The Instigator
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro (for)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Cigarettes should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 11 votes the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,847 times Debate No: 67907
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (57)
Votes (11)

 

Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

They are bad
Zarroette

Con

I accept.

Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, as he/she is the one affirming the resolution. However, I still reserve the right to make positive arguments of my own.

I await Pro's opening round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

A governments responsibility to their citizens. The / A government role is to ensure the well being of it's citizens, and make the best calls regarding their welfare. 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 ( http://scholarship.law.duke.edu... ). 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.


Cigs)

Cigarettes have carry a net loss all around. Cigarettes can effect 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. ( http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... ). Tobacco alone causes over 5 million deaths yearly ( http://www.cdc.gov... ) , 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 ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). This is a product that is without a doubt a net detriment to have. The only thing it does is affect ones 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 persons 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 ( http://www.webmd.com... ). 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 world wide. ( http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com...) . Also 26 percent of adults in the US smoke cigs, and this number also increases world wide. Whats worse is that 50 - 70 percent of children live under the roof of at least on adult smoker ( http://www.entnet.org... ) . 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 peoples lives.
Zarroette

Con

Negative Case


A1: Tax revenue, generated from cigarette sales, is huge

This should give you an idea of how much the U.S.A relies on cigarette taxation for the government. In 2011, ~17 billion dollars in taxation revenue was generated from tobacco sales [11]. Obviously, this is a noticeable amount of money, and to lose this will mean that taxation will be required from elsewhere.


A2: It would badly hurt business and an economy


During 2008, since the UK implemented a smoking ban solely in bars, business revenue has declined 15%. 10% of bars now operate at a loss, and 60% of businesses were forced to lay off employees, just to stay in business [2].


To make smoking illegal, would wipe a huge amount of the U.S.A’s economy, which is obviously not an economically sound idea. “In 2010, the combined profits of the six leading tobacco companies was U.S. $35.1 billion, equal to the combined profits of Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and McDonald’s in the same year” [3]. Think about the job loss and the missing tax revenue.



A3: Harmful things are often also beneficial

In 2010, there were “an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000” [8] from road accidents in the U.S.A. Due to being harmful, should cars be banned?


Sport can be harmful and an unnecessary risk. In things like jogging, exercise could easily be found outside harmful activities like rugby. “From 2002-2003, 870 people were admitted to ACT hospitals for sports and recreational injuries. From 2002-2003, the ACT had the highest hospitalisation rate per 100,000 population for combative sports with 3.7 compared with the 2.7 for Australia as a whole. One million sports injuries occur each year, which suggests one in 17 Australians, suffer an injury. The annual cost of sports injuries in Australia is an estimated $1.65 billion.” [4].


Clearly, a lot of sport are harmful yet people are still allowed to do this! Why is that?


Liberty.


Smoking serves a different kind of purpose, one in which the Founding Fathers built America upon: the right to personal autonomy. As John Stuart Mill, in his On Liberty work states: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” [5].


Smoking is a choice, and with the help of school-based smoking awareness programs, which give children access to real information about tobacco usage, the choice can be informed [6].



A4: Drug Cartels and the Black Market

Historically, prohibition has been disastrous. During the 1920s and early 30s, prohibition in America merely lead to the establishment of crime rackets dealing in contraband [7].


Despite marijuana being illegal in the U.S.A, “over 102 million Americans (41 percent of the U.S. population) have used it during their lifetimes, 26 million (10 percent) having used it in the past year, and over 15 million (6 percent) have admitted that they use it regularly” [9]. Making a popular drug illegal, has shown to have very little effect on people’s choices, at least in this regard. What’s worse is that locking-up marijuana uses costs the U.S.A over 1 billion dollars a year! [12]


So how are people getting these illegal goods? The Mexican drug cartels, which supply a lot of drugs to the U.S.A, has resulted in the deaths of over 60,000 people in violent drug-gang related incidences. Mexico is already the main supplier of marijuana to the U.S.A. Almost 70% of recovered guns relayed to Mexican crime, from 2007 to 2011, were sold in the U.S.A [10].



References

I tried for 40 minutes to get the references formatted correctly, but they still did not work. If the references had have formatted correctly with the dots (like my opponent's did e.g: en.wikipedia...), I would have been under the character limit. I am really sorry that this technical issue has caused me to reference this way.


