The Instigator
johnmind
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Ban smoking

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 386 times Debate No: 88571
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

johnmind

Pro

Smoking is injurious to health a common notion still which is not banned .just for a temporary pleasure one waste a big part of his life...however still many smoke. Its injurious not only to one who smokes but also others and its still not banned...I strongly support banning of smoking...
fire_wings

Con

Framework

I thank my opponent for his arguments. The debate is about Smoking Ban, I am Con. BoP is on Pro, he has the burden to prove of why we should ban smoking. I will make my 4 arguments, and one plan. My three arguments are the economy, liberty, and dependency, illegal tobacco, my plan will be called later. I will only have my arguments this round, because the structure only says construct and write your arguments.

What is tobacco?

I know that it was a rule of Pro's that I accept the definitions, however I know that most of our definitions will be similar.

Okay, what is tobacco?

Tobacco: a preparation of the nicotine-rich leaves of an American plant, which are cured by a process of drying and fermentation for smoking or chewing. [3]

Okay, so the main argue of this debate is if we should ban tobacco, which is a plant which is not healthy, and you smoke. I will be arguing we should have tobacco, when my opponent will argue we should ban tobacco.

Argument 1: Liberty

We have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others. This is what the harm principle states. It states that we can do anything unless it does not harm others. Pro might argue that smoking does harm others, but I will adress that so my opponent cannot say that in his counterplan later, that we can smoke designated areas. I will adress this later, and go to the actual argument.


We have moral reasons not to ban smoking. First, we have self-ownership, meaning that we have the right to do what we want. If we do not have self-ownership, which the Pro side must say, that is same that we can do nothing we want, then that is slavery. Slavery is banned, so not self-ownership should be banned.




Why should others care if we drink smoking? It is our own bodies, and we have the right to do anything with it.




This means that we have self-ownership and can do anything we want unless it does not harm others.

Argument 2: Economic Impact

A smoking ban causes economical impact. Think about how much money the government gets by smoking.

"Total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year [1]"

Yes, 300 billion dollars will be for smoking. Many people think that is a waste, but then government gets lots. However, if we ban smoking, then they won't earn these profits. Also, the tobacco workers will have no job, leading to the next argument, dependency.

Argument 3: Dependency

If smoking gets banned, then think about the people who have jobs related to smoking. There is about 800,000 people in a tobacco farm [2], so there will probably be like 10 million people. If we ban smoking, then what job to they have? They have no job. Then they will be dependent to the government, meaning that they need the government's support because they have no job.

Argument 4: Illegal Tobacco

Tobacco will just become an illegal drug like cocaine. Then a black market will form. Illegally, people will sell tobacco, for 3 times more, and also this strengthens the criminal networks. So if we ban tobacco, it will be bad, strengthens the criminal networks, you are illegally doing this, and also a black market will form.

Counterplan 1: Desingated Areas for Smoking

Pro might say that it does harm others, when we smoke, it causes pollution. This is one of my opponent's arguments, and for him to not say that I am wrong, I will make this counterplan which is Desingarted Areas for Smoking

Posted Image




Smoking Area



Posted Image



Smoking Area

Did you ever see these things in some places. I agree, there is not much. However, if we use my plan, and make more of these areas, it will be much better, no innocent people dying, and lots of people who like smoking to smoke. If it just takes a bit more space, we will have a good environment.

Conclusion

I will post my rebuttals in the next round. My arguments were that we have self-ownership, the economy gets a bad impact, people will be dependent to the government, tobacco will be an illegal drug, people will buy it illegally, and my counterplan that we need desingated places to smoke. For all these reasons, vote for Con.

Sources

http://www.cdc.gov...

http://www.morganmcmanussolicitors.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Thanks! Over to Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
johnmind

Pro

johnmind forfeited this round.
fire_wings

Con

I will go onto my rebuttals this round. Vote Con for the forfeit.

My opponent has run-on sentence making it hard to understand. Please give S&G to me. I will rebut his sentence as best as I can. My opponent says it is bad for health. So? It is their choice of smoking, no one forced them to do it.

He says it is injourous to others. This is rebutted in my counterplan.

Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 2
johnmind

Pro

johnmind forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 8 months ago
illegalcombat
johnmindfire_wingsTied
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: Lack of harm to others argument by Con goes unrefuted due to forfeits. Conduct to Con because of Pros forfeits.
Vote Placed by Leugen9001 8 months ago
Leugen9001
johnmindfire_wingsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Con. In round 1, Pro argued that smoking had to be banned because it harms the health of both smokers and non-smokers. This was later refuted by Con, who said that, while smokers do damage their bodies, they do so by choice, so they have the liberty to do so. Con also offered a counterplan that showed that the harm of smoking to non-smokers could be solved without banning smoking, since there could just be designated smoking areas instead. Con also made other arguments. Con's rebuttals to those of Pro and Con's constructive points were not refuted, thereby granting him the win. Conduct goes to Con because Pro forfeited all of his rounds. Spelling and grammar goes to Con because Pro improperly used punctuation (using ellipses, semicolons, etc) and frequently ommitted needed puntuation, making his round harder to read. Sources goes to Con because Con cited reliable sources like the CDC while Pro cited none.