The Instigator
aw0019
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hamo94
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Are electronic cigarettes better for you?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
hamo94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,013 times Debate No: 62363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

aw0019

Con

No, electronic cigarettes are worse for you because people can choose how much nicotine to put in their dose. People will end up killing themselves faster because of their doses. When using an e-cigarette, people will become addicted just like using a real cigarette. When they stop using the e-cigarette, they will suffer the same withdrawals as if using the regular cigarettes. Also, no one knows if the e-cigarettes produce the same second-hand smoke as regular cigarettes. If you want to stop smoking, don't go to e-cigarettes.
hamo94

Pro

Okay, so basically we are debating under the assumption that the smoker is not going to quit smoking in any case, because obviously quitting smoking is the most optimal course of action for the smoker's health benefits.

To start off, Con rigged the debate by setting the character limit to 750, so i'll be short and concise.

-4000 chemicals in normal cigarettes, less than 10 in 'e-cigs' or vapor.
http://www.tricountycessation.org...

-sure you can choose how much nicotine you want, but you CAN ALSO do that with normal cigarettes

-e-cigs will benefit your family and friends (less passive harm)
http://www.quitsa.org.au...
^proven safer
Debate Round No. 1
aw0019

Con

You are right about the chemicals, but nicotine in itself is dangerous and highly addictive. When using e-cigarettes, you may be using more nicotine than what you know. Also they contain diethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze that"s toxic to humans and is banned in food and drugs. There were also levels of a known carcinogen called nitrosamine and other toxic chemicals that humans could inhale. http://www.medicaldiscoverynews.com...
Also, the e-cigarette's idea was to help cigarette users to stop smoking, but what if it is inspiring other teens to start? Therefor e-cigarettes are a high risk to our youth. They come in all shapes and colors as well to draw people in.
hamo94

Pro

con- nicotine is dangerous

Yes. It is. It's dangerous. However, con has not specified why it is more dangerous to use e-cigarettes than cigarettes.

con- inspires other teens to start

Irrelevant. This is about the individual, not about whether it affects others. Disproved.

con- All shapes and colours to draw people in

Again. Irrelevant. It's about the individual who already smokes and whether it's detrimental to their health.

con- using more nicotine than you know

More the fault of the user than the fault of e-cigarettes as a whole. That's the individual neglecting to read or investigate how much nicotine they're putting in their bodies. Same as normal cigarettes (you need to read the label to gauge nicotine levels.)

Word limit :(
Debate Round No. 2
aw0019

Con

Cons

There are no reasons on why its is more dangerous, but that is it better to use regular cigarettes rather than e-cigarettes.
It gives people a reason to keep on smoking because it draws them in. The different vibrant colors are telling them that you can now smoke with an assortment of colors. They also make them with flavors which gives people more reason to keep on smoking.
hamo94

Pro

The flavour incentive has already been addressed by govts
-http://www.edmontonsun.com...

Con has not still not addressed why regular cigarettes (with 1000s of additives) is healthier than e-cigarettes apart from potentially increased nicotine (which is also adjustable with regular cigarettes).

Govts realise when extra additives is too much and they will act accordingly, so the flavoured e-cigarettes will be pulled off the shelves.

-so in the end, e-cigarettes are just another form of cigarettes, minus the extra additives.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by heyfur_1213 2 years ago
heyfur_1213
It's not better for you, it's just less worse.
Posted by Adam_G 2 years ago
Adam_G
As far as I know, it's not the nicotine that is bad for you but rather inhaling the smoke from something burning which causes tar build-up in the lungs coupled with the risk of cancer from harsh chemicals in cigarettes and cigars, etc
Posted by aw0019 2 years ago
aw0019
this is my first debate on this so... sorry about the numbers...
Posted by hamo94 2 years ago
hamo94
Con is actually such a scam, limits character limit to 750, how am I meant to post anything of significance.

Oh well, take it in for next time to read character limits =.=
Posted by hamo94 2 years ago
hamo94
Looks like I beat you by a minute :P
Posted by sherlockholmesfan2798 2 years ago
sherlockholmesfan2798
This look like a really interesting debate. I am saddened to see that I could not take part in this but as I can do nothing about that I wish you both good luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
aw0019hamo94Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro showed ways where e-cig's were better, especially within their chemical amounts as well as the less passive harm. Good debate to pro, stressing on the difficulties from the character limit
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
aw0019hamo94Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A short debate, but one in which Con had mostly unsupported supposition. Pro showed that the two were nearly equivalent, and gives at least 1 reason (fewer additives) why it's comparatively better for you. I'm sure working in the limits was a challenge, but both sides did pretty good considering. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.