Debate Round No. 2
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Rebuttal 1 ) Taxation

Just to make cons case clear, she is arguing if something is bad it's fine as long as you make enough money from it. She is also arguing that nearly a combined total of half a million deaths deaths in the US is a non factor because of revenue purposes[1]. That logic is poor, because it condones for anything and every to be legal as long as you can make money from it. This is not just limited to the scope of the US though. She is actually stating that a total of 6 million deaths world wide is not a factor because cigarettes make a good deal of money[2]. I would think that the impacts of 6 million lives are a much greater impact than costs. New York has 8 million people in it, she is basically affirming that it is acceptable if half of New York was wiped out in order to make 30 billion dollars, and that we should not stop it. The entire call of duty franchise made around 30 billion dollars. I think if you asked someone if they would stop production of a game in order to save 6 million lives the answer would be yes. Lives are always a greater impact than costs

Rebuttal 2 ) Economy

The US generates around 31- 35 billion from tobacco products yearly[3]. The Us alone generates 3 trillion dollars in revenue yearly [4]. To put this in perspective, tobacco is less than 1 percent of the annual revenue from the US. If you compared global profits of tobacco to global revenue, tobacco is only .10 percent of the revenue. It would have a negative impact to begin with, but it's not one that would sink the US. The US and other countries have an obligation to protect their citizens. Reducing the amount of deaths by nearly 6 million far outweigh cost factors.

Rebuttal 3) Harmful Things

Their is a fundamental difference between using a product for what it's intended to be used for, and having an accident. Car's are not made with the knowledge they are knowingly going to kill (x) amount of people. Car's can malfunction and people can make mistakes while driving. Meaning when you are making cars, the intent is entirely different.You are making cars because they allow us to travel. Cigs are being made with full knowledge of what is in them. As I stated in my last round there are 4,00 chemical compounds in cigarettes with over 250 of those being known to cause disease. Second hand smoke alone is nearly half a million lives that are lost yearly. Comparing it to other thing's that *can* cause harm, when cigarettes de facto are *proven* to cause harm are two different things. Cigs are made with the purpose to generate money and kill people, cars are not.

Rebuttal 4 ) Black Market

Con makes an argument that people can still get the goods if they are banned. This issue is easily countered by mitigating the lives lost. Sure if you ban it, not all cigs would be stopped. People will still get them through illegal means, but if you ban them it's safe to assume you can reduce the death count from possibly 8 million to 1 million, or half a million in the us to 100,00 thousand. Banning things always results in the product being harder to get. Take gun bans for example. They reduce the amount of guns in circulation, while reducing homicides. Gun bans actually reduce deaths, the issue is mitigation with them because the number of lives are minimal. If you applied the same principal to bans that you see with guns, you will clearly see that you can reduce the amount of deaths while making cigarettes harder to get.[5]


C)

Governments have an obligation to protect their citizens. A ban on Cigs would accomplish that for the aforementioned reasons. It would reduce the drastic amount of lives lost, which far outweighs any cost argument that con has brought up.



[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...

Zarroette

Con

Counter-arguments


“The / A government role is to ensure the well being of it's citizens, and make the best calls regarding their welfare.”

This is a faulty premise. As shown in my appeal to liberty argument, people have the natural right to make dangerous choices. It can be argued that unless people are hurting others (arguably second hand smoke, but that is not every case) then their rights should not be infringed upon.


Cigs)


Again, people have the right to make dangerous choices (heading: A3). The argument made there has largely been dropped, too. Some people also take a lot of enjoyment out of smoking.


“Tobacco alone causes over 5 million deaths yearly…”

My opponent has quoted a worldwide statistic. This exaggerates the claim. For example, in Australia 1 million occur each year. Australia’s population is ~23 million. If the world population is 7 billion, then it can be assumed that 304 million people are injured via sport.


Second hand effects)


Parents should not smoke around their children. There is no argument here that necessitates the banning of cigarettes. Just like it should be illegal to give children alcohol, it should be illegal to smoke near children.


Just in the US alone second hand smoke causes 34,000 deaths from heart attacks and 7,300 from lung cancer.”

People can always move away from the smokers. If they cannot, there are usually laws in place that create a smoke-free zone (such as certain pubs or university campuses). If people want to hang around the smoke and be negatively affected, then that is their choice.



Re-Rebuttals


A1

I am dropping this argument to focus on the ones which won me the debate.


