The Instigator
ethopia619
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
gavin.ogden
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Cigars should be illegal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,123 times Debate No: 14068
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

ethopia619

Pro

I'd like to thank anyone who accepts this debate.

Arguments will be posted in round 2, please. Thanks!

~Yami
gavin.ogden

Con

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this topic. Obviously, I disagree with this resolution, but I will hold my arguments for round two. I see no need for definitions, and look forward to my opponents' first round of arguments. Thanks again.
Debate Round No. 1
ethopia619

Pro

I thank Gavin for accepting this debate and wish him good luck.

Anyhow, let's begin!

Cigars should definitely be illegal because it is harmful in many ways. Cigars, in this case, is tobacco. Smoking these means that the owner who smoked will not be able to breath properly. There would be headaches and heart-burns. Long- time smoking would result in colds, bronchitis, heartbeat racing, and an increasing rate of hypertension. These are some of the cons of cigars. There are many more. The cons of cigars outrun the pros of cigars. World Health Organization even states that a cigar ban would be beneficial. Cigars lead to asthma, heart disease, cancer, pregnancy complications, and other problems. By putting a ban to cigars, we would decrease the health problems. Cigars cause mental and emotional harms too. Cigars can also lead to drunk driving.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com...
http://quitsmoking.about.com...
http://www.livestrong.com...

I give thanks to gavin.ogden and wish him and the readers good luck. Happy Holidays!

~Yami
gavin.ogden

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his speedy response, and I will begin with refutations.

"Cigars should definitely be illegal because it is harmful in many ways. Cigars, in this case, is tobacco. Smoking these means that the owner who smoked will not be able to breath properly. There would be headaches and heart-burns. Long- time smoking would result in colds, bronchitis, heartbeat racing, and an increasing rate of hypertension. These are some of the cons of cigars. There are many more. The cons of cigars outrun the pros of cigars. World Health Organization even states that a cigar ban would be beneficial. Cigars lead to asthma, heart disease, cancer, pregnancy complications, and other problems. By putting a ban to cigars, we would decrease the health problems. Cigars cause mental and emotional harms too. Cigars can also lead to drunk driving."-ethopia

My opponent states many facts in his argument. Unfortunately, none of them are cause for making cigars illegal. In fact, cigarettes are even more harmful, because the smoke is inhaled, where cigar smoke is generally only taken into the mouth and blown out. Simply put, in order to ban cigars, cigarettes would also need to be banned. My opponent also finishes his argument with a very shaky argument. I state for the record, cigars contain no alcohol, and are not ingested,. Therefore, they do not lead to drunk driving. Drinking alcohol, then driving are the prerequisites for drunk driving. Any statement to the contrary is pure fiction.

While all this is true, the most important thing to remember is that smoking cigars is a personal choice. The dangers of smoking tobacco are well known in this day and age, so if someone makes the poor decision to endanger their own health, it is not the job of the government to tell him/her it is not permissible.

Smoking indoors is almost a thing of the past, and I am all for that, although I disagree with the laws. Afterall, who wants smoke blown in their face while they are eating. However, outlawing smoking altogether(particularly just cigars) would not be constitutional, and is not going to happen.

Again, I would like to thank my opponent for the challenge, and I look forward to the next round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
ethopia619

Pro

Swell! Obviously, this will result into an entertaining debate, compared to some of my other debates.

My opponent agrees with my points, but yes, you cannot argue against facts. However, let me refute his arguments. These harms should let the government know that is fine with we abolish cigarettes. After all, cigars are a bad influence. I believe that my opponent agrees with all my facts, except for one. True, cigars do not contain alcohol. I believe that I meant that smoking, while driving, would result into a car accident. It is a bit like drunk driving. If we abolish cigars, less people will smoke, such as: kids, teenagers, and adults. I do not know how abolishing cigars is unconstitutional.

However, onto my contentions:

Cigars harm the lungs. This results in dying in a painful death. Tobacco causes addiction, so you would not help yourself by buying more and more cigars. In the United States of America's recession, this will cause a decrease in your money storage. There would be limited concentration and movement. You would also have a dull sense of smell or taste. Smoking will lead to having a disgusting smell in your clothes, hair, or house. You might die of cancer from long time smoking.
http://quitsmoking.about.com...
http://www.buzzle.com...

==> Conclusion

As you can possibly see, the cons of smoking outnumber the pros of smoking. Lastly, I thank Gavin and the readers. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Yami Yugi
gavin.ogden

Con

Thanks Yugi. It is clear to me that my opponent has a strong distaste for tobacco products in general, and I must admit that I am not a big fan either. In fact, I have had several grandparents pass away from smoking related illnesses. It was not easy to watch, and based on those experiences, I choose not to use tobacco. Unfortunately, people still CHOOSE to smoke. It is not in the government power to take that choice. Alcohol is also extremely harmful, but prohibition was repealed and deemed unconstitutional. So you see, the legal precedent has already been set. Adults are given the choice to use these products, they are in no way forced upon the individual.
So, while your intentions are good, the resolution is negated.

