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

Cigarettes should be banned in the US

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 68369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




first round acceptance


I accept your challenge, statist knave! En garde! :P
Debate Round No. 1


A government"s responsibility to their citizens is as follows. The / A government role is to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens, and make the best calls accordingly. They have an obligation to protect and take care of their citizens, even if that means making calls that are controversial in order to ensure that there is overall good accomplished [1] That is why considerations of gun ban, drug bans, or other type of bans having taking place in the past and will continue to take place in the future. If something is considered a net detriment it is often banned. That is why gun ban, drug bans, or other type of bans having taking place in the past and will continue to take place in the future. If something is considered a net detriment it is often banned.


Cigarettes have carry a net loss all around. Cigarettes can affect your heart, lungs, and arteries. Symptoms and diseases can include atherosclerosis, aneurysms, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, heart attacks, and high blood pressure and these are just some. [2] Tobacco alone causes over 5 million deaths yearly [3], and given the trends it is estimated that tobacco will increase up to nearly 8 million deaths by the year 2030. To put this in perspective tobacco causes nearly 10 x the amount of deaths that guns do yearly [4]This is a product that is without a doubt a net detriment to have. The only thing it does is affect one"s health, and cause negative impacts bu there are great issues other than self-harm as to why it should be banned.

Second hand effects)

These are people that get the effects of cigarettes without smoking them. This can be a person"s child's, friend, or family member. Basically when someone smokes a cig most of the smoke does not go into their lungs, but in the air where anyone can inhale. Smoking is banned in some public places but that does not even begin to fix the issue. This is especially true with children around their parents. Tobacco has more than 4,000 chemical compounds with around 250 or so being known to cause disease [5]Just in the US alone second hand smoke causes 34,000 deaths from heart attacks and 7,300 from lung cancer. This number goes over half a million when you look at it worldwide.[6]. Also 26 percent of adults in the US smoke cigs, and this number also increase worldwide. Whets worse is that 50 - 70 percent of children live under the roof of at least on adult smoker[7]. The negative impacts on children are astronomical. This is not even considering what happens when women smoke that pregnant. Basically a women intends to have a child and smokes during the pregnancy.

" Maternal, fetal, and placental blood flow change when pregnant women smoke, although the long-term health effects of these changes are not known. Some studies suggest that smoking during pregnancy causes birth defects such as cleft lip or palate. Smoking mothers produce less milk, and their babies have a lower birth weight. Maternal smoking also is associated with neonatal death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, the major cause of death in infants between one month and one year old." ( prior source)

It is also shown that women who smoke during pregnancy, put their child at a high risk to brain disease or other deformities. All around smoking is bad, and governments should uphold their obligation to protect their citizens and ban it. Smoking is a net loss when you are counting people"s lives.



Impact94 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


What we should note, is that any government has a right to protect it's citizens. From the massive effects of harm that cigarettes cause, to the horrible effects of second hand smoke which children cannot escape. I urge that we pass this ban. Vote pro


I apologize for the forfeit; I'm not sure how my opponent managed to write so much in his/her defense in a mere five minutes.

1. Smoking bans inhibit citizen freedom.

It's your choice to smoke, not the government's. Do you want your government to nanny your whole life? It's your body, so it should be your choice.

2. Smoking damage overblown.

Do your own research on sites like FORCES or Lauren Colby's In Defense of Smokers; smoking decreses breast cancer risk, promotes cognition, amongst other benefits.

3. Tobacco used for years as medicine.

It's been used for centuries as native american medicine, and no one's ever had a problem with it for hundreds of years?
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 442232 1 year ago
cigarettes are dumb. My granddad had three heart attackes from cigarettes, it is time for them to go
Posted by Impact94 1 year ago
@enternamehere yes, I sense foul play afoot.
Posted by jvenia 1 year ago
I'd still be happy to debate
Posted by enternamehere 1 year ago
He pasted it from another argument of his, I am pretty sure that he has debated this before...
Posted by jvenia 1 year ago
I'll debate this
Posted by Josh_debate 1 year ago
The governments job isn't to ensure the well being of its citizens, The governments only job, is to protect are rights.
Posted by Impact94 1 year ago
Pro used 609 words in round 2; divided by five in minutes, that would imply that pro is capable of a typing speed of 121.8 words per minute. The average typing speed is only 40 words per minute.
Posted by MettaWorldPeace 1 year ago
How DID you write so much in 5 minutes? I would have pointed out how you seemed to suggest that nonsmokers who lived with smokers were in more danger than the smokers themselves, which seems to be some sort of hyperbole.
Posted by Impact94 1 year ago
canceled? I was almost going to debate this
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TN05 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Because no burden of proof was given, Pro by default takes full BOP. The question now becomes whether or not Pro fulfilled his BOP. Ultimately, he did - Pro and Con both gave opening statements, essentially, and Pro's essentially established his far more than Con. In particular, Pro used internal citations while Con failed to back up any of his claims.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF. And a clear win for Pro. Pro has the BoP and she fulfils it. Con merely rebuts those points. Many points that Con did not really address whatever Pro brings up like the dangerous effects of smoking.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro, and con dropped pretty much all of pro's arguments. Con's arguments were not very convincing. Nice try though con. Better luck next time??