A2

Again, dropping.


A3

My opponent completely ignores the latter of my argument. The appeals to liberty and the comparison to sport are therefore dropped and are enough for me to win the debate.



“Their is a fundamental difference between using a product for what it's intended to be used for, and having an accident. Car's are not made with the knowledge they are knowingly going to kill (x) amount of people.”

There really is not. As I showed, the statistics indicate that we can predict how many people will die in car accidents. There is no question as to whether driving can cause you to die.

Besides, even if the intent to kill is not there, that does not make the people who die less dead.


A4


“but if you ban them it's safe to assume you can reduce the death count from possibly 8 million to 1 million, or half a million in the us to 100,00 thousand.”

This is a guess. With Marijuana and alcohol, people still used it in huge numbers despite it being banned. The banning of something does not stop people from using it, plus it opens black markets and drug cartels.


“Banning things always results in the product being harder to get.”

My examples given (particularly the marijuana) render this inaccurate in the long-run.

“Take gun bans for example…”

Guns are different because they can instantly kill someone, whereas smoking cannot. For example, you could accidentally kill something with a gun, yet you could not accidentally kill someone with cigarettes in the same way.


Conclusion: why you should vote for me

Cigarettes are a harm that people choose, not one which is forced. Similar to sports, which is a point my opponent completely dropped, there are positives to be found in smoking, or else people would not do it. Again, this is people’s liberty at stake.

Also, drug cartels and black markets result from banning things, which is also a serious problem that my opponent has no real answer to, partially due to his/her gun example being non-congruent.

Finally, my opponent, I think, has shown that there should be restrictions on cigarettes (i.e. not smoking in the presence of babies), but an outright ban infringes on people’s liberties and encourages illegal trade. Thus, my ultimate argument is that restrictions are a good idea, a ban is going too far. Resolution negated.

Thank you for reading :)

Debate Round No. 3
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 1 year ago
Valar_Dohaeris
Stance on gun rights, gay marriage, animal rights, etc
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
[ RFD Part 2 }

In the last round, Con notes the flaw in her own liberty argument insofar as second-hand smoke. While I agree with her that the individual's right to liberty gives them the right to smoke, I do believe she needed to give more of a rebuttal than "it's not the case in every scenario that second hand smoke is relevant." For instance she should have talked about property rights and establishing public vs. private boundaries.

If we accept Con's argument regarding the number of deaths from smoking being minimal (which I do) then we'll accept the same appeal to numbers regarding the benefits from taxation being minimal from Pro (which I do). So those cancel each other out and become moot.

Con says that just because cars kill, the utility factor is irrelevant which I disagree with. Pro explained why the risk of cars is worthwhile on a cost-benefit analysis; Con did not argue why smoking had any utility value at all but essentially forfeited the argument by pretending it were irrelevant. As someone who is pro-smoking (legally) and pro-gun rights, the utility argument is one that annoys me but that has to at least be addressed.

In the end, Con relies on a comparison to sports' death and injuries but those do not affect (kill) others who do not choose to participate, and thus do not infringe on others' liberty. This and the utility factor arguments were the ones that decided the debate, since the others were either mutually cancelled out or dropped.
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
[ RFD Part 1 ]

In the first round, Pro argues that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. As Con, right off the bat I would have challenged this notion but it wasn't so I cannot consider it for judgment. Pro continues to argue that cigarettes are dangerous and have harmful second hand effects, including the harm of unborn babies.

In response to the state protecting citizens, Con argues that the founding father argued for a government that also protected liberty. While this does negate Pro's point on protecting citizens, it does not negate or address Pro's point regarding liberty not meaning you can hurt other people through second hand harms. Con does not address this argument. She doesn't deny the harm of cigarettes, but rather argues things that are harmful can also be beneficial (though fails to explain how cigarettes are beneficial to outweigh the harms). So all in all, Pro's arguments are upheld and extended after the first round, though Con makes a point regarding the economy and utility of taxation.

Pro responds that we don't make a lot of money off taxing cigs, and just because something makes money doesn't mean it's moral or useful. Pro responds to the cost-benefit of cigarette harm by explaining that cigarettes don't have utility in R2. Pro did address Con's black market argument, but did not effectively refute Con's point about the repercussions of the black market.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
1) Alright, I appreciate that.