I want to give a very sincere thanks to my opponent for this debate, and the readers for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
ethopia619

Pro

I would like to thank Mr. Ogden for his fast responses. Now, to refute his last argument:

Yes, it is their choice, but education has taught us that cigars are not beneficial in countless ways. You have to be mentally strong, and say no. However, there is a way to decrease smoking. By banning cigars, the ban would influence the smokers and would let them know that it is wrong to smoke. The ban would decrease the amount of smoking, perhaps stopping cigarette production. If we ban it, adults will not have to fight the urge to smoke, because it is illegal, if we ban it. Therefore, if we ban cigars, adults will not have a higher probability of accepting these products. I know that it is their choice, because thoughts run our lives. However, by putting a ban to smoking these cigars, there would be a second thought about smoking these cigars or a nagging feeling that would try to prevent you from buying these items.

==> Conclusion

I have refuted all of his main arguments and sub- arguments. He has refuted only a handful of my arguments. I would like the readers to vote for Pro. I thank Mr. Ogden and the readers for their time. Thank you and happy holidays!

Sincerely,

Yugi
gavin.ogden

Con

Thank you Mr. Yugi, for your quick response.

First of all, I would like to say that I was somewhat confused by several statements in the first half of this round.
"You have to be mentally strong, and say no."-ethopia
To whom is my opponent speaking, and what does this have to do with the resolution?
"However, there is a way to decrease smoking. By banning cigars, the ban would influence the smokers and would let them know that it is wrong to smoke."-ethopia
This is some kind of moral dilemma for my opponent. I personally don't believe smoking is wrong at all, and many people feel the same way. Is it smart? No. Is it wrong? No. This is not a valid argument.
"The ban would decrease the amount of smoking, perhaps stopping cigarette production."-ethopia
This is absolutely ludicrous, and is not based in reality.
"I know that it is their choice, because thoughts run our lives."-ethopia
Exactly. The resolution is negated. We have the right to smoke. Whether it's cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipes, etc., we have been given the right to smoke, despite the harmful effects. I already stated that repealing prohibition set the legal precedent for this debate. Furthermore, do you understand how much revenue the tobacco taxes bring in? Cutting that chunk is a horrible idea for a country in recession.
"I have refuted all of his main arguments and sub- arguments."-ethopia
After careful review, I find not one refutation to any of my arguments.

In summation, cigars are, and should absolutely remain legal for many reasons. Are they bad for your health? Of course, but so is alcohol, junk food, caffeine, etc. These are things we choose to indulge in which are all bad for us. Fortunately, we live in a place where the government doesn't make those kinds of decisions for us... or at least not yet. Thank you very much Yumi, and thanks to the readers for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
Really stupid debate. When arguing that something ought to be illegal, it shouldn't be something that is largely a personal health risk and 100% an individual choice. Also, cigars? Seriously? They already banned flavored cigarettes.
Posted by vardas0antras 4 years ago
vardas0antras
"in one turn"
In one try who am I to speak :)
Posted by vardas0antras 4 years ago
vardas0antras
Arguments:Gavin has definitely made the better arguments though I would have preferred if he had conveyed all he had said in the 4th round in the second round instead. Nevertheless he did a good job:" It is not in the government power to take that choice". Yes it would be smarter not to smoke but by this logic many common things like video games would be banned or restricted.

Sources:The sources can be a tie since there wasn't anything Gavin.ogden could have given sources to nevertheless one is justified in giving this vote to ethopia619 because Gavin simply ought to make room for sources. Personally I would go for a tie but it depends on the person.

Conduct and spelling: Obvious tie.
Who did you agree: I already said "Pro just dug a grave" and now he has finally finished digging his own grave.

In conclusion it seems ethopia didn't take his time to place any traps or do anything about the obvious rights argument which was plainly coming. I can bet a thousand euro that Gavin wrote all his arguments in one turn hence many wasted rounds and only in the 4th round did you show any extra effort. Even so this is an interesting debate.
Posted by gavin.ogden 4 years ago
gavin.ogden
It didn't seem right. I felt comfortable with my arguments.
Posted by annhasle 4 years ago
annhasle
"I didn't want to debunk your statement in the actual debate"

gavin, that's what you're supposed to do in a debate.
Posted by ethopia619 4 years ago
ethopia619
Your dog looks cute.
Posted by gavin.ogden 4 years ago
gavin.ogden
No big deal, it's been fun so far.
Posted by ethopia619 4 years ago
ethopia619
I must have read it wrong.
Posted by gavin.ogden 4 years ago
gavin.ogden
@ethopia
By the way, if you read your own source, it says that the BANNING of cigars leads to more drunk driving. I didn't want to debunk your statement in the actual debate, but you should probably read your sources a little more closely before making erroneous statements.
Posted by gavin.ogden 4 years ago
gavin.ogden
My grave, or his own?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by infam0us 4 years ago
infam0us
ethopia619gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Robikan 4 years ago
Robikan
ethopia619gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RougeFox 4 years ago
RougeFox
ethopia619gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 4 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
ethopia619gavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30