsAll

Pro

I was a little shocked that instead of denying Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke that your post actually affirms what I have been saying! Government over steps it's bounds way too often. This is supposed to be a country "for the people, by the people." I didn't vote for a ban on soda, less calories in schools or obamacare. I do believe there should be no junk food in schools but if a kid brings their own then let him/her enjoy it. As I noted in the comment section, there are students feeling like they are starving by the end of school and definitely by the end of after school activities. The school lunch program was to ensure ALL students receive some sort of sustenance and nutrition, not pay 25 cents more for less food!!! Thanks michelle!
I believe the actual quote was "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like it requires a nail" I am not positive but it is a little easier to understand that way. I have worked on so many machines that I have no favorite tool.
NDOT's TDM is a bunch of fools. They do not know how to build roads properly, how to have safe and effective egress and their lack of knowledge of how to synchronize traffic light is troubling. The biggest problem with the Las Vegas road system is that too many los angeles engineers moved here and they had warped conceptions on how to handle traffic. They think having to stop at every light prevents speeding but everyone here races to beat the light!?!?!
I don't even want to get started on "global warming" and "climate change". It is a lie designed to create more money for the government in taxes and carbon credits PERIOD! Look at Italian/Roman art over the last 2000 years. From the 150 BC to 300 AD they were shown is summer type clothing. From 300 AD to 900 AD they are shown in longer togas and layered clothing. Again from 900 to 1200 hundred the clothing was lighter and shorter. From 1250 to 1400 the clothing was again longer and layered. This was the time of REAL climate change, they had very many floods and droughts. By the mid 1400's clothing became very heavy and rarely recorded weather of the time period, up to the mid 1800's, was almost never over 65 degrees Fahrenheit. In the late 1800's there were temperatures in the 90's and on occasion 100's in the summer. In the 1950's it cooled again and in 1988 a warming trend started. Times change and all things with it. The earth has warmed and cooled for a million years and will do so for about another million. The above dates are approximate and the clothing is not just fashion it shows the climate of the time. If you wish to view a 2,000 year old tree ring that shows the change in temperatures of Northern Europe go here http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
As far as homosexuals and gambling I think that is individual right. I don't like anything gay around me but if a flamer comes in and sits next to me at the bar it is his/her right as long as they don't harass me. If someone wants to risk all their money I think it is their right but so that person's rights don't trample other's rights, they should HAVE to be logged in. If you lose everything from gambling and file bankruptcy or try to get welfare you should be denied. You have the right to bankruptcy if your business can no longer compete and welfare if you are down by no fault of your own but when it is out of your own ignorance the American people should not have to bail you out. I would expect a church or charity to help though. That is the great thing about Americans, when left to there own accord they always come through for their neighbors.
Darface

Con

According to Wikipedia, freedom may refer to Freewill, Political freedom and
Economical freedom. But my core of discussion is about freedom, which covers free will to make choices with accountability of action.

Our young generations talk about freedom frequently, where they discuss about their rights of raising issues, expressing feelings, rights of performing things and last but not the least freedom to have privacy. But we should never forget that we are also accountable for the things we perform. Each action we do give impact on life's of others associated with us. After all we cannot live alone in this society where we have to meet people daily in order to meet our daily need of life's.

We must admit that freedom and abusing freedom is two different terminology where giving people right to talk about any person's life is not actually a right to talk any vulgarity about him. Similarly it doesn't even mean that if we have got a chance to comment on some one's nature, we shall highlight his negative aspect of his nature.

We have also observe people claiming to have privacy in their life's, which is on my part is justifying if we are really having privacy for things which is for the development of our soul, health and wisdom. Every person should have his private time to give himself for his inner satisfaction, but that doesn't mean that that time is utilized to gain satisfaction from immorality,
such act, count as "Abusing Freedom".

A child must have a freedom to get education, to choose his friends and play with them. but it does not mean that he becomes ignorant for his secular needs he has to fulfill in this age which can bring him up to become good civilized citizen for his community and country.

A teenage should also have freedom to choose his career and should have freedom to choose his friend circle with whom he can go out but that does not mean that he also starts neglecting his parents advice, suggestions which can help him to choose right career path with good company of friend circles that also groom his personality.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
To The_Master_Riddler

Tell that to the people in NYC who can no longer buy a soft drink over 16 oz. Tell it to the numerous school districts who are dictating what children can and can not eat even when brought from home! Tell it to the people of Las Vegas who have been smoking in casinos for 100+ years. It is the ignorant los angeles transplants that came to Vegas for lower priced homes that drove up the housing market which crashed and then said, "I don't want my children breathing smoke when we eat at a bar" !?!?!? Then go to Denny's or IHOP!!!!!! I am a non smoker but I have been going to bars for 34 years and I expect to deal with smoke. No azul we DO NOT have these rights anymore!!!!
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
I am not going to vote because of my one true, personal, belief on this topic: I believe WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE SAME FREAKIN RIGHTS.
Posted by Darface 4 years ago
Darface
vote please
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
Despite the fact that the new regulations have increased the cost of a lunch 20 to 25 cents per plate, it"s not pleasing students.

Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market " for chocolate syrup. The kiddie capitalists are smuggling in bottles of it and selling it by the squeeze, according to SouthCoastToday.com.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
Mr. Bloomberg is known for introducing ambitious " and, some say, overreaching " public health policies, like bans on smoking in bars and city parks and the posting of calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants. The New York City Board of Health on Thursday approved a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, street carts and movie theaters, the first restriction of its kind in the country.
Flamin' Hot Cheetos are a wildly popular snack that literally leaves its indulgers red-handed.
And now several schools in California, New Mexico and Illinois have banned the high-fat, high-salt and possibly addictive treat.
Some schools in Pasadena, Calif. have even said that if a parent packs the snack in their child's lunch, the spicy Cheetos will still be confiscated, KTLA reports.
In Massachusetts, a state law that becomes effective in August will limit access to junk food (including bake sale treats) at schools from a half-hour before the school day until a half-hour after it ends, according to local news reports this week.
"New lunch guidelines passed in 2010 as part of Michelle Obama"s health initiative (the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) limit the amount of calories school lunches can provide.
"The number, 850, is forcing many to go hungry, as the restrictions don"t account for active vs. inactive students or boys vs. girls.
"One group of teens (with the help of teachers) in Kansas created a video mocking the restrictions called "We Are Hungry" and it"s gone viral.
In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama.
Despite the fact that the new regulations have increased the cost of a lunch 20 to 25 cents per plate, it"s not pleasing students.
Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, M
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.
By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.
These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
Although this is slightly out of the scope of the heading, this is what the new government thinks about our rights as American citizens.
The ACLU notes:
Don"t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
Tell that to the people in NYC who can no longer buy a soft drink over 16 oz. Tell it to the numerous school districts who are dictating what children can and can not eat even when brought from home! Tell it to the people of Las Vegas who have been smoking in casinos for 100+ years. It is the ignorant los angeles transplants that came to Vegas for lower priced homes that drove up the housing market which crashed and then said, "I don't want my children breathing smoke when we eat at a bar" !?!?!? Then go to Denny's or IHOP!!!!!! I am a non smoker but I have been going to bars for 34 years and I expect to deal with smoke. No azul we DO NOT have these rights anymore!!!!
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
This is a gay topic WE ALREADY HAVE THIS RIGHT
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
HeWhoKnowsAllDarfaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the weirdest freaking argument I've ever seen. I don't know what Con was trying to say.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
HeWhoKnowsAllDarfaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The only time con's arguments were relevant were when he was unwittingly arguing for Pro's side. Plus, he made new arguments in the last round, so conduct to pro.