The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Actionsspeak
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Challenge

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 3 votes the winner is...
Actionsspeak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,446 times Debate No: 53134
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Hello actionsspeak. I challenge you to a debate, inspired by http://www.debate.org..., and not wanting to challenge Defro. You may private message me possible topics (and my side) and I will choose one. Then you will post the topic in this round as response. After that, we will begin debating. If I win I go to Pewter city. If I lose, well, let's not be pessimistic.
Actionsspeak

Con

Topic: Smoking should be banned

I will take Con, to be fair since you have no opening argument I shall have none either so we shall begin in round two.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

Reasons why smoking should be banned.

1. It is the most deadly object in the world
Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year and is the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 393,000 deaths per year. That's a bigger number of deaths than those caused by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm-related incidents combined together!
Even if present rates of consumption steadily decline to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century. The cigarette is also a defective product, being incredibly addictive with its nicotine, and having approximately 600 ingredients that when burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals, and people who smoke are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke, even if they smoke only a few times per day. The cancers of the lung, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, stomach, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia are all possible outcomes of smoking. Smoking can also cause heart disease and stroke.

2. It affects other people
Cigarettes can contribute to second-hand smoking, which causes 50,000 deaths each year! Even if the smoker doesn't care about the chemicals in their body, other people care and still get innocently harmed! In the United States, two out of five adults who don't smoke and half of children are exposed to secondhand smoke, and about 3,000 people who never smoked die from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke every year. In addition, lung cancer is more likely to affect someone who has parents or siblings who smoke, as they are exposed to chemical that may cause this disease.

3. Even when not killing, it is harmful
Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and diminishes a person"s overall health. Millions of Americans have health problems caused by smoking. Women in peticular are greatly effected, as the have these possible effects when pregnant:
Preterm (early) delivery
Stillbirth (death of the baby before birth)
Low birth weight
Sudden infant death syndrome (known as SIDS or crib death)
Ectopic pregnancy
Orofacial clefts in infants
To stress this, the teeth is greatly affected as well, as the health of your teeth and gums are negatively impacted and can cause tooth loss.

4. It harms the economy
Cigarette use also results in financial losses from diminished labor productivity, and in many parts of the world makes the poor even poorer. (Because, you know, dead people can't work!) Futhermore, cigarette industry is a powerful corrupting force in human civilisation. Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring "distraction research". It has also corrupted popular media, as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes. Tobacco corrupts even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees.

In conclusion, smoking should be banned because of its negative effects. It doesn't have to be, but it should, throughout the world, so these negative effects are lessened. Even if we cannot stop people from smoking in private, we can stop it in major public areas where we can see them.
Onto you, con!

SOURCES
-http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com......
-http://www.lung.org......;
-http://www.cdc.gov......;
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......;
-http://www.cdc.gov......;
Actionsspeak

Con

Definitions: [1]

Ban: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done

Refutations and arguments:

Adressing your first point:

You said: "It is the most deadly object in the world."

This is incorrect, cigarettes are not even near the most deadly object in the world. The world's most deadly toxin is The botulinum toxin[2] [3], it's incredibly deadly, in fact injecting just 2 billionths of a gram, or inhaling 13 billionths of a gram, will kill an adult. In addition many drugs are deadlier, cigarettes aren't the most deadly simply because they cause the most deaths and they don't even belong in the top five of the most lethal drugs.[4] [5] [6]

You said: "Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year and is the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S."

The keyword is preventable, meaning the person could have prevented their death by not smoking. People have free-will and the capability of making their own decisions and if that wasn't enough people are now informed of the risks printed directly on cigarette packages[7] and taught in schools. If someone wishes to smoke then they should be allowed to, the government shouldn't dictate your life and punish you for making decisions that cause self-harm, taking away this basic right from a citizen would be no different than banning alcohol because it caused self-harm which failed miserably when the U.S. attempted to ban it, in fact it lead to increased crime, here are some statistics from albany.edu[8]:

- Police funding increased by $11.4 Million (This sounds low, but this is without factoring in inflation.)
- Arrests for Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct increased by 41%
- Arrests of Drunken Drivers increased by 81%
- Thefts and Burglaries increased by 9%
- Arrests for homocides, assaults, and battering increased by 13%
- The fedal convict total increased by 561%
- The federal prison population increased by 366%
- Total penal institution expenses increased by 1,000%

