The Instigator
voteandsay
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops.

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 1 vote the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,508 times Debate No: 38035
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

voteandsay

Pro

Cigars and Cigarettes should be stopped being sold, because it can kill and/or give them fatal illnesses (e.g. cancer). I don't get why people still sell them. If people are still smoking, and they suddenly get stopped from being sold, they don't know where on earth to get them from, and they'll no longer be smoking. Doctors say that it's around 8 years after you quit smoking, you'll be around as healthy as you were before you started smoking. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It should help me convince you to be on the Pro side of this debate. Other readers, please comment, because I'd like to hear your views of this debate, and what side you're on. I have a feeling this will be a good, interesting debate. I hope David Cameron or Barack Obama will read this! (It's very likely they won't).
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Pro thinks that he has the right of stopping smokers from giving themselves a slow death while having pleasure. I ask why? Who made good health manadatory? Who gave him the right to decide what other people do in their lives? And who said that we should live long lives?

Pro's argument is flawed because he gives himself the right to prohibit others from following life habits that might affect their health or cause them death. That is absurd. The same argument can be used on a soldier in the army who operates on the frontlines and has the stench of gunpowder stuck to his nose. He is expected to die soon or die earlier than others because of his job and his exposure to toxic gases, but do we have a right to stop him from doing what he likes?

I believe that public smoking should be banned because it affects other people's health. But what about private smoking such as smoking alone in your backyard? Why should Pro have the right to force smokers to have a good health and quit smoking?

Pro also doesn't realize the consequences of banning private smoking and the outrage that would cause, knowing that many people are addicted to it. His solution is fascistic and forceful. People would always find ways to get illegal cigs if they become banned. That is to say, Pro's solution will cause an outrage and encourage people to follow illegal methods to satisfy their smoking addiction.

I take the Con position that Cigars and Cigarretes should be sold in shops. My only condition is that public smoking is banned.
Debate Round No. 1
voteandsay

Pro

Finding illegal ways of smoking could be OK, as long as it's not in public. Going through all that fuss of getting illegal cigarettes shows that they are willing to put their lives at risk, but I still think that cigarettes should be banned from shops. Even though people can find illegal ways to smoke, it will lower the amount of people who will smoke.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Ignoring all my major refutations and focusing on a side-point is a subtle admission from Pro that he cannot properly defend his argument.

While it is advised on "debate tips" websites to only focus on your opponent's weak points and to ignore his good ones, you shouldn't be asked to do that when you just find one possibly-weak point in your opponent's response, while his response breaks your argument apart like a dissected Barbie doll.

I clearly asked why should Pro have the right to tell people what to do, force people to live healthy lives and not enjoy short lives they choose to spend as they wish. But he completely ignored my questions. I awkwardly have to quote myself to respond to Pro.

"Pro thinks that he has the right of stopping smokers from giving themselves a slow death while having pleasure. I ask why? Who made good health mandatory? Who gave him the right to decide what other people do in their lives? And who said that we should live long lives?"

Pro has not given us convincing reasons why cigarettes should be banned, even though smoking is a personal decision. I'm still waiting for him to make one good argument.

Furthermore, I'm against making people resort to illegal cigs since that encourages people to play the system to get what they want. My argument is only moral; I know that if we stop selling cigs, we would have less smokers, but it is apparent to me that such a solution violates the rights of smokers wanting to live their life as they wish. It's up to them whether their personal health is good or not, their life short or long, etc.

Pro's solution encroaches on personal liberty, and if taken seriously(and I'm sure it won't) would act as a prelude for governemtal intervention to apply fascistic measures on all citizens.

I personally believe that I have the right of bad health, poisoning myself, doing scientific experiments on myself, etc. Pro has not yet convinced me that he has the right to violate my rights and tell me how to live my life... and it is apparent that he can't.
Debate Round No. 2
voteandsay

Pro

Nobody made good health compulsory. I never said that I had the right to decide what people do in their lives, and nobody said to live longer lives.
I think that:
Smoking should no longer be sold in shops
You CAN find illegal ways to smoke
Public smoking should be banned
You CAN smoke privately

The above will lower the amount of people who smoke, and this will help create a healthier population.
Con asked
"Why should Pro have the right to force smokers to have a good health and quit smoking?"
I am not "forcing" smokers to have a good health and stop smoking. They could still find illegal ways to smoke, it will be lesser than the population of smokers who smoke now.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

This debate has gone beyond absurd.

