The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Are electronic cigarettes good for you?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 737 times Debate No: 88729
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Electronic cigarettes are better for you due to non smoke bacteria that can affect the environment around and there are less chemicals in it than a normal cigarette.


While e-cigs are better than regular cigarettes, that doesn't mean that they are GOOD for you. Due to the unregulated nature of e-cigs, a lot of times they contain substances that are far from good for you, such as formaldehyde [1]. Formaldehyde has the potential to cause cancer, which is NOT a positive health effect. In addition, they still contain nicotine, and it may be possible to be poisoned from these e-cigs [same source as before]. In short, while e-cigs are more healthy to a degree than conventional cigarettes, due to their unregulation and possible substances held within it, they are not "good" for you.

Debate Round No. 1


Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed commodity in the U.S. The federal excise tax is $1.01 a pack and the national average state excise tax is about $1.36 per pack, for a total of $2.37 per pack. Some cities and states impose far higher taxes. Such high and discriminatory taxes on smokers are unfair.Finally, excise taxes require regular rate increases to keep pace with inflation, whereas income, sales, and property taxes all rise with inflation or economic growth. Because of their narrow bases, excise taxes are unstable revenue generators.


Firstly, I'd like to point out my opponent's entire argument is from this source:

Secondly, he has failed to rebut my points and his points are not of relevance to the topic. Thus, I ask for a vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 2


RafaelG forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Leugen9001 2 years ago
@Vaarka, Google Images says it's a cropped version of this:
Posted by Vaarka 2 years ago
Just to derail the comments (because nothing is here), Valkrin, who's your avatar?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 2 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro forfeited the last round and plagiarized. Arguments also goes to Con. In round 1, Pro argued that electronic cigarettes are better than conventional cigarettes; this argument was refuted when Con correctly pointed out that it was irrelevant. Con said that the superiority of E-cigs to normal cigarettes does not mean they are good for you--it just means they are less bad. Con also cited reasons why E-cigs can be bad to health, creating a strong constructive case. Pro failed to back up their case or refute Con's case further in the next round, where he copy-pasted a passage that dealt with the economic effects of taxation on smokers and had nothing to do with E-cigs. Pro failed to prove his case while Con made valid constructive points and showed why Pro's arguments were irrelevant.