Prohibition was also expected to aid the economy but that theory proved false. [9]

Adressing your second point:

When people smoke in a private setting or in a designated smoking area (provided that these areas are located far enough away from doorways, windows and ventilation systems to prevent smoke from entering buildings and facilities.) it is completely safe and I believe limiting the area citizens are allowed to smoke is the best option available and would be a great compromise. [10]

Addressing your third point: As shown in my refutation in your first point, citizens have free-will and therefore the ability to decide whether or not to smoke. One can fully understand the risks which are now printed on cigarette cartons[7] and taught in schools.

Adressing your final point:

You claimed that tobacco industries have corrupted science, this is a false claim. Some buisnesses have however made possibly cherrypicked information public in order to distract the public view, however these releases of possibly cherrypicked information are no longer important as studies have been compiled and have shown their are risks to smoking, As I have stated earlier risks and now printed on cigarette cartons[7] and taught in public schools.

In conclusion the government should not ban cigarettes because of your claim that cigarettes kill people as the risks should instead be taught since humans have free-will, or because it harms those that don't smoke. The government should instead make laws and policies enforcing the use of designated smoking areas and make laws that work with non-smokers and smokers alike.

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.wnd.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://elitedaily.com...
[5] http://drbenkim.com...
[6] http://www.allvoices.com...
[7] https://www.tobaccofreekids.org...
[8] http://www.albany.edu...
[9] http://www.pbs.org...
[10] http://www.tcu360.com...
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

Before I rebut your arguments, I would like to make new ones first.

--We have already banned smoking in many states and areas, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org.... If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level and save everyone from high risk of getting cancer or some other disease.

--http://news.bbc.co.uk... says: "A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban.", and "Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital." As can be seen, banning of smoking truly has a positive affect.

--The government needs to keep its citizens healthy. If parents keep on dying off because of smoking, one, the children would be left orphaned, and the grand-parents would be really unhappy and complain, possibly starting a revolt against others, declaring that smoking should be banned.

--Yes, people can buy smoking from the black-market. However, the ban of smoking will ultimately cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking.
In conclusion smoking should be banned. Although it cannot be really firmly enforced, it would definitely have a positive effect on the health of the general population.

(If I repeated my original arguments, sorry, I'm a bit too tired to scan through my first round argument)

Now, onto the rebuttals!
"cigarette aren't the most deadly object in the world...don't even belong in the top five of the most lethal drugs." Well, your source [5] states "... alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous substances that you can expose yourself to on a regular basis. In terms of overall potential to cause harm, if used regularly, alcohol and tobacco belong in the same category as other recreational drugs like cocaine and heroin." This shows that cigarettes, if used wrongly, can belong to the top ten most dangerous drugs in the world, or one of the five most lethal drugs. And plus, some of those drugs you mentioned are banned, clearly showing that they have no effect, except in the black market. If you're limited to buying something, it can't be as dangerous as it could potentially be, has it not been banned. There's a reason why we don't see tons of people dying from cocaine and heroin. This shows the powerful effect of banning. If cigarettes were banned, we would be saved from its effects.
(However, I suggest that the ban be little by little, state by state, until it be country-wide, then eventually world-wide. This does not really matter in this debate, I am merely clarifying my opinion.)

Your argument concerning prohibition--this happened in 1920. More than 90 years have passed, you have to expect the police force being far more efficient! And plus, alcohol doesn't have a "second-hand" effect that cigarettes produce.

" limiting the area citizens are allowed to smoke is the best option available" That is exactly what I am trying to do here. Limiting the area citizens are allowed to smoke.