Pro has the notion that if group of mothers forced their children to stay in their rooms, and some of them were able to sneak out of the window and climb down the roof, then the children were not forced to do anything.

Pro wants to force many people to stop smoking by making it a hassle for them to get a smoke, and yet he argues that he isn't forcing anyone to do something because some of them could use illegal workarounds. Not to mention all the companies and shop-keepers that would be forced not to sell any cigs.

As I also explained earlier, the underlying assumption in Pro's arguments is that people should have good health, and thus he aims to have a world with less smokers. The problem is that good health is a personal decision. Such measures only seek to mandate good health and intervene with the negative right to have bad health. Negative rights are simply rights that call others not to intervene in your personal life.

Pro has not offered us any argument to support his position. He clearly conceded that this is only what he thinks, and presented self-contradictory justifications to support what he personally thinks without one shred of evidence or a good argument.

My arguments for my position are the following...

1- Stopping cigs from being sold is a violation of the rights of the sellers and the buyers, specifically the right to have health and life as personal decisions.

2- The fact that Pro's solution is an unprofessional, forceful way to stop addicted smokers from smoking.

3- Huge economic losses for farmers and companies who make money out of selling cigs and cigars. In 2007, Marlboro's income was an estimated $11.4 billion with $66.3 billion in sales in the U.S and abroad[1]. Imagine all the money the US government makes from tax money. Not to mention all the employed farmers.

It is better for Pro to consent the debate to me, given that he is unable to support his argument with anything other than "I think this should be the case."

[1] http://marlboro.blogsome.com...
Debate Round No. 3
voteandsay

Pro

I knew that Con would say something about the people who produce these products. The people who produce cigarettes should be found another job closest to their wages. Just like any other job. If their workplace closes down, and they don't relocate, they get another job.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I thank Pro for the debate.

Pro has not offered us one good argument why his proposition should be taken seriously, and clearly indicated in the previous rounds that such a measure should be implemented because "he thinks this should be the case."

I thought he was approaching this from the underlying assumption that people should have healthier lives, but he then denied that and said that he just argues for that position because "he thinks this should be the case."

I've offered a total of three arguments supporting my position, and showed the limitations and absurdity of what Pro suggests.

1- Stopping cigs from being sold is a violation of the rights of the sellers and the buyers, specifically the right to have health and life as personal decisions.

2- The fact that Pro's solution is an unprofessional, forceful way to stop addicted smokers from smoking.

3- Huge economic losses for farmers and companies who make money out of selling cigs and cigars. In 2007, Marlboro's income was an estimated $11.4 billion with $66.3 billion in sales in the U.S and abroad. Imagine all the money the US government makes from tax money. Not to mention all the employed farmers.

In attempt to counter Point 3 while ignoring the rest, Pro said that we can find other jobs for those people. I salute him for his problem-solving techniques, and await to see how he could find other jobs for CEOs of mass-corporations in the smoking industry who are making millions of dollars out of their jobs, thousands of employees in such corporations and tens of thousands of farmers. It seems that my opponent has not yet been introduced to the notions of practicality and pragmatism.

I had some hope this would be a thrilling debate, but from the start... it felt more like a monologue due to Pro's lack of debating skills and actual content. This is not a forum discussion as Pro seems to think when he asks others to share their views. This is an actual debate where you should provide good arguments and refutations to convince others, and "I think this should be the case" isn't one, I'm afraid.


Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by charlouking 3 years ago
charlouking
I agree with pro. I am a 19 year old with 3 siblings both my mother and father smoke over 30 a day. They smoke in every room of the house including our bedrooms when asked to stop they argue that its their house. I can now leave but when I was younger that was not an option and is not for my siblings. I suffer bad coughs and asthma and it can be extremely bad for my tiny brother sleeping around the smoke. My mother recently had breathing issues and had to call out an ambulance to relieve her airways. This has shocked her into giving up for now... However my dad still hasn't and what if it was me or my siblings who had breathing issues in their sleep or got cancer. The government are practically murdering children by allowing people to smoke. Although its the parents choice the government don't allow heroine or cannabis due to the danger yet they allow ciggies and allow the innocent people and children to become I'll or even die all for the sake of power and money. Disgusting!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
voteandsayNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments for banning smoking were hysterically bad to the point that con didnt have to exert much effort to counter them. Pro fell short of proving his case, so argument points go to the con