2) I agree that they have a brain. We all do. And there's an expectation that, when it comes to any given argument, we're given the opportunity to rebut any given argument made. That's the basis for how reasonable argumentation goes. I don't think a rule needs to be set up to make that clear. Whether the site itself presents that rule is irrelevant - it's simply against the basic principles on which debate is couched. If you had chosen to reserve all of your arguments for that final round and present them there, under your understanding of the rules, you would have gotten away with having a completely uncontested case while getting plenty of time to rebut his. That just defeats the entire purpose of debate.

3) I don't see them as imaginary. Debate is a back and forth, not just a presentation of ideas.

4) I'm referring to the part you quoted:

"Parents should not smoke around their children. There is no argument here that necessitates the banning of cigarettes. Just like it should be illegal to give children alcohol, it should be illegal to smoke near children.

"Just in the US alone second hand smoke causes 34,000 deaths from heart attacks and 7,300 from lung cancer."

People can always move away from the smokers. If they cannot, there are usually laws in place that create a smoke-free zone (such as certain pubs or university campuses). If people want to hang around the smoke and be negatively affected, then that is their choice."

5) Again, I don't view them as imaginary, just as I don't view "stay on topic" as an imaginary rule, even when someone doesn't explicitly say it. There are certain things that are necessary to have a debate actually be a debate. I think this is one of them. I do appreciate the apology.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
1) I have made a mistake. I accidentally conflated what Valar said with what you said. This is entirely my fault. I am really sorry, Marc. On this point, I take back everything I said.

2) I don't agree with this. New debaters still have a brain. They can think about what kind of debate they want to have. Besides, this is not a site rule, so again, you are planting your own rules onto this debate. This is why I have a problem with what you're saying.

3) I can understand why what you're saying is a good idea, but again, these are imaginary rules.

4) In specific, what part of my argument are you referring to?

5) What you are doing is making imaginary (albeit reasonable) rules that were not in play in this debate. I am sorry that I accused you of anything I said regarding conduct. That was entirely my own mistake. I am honestly angry that I am losing this debate and did contribute to my response, but that does not excuse my response.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
...I'm going to say these things one more time, and then I'm going to stop. I think you really need to read them, and not try to find meaning where there is none.

1) I agree Pro did not establish rules. Hence, conduct was not a factor in my decision. At all. Nowhere in my RFD did I mention conduct. I am not claiming that you did anything to warrant any conduct violation. No one is.

2) Debate is a game with standard rules. Those rules apply across the board, whether they're mentioned in the debate or not. As a judge, I am expected, to some extent, to enforce those rules in my decisions. This is partially for the protection of relatively new or inexperienced debaters, as they can't be expected to know or understand all the rules that come into play in how a debate round is run.

3) I didn't say you couldn't make rebuttals in your final round. As long as your arguments aren't constructive to your case, and any new ones apply solely to arguments made in Pro's final round, you're good to make those points. The only problem is building on your opening case. And yes, those same standards apply to Pro. If he had made any new arguments in his final round, they would similarly be disregarded in my decision.

4) These were not extensions of your opening case. I never saw you argue alternatives in your R2 arguments. That means they're new.

5) My attempt to ensure that this debate was judged on a reasonable level is not wrong. And I'm frankly insulted by the manner in which you're responding to me. I'm not trying to attack you, whatever you may think. I get that you're upset that you're losing this debate, and you feel wronged by my vote, but you are doing yourself absolutely no favors by attacking me. It's very difficult to empathize with you when you're doing everything in your power to demean my point instead of simply having a straightforward conversation about it.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
http://www.debate.org...

"Standard rules apply"

Look at that. How is that for a guilty consciousness? You know you're wrong here, too, Marc. Just admit that you're wrong and I'll back off.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Yes, they helped the arguments I made in the first round. Pro had a chance to respond to the original arguments, too. They were not new. They were counter-arguments.

"If you want to call them rebuttals, then they can't be a part of the case you've constructed."

Of course they can be!! I am using the case I constructed to show why my opponent's is not very good. You tell me why that is wrong. Go on. Let's see what comes out of your bottom this time.
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
You are ABSOLUTELY attacking me here, Marc. YOU are hiding behind passive-aggressive arguments to attack my conduct here. Don't give me your bs.

I understand how having the last say gives me an advantage. However, as I've said numerous times, this wasn't against the rules of this debate. YOU are inserting your own standards for debate UNFAIRLY.