"One can fully understand the risks which are now printed on cigarette cartons and taught in schools." Yes, but teenagers can still persist on and wonder why cigarettes are so addictive and what nicotine tastes like, so they take one, then take two....and soon enough, they're a smoke addict. The banning of smoke saves the school from having to teach these negative affects to children, and prevents curious teenagers from even trying a single cigarette. Horah for less things to learn in the health unit of P.E.!
Yes, humans have free will, but can't we give some love and understanding, reaching a helping hand out? Let me give an example: sure, an animal who left their eggs alone in their nest did it by free will, and yes, they probably will get harmed or even killed if a snake or some other predator gets up there, but don't they deserve someone to help them?
In conclusion smoking should be banned and enforced as firmly as possible in order to decrease the number of people dying from lung cancer and all those other diseases.
Actionsspeak

Con

Actionsspeak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Why oh why did you have to forfeit?! Please PM me to tell me you're alright.
Well, voters, it looks like I'm packing up my stuff and on my way to Pewter City, where I will try to obtain my Trolling Badge by defeating Jonbonbon.
I extend all my arguments and encourage everyone to vote pro.
Actionsspeak

Con

It seems I have no choice but to move on from the forfeited round, and to close out strong.

A. Conduct

My opponented has concluded that he has already won this debate before I could even finish, rather yet any votes casted this is the wishful thinking policy. Instead of actually waiting for the debate to end and the voting period to pass he has declared himself the winner so that he may advance to the next round in Mikal's gym challenge, I would like the judges to note conduct from his actions.[1]

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.[2] [3]

I would also like to note Jifpop09 alone has won several debates where he forfeited a round, so it is indeed possible.[4] [5] [6] (In link 4, he forfeited round 2. In link 5, he forfeited round 3. In link 6, he forfeited round 2,)

I forfeited for the first time ever because I was painting with my mom and dad in the living room and the router had to be unplugged (and the furniture moved out of the living room) however I would rather not be upset at any votes so decide how you wish to handle conduct on your own disgretion.

B. Rebuttals

My opponent said:

"We have already banned smoking in many states and areas" and
"If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level"

Yes, it has been banned in some restraunts, bars, and non-hospitality workplaces which it what your source shows, however this is a great difference from the resolution which is: People should be forbid from smoking.

Ban: to forbid people from using (something)

Therefore if you read the resolution of the it debate becomes apparent you are pro that:

People should be forbid from smoking.

My opponent said:
"A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban."

Once again, this is not a full ban this is just removing smoking from public places which I even argued for last round. This is using the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy[7] [8] to aid your argument, removal from public places im not a complete ban but rather setting limitations.

Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy: is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[7] [8]

My opponent said:
"The government needs to keep its citizens healthy. If parents keep on dying off because of smoking, one, the children would be left orphaned, and the grand-parents would be really unhappy and complain, possibly starting a revolt against others, declaring that smoking should be banned."

At this point you've avoided the resolution ( People should be forbid from smoking.) and have committed the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy[7] [8] twice to aid your argument. However there is yet another fallacy you've presented to your argument shown above, the fallacy is slippery slope.

Slippery Slope: a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. [9] [10]

My opponent said:
"However, the ban of smoking will ultimately cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking."

This is just another slippery slope fallacy listed by my opponent in an effort to aid his argument, in fact based on prohibition statistics, banning cigarettes may increase their usage.

My opponent said:
"Yes, people can buy smoking from the black-market."

Either you should have listed the country you're speaking about or should have replaced can with could and explained a scenario in which they could be bought via the black market.

My opponent said:
"Your argument concerning prohibition--this happened in 1920. More than 90 years have passed, you have to expect the police force being far more efficient! And plus, alcohol doesn't have a "second-hand" effect that cigarettes produce. "

Yes police forces now go through more extensive training, however it is blissfully ignorant to presume criminals have not done the same. In fact many gangs have already infiltrated the police force and understand police methods. [11] [12]

My opponent has said:
"The banning of smoke saves the school from having to teach these negative affects to children, and prevents curious teenagers from even trying a single cigarette."

You have no proof to back this up, and even by your own confession cigarettes would still be accessible via black market. (note: cigarettes are already black market to teenagers, i'm assuming you're unaware of this.)

My opponent has said:
"In conclusion smoking should be banned and enforced as firmly as possible in order to decrease the number of people dying from lung cancer and all those other diseases."

Yes, but as I have mentioned earlier humans have free will, humans have thought processing and fully understand the cost-benefit analysis in which con's of smoking is produced on the package and heavily taught in schools. Your rebuttals that attempt to support your conclusion are weak and rather off-topic

my opponent has failed to prove that People should be forbid from smoking. His premise is cigarettes should be banned due to tobacco-related deaths, however people are capable of making of cost-benefit analysis this issue went unrefuted. In conclusion, instead of taking away rights in general from citizens, the government should reform the laws to make then work with the people instead of against them.