Also, consider if I didn't make counter-arguments in the last round. That allows Pro to 2 rounds to make arguments and counter-arguments, whilst I only get one round for both? Insane.

What you are suggesting is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. You CANNOT seriously justify giving the opposition conduct for this.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
The fact that you placed the argument under his headings doesn't mean they're not new arguments. They help construct your case against him. If you want to call them rebuttals, then they can't be a part of the case you've constructed. In that case, I just look at them as possible options that you could have taken, but have chosen not to. As such, I view them as nice ideas, but then leave them behind as unimportant, since they don't factor into the debate. Merely presenting other options without advocating them yourself means little.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Thanks for pointing me to this interesting debate, Pro. Let it be known that I agree with Con before/after the debate, but can appreciate a good devil's advocate argument. In fact I would like to debate this topic from both sides one day. Anyway I kinda pride myself on fair and thorough RFDs so I'll post one in the comments section as the character space doesn't allow here.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I reconsidered... And I am so conflicted ahhhhhhhhh. Really, PRO's arguments last round don't harm CON, as you still have space to respond. They affect him, since he doesn't even get one character space to respond. Sure, you have only 4k characters to defend and rebut. But really, he gets 0. I have to ignore the last round rebuttals. This means PRO's case is dropped... Meaning I have to vote for him... And CON made a strong economic case... But was forced to drop it... So really, PRO wins since the dumb debate structure forces him to win and harmed the contender. I am not happy with the vote, but it is the conclusion which I have reached
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: THIS IS A REVOTE: I felt like my original vote for pro was not strong enough, so I will start all over. So Pro gives indisputable claims about the health effects of cigs. Con tries to rebut these with the idea of liberty, however Pro rebuts these by second hand smoking showing that this is not about liberty. Con then brings up the black market, which is a valid point, but Pro won me over by giving statistics. Con dropped 2 of Pro's argument which to me is unacceptable. I highly favored Pro's logic as well. Pro also made some pretty good rebuttals in regards to the economy, which con dropped later on. It was a pretty good debate and both sides performed fairly well. however, pro won me over. Nice job con, better luck next time?
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 1 year ago
Shadowguynick
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Pro showed strong statistics on the extremely harmful affects of smoking, and con could not dispute that. Con's case rested on the fact that people have a the liberty to do what they want with their bodies. However Pro easily has shown that second hand smoking harms individuals without their choice. Which directly contradicts her definition of liberty, which is that liberty ends when it conflicts with another person's liberty. A sanction on smoking appears does not fix the problem as most of the problem happens in domestic places, such as homes, and pregnant women who smoke do not give the unborn child a right either. Another argument that fell short was that you should move away from smokers, but this is entirely unfair that you either have to move, or make your health suffer, because someone else wants to smoke. Con decided to drop her economic arguments, so no consideration will be paid to those. Good conduct to both parties however.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Both presented relatively strong cases, however more emphasis could have been on rebuttals, particularly by Con who pretty much dropped "the second hand effects" argument. Con also failed to follow up with the costs argument which Pro then countered. The argument of justice and protection of freedoms was also lacking in impact and therefore did not effectively counter Pros pro-life stance.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Tweka
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts off by stating the bad effects of cigarettes. Unfortunately this does not mandate a cigarette ban. Heart disease has extremely bad effects but you can't really "ban" it. So does alcohol, which is legalized basically all over the world. Con makes points about economical effects from a cigarette ban, as well as liberty, which does prove that cigarettes should not be banned. In the last round, pro tries to refute the economical arguments by stating that saving millions of lives is much more important than the economy, but this is inadequate since cigarette bans relate more to the economy and government. He also drops cons liberty argument. Thus, con wins.
Vote Placed by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
Valar_DohaerisZarroette
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a convincing argument by focusing on the number of lives that can be saved from a ban of Cigarettes, however, Con made a very valid (and sore) point about the U.S Government. Their role is not to restrict personal liberty, but to maintain a civilized order between persons solely to protect personal liberty. This is not an unbeatable point though, as all Pro would need to do is stress the dangers of second hand smoke, the unintentional indoctrination of children into smoking by watching their parents, and the comparison of banned hard drugs, like cocaine, which should be legal if personal liberty was truly the goal. I think three rounds might have been too short for a debate like this.