(Note: My opponent only rebuttal to people can make a cost benefit analysis is that some teenagers may make the analysis and favor smoking, however the teens who do this based on my opponent's unsourced-argument are the teens aren't considering cons in the cost-benefit analysis which is taught in schools and should be continued to be taught in schools.)

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] https://www.princeton.edu...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] https://www.princeton.edu...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] http://publicintelligence.net...
[12] http://articles.latimes.com...
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
*face pales*
Oh god no I'm losing
Well I was nowhere close to getting the troll badge anyways. :/
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
:/ ah well. Then vote on easier ones, such as these two: http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Those should be easy to judge in comparison to the troll debate.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
I would rather not, to avoid controversy however I have read it.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
even if I lose conduct and sources I can still tie with you....which unfortunately STILL means I can't win the troll badge and I am forced to challenge Defro.
In the mean time, vote on the troll badge debate!
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Excuse me, I actually have been aided by sources...
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
You'll probably win, I focused intensily on sources and that has been a voting non-factor at 2-2. My Arguments are being considered weak, since I never had to entexd upon them because I felt they were hardly refuted and instead intensily refuted your arguments, and conduct is a non-factor since you've had poor sportsmanship and I was unable to post a round. Spelling is typical, but could harm me since I entered alot in the final round and had a few mistakes.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
I know, I know. I admit I was a tad bit overconfident for betting my troll badge that I would win this debate. However--I am winning! We'll see the out come in 9 days. If I win, I have a chance at the troll badge. If not, then I don't get the troll badge. And I challenge Defro instead. But for now, we wait.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Please stop poking at me, i'm really not that hard to beat and I would prefer to not be considered "overrated" because i've never tried to build myself up in the first place.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
So you're already declaring victory?
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
see? I told you, no one who time-forfeits wins against me, not even you, the mighty action! You're coming really close tho!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Getting the others out of the way first: conduct is tied because of the forfeit and Pro's general demeanor following the debate. Sources go to Con, mainly because he kept ensuring that his arguments were well-supported, whereas Pro tried to coast on sources from R2. As for arguments, I'd say that Con's winning here, mainly because the BoP is on Pro to explain how this is going to benefit. I don't think that Con is mitigating his points out of existence with his arguments that current law prevents a lot of the harms, since those harms still exist. However, I did find the prohibition argument persuasive, albeit it was probably not linked as well as it should have been. Pro just doesn't give me the responses, so I remain uncertain as to whether the harms scenarios he provides would actually be solved for as a result of a ban and not made worse. My uncertainty leads me to vote Con because Pro is trying to institute something drastic, and he needs to have good support.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
9spacekingActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate. Good job to both sides. Overall I have to give arguments to Pro since he did a better job at proving why cigarettes SHOULD be banned and not MUST be banned. Con had 1 good argument which was free will. And pretty much resulted to refuting all of pros points throughout the debate. Pro made several strong points arguing that effects it has on society and non smoker. Since pro proved that smoking does not only self-harm, he successfully countered Con's main argument. Edit: I am adding Sources, Con provided more sources he cited over 20 credible sources while Spaceking only around 5 credible websites. I have also decided to give conduct to Con. Since spaceking has bee boasting about winning this debate despite it still being in the voting phase. Con apologized for his absent and handled it much more maturely than spaceking.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
9spacekingActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Ah, back to the complex 7-point system. First, conduct. Conduct automatically goes to pro because con forfeited. Con seemed to have rushed the last round, making multiple S&G errors in the porches, but he did enough in former rounds to secure a tie on spelling and grammar. Arguments were very hard to approach, as both sides used rather short rebuttals on assumptions. However, pro did bring up the amount of lives that smoking takes away. Con's "free will" argument does not to enough to refute this, as without life, there is no free will at all. Pro pointed out that cigarettes were dangerous, they take away lives, and it would be overall better to just get rid of them. Sources go to con as he/she used them in a much more organized manner, and they were far more reliable than the side of pros. In the end, this debate could've used some new arguments (for pro: litter, etc.) for con (it would be impossible to uphold, etc.) Good job to both debaters!