The Instigator
aburk903
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Contender's Choice

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...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 56916
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

aburk903

Pro

I'd like to try something a bit different than proposing a topic I feel confident I cannot lose in. Anyone interested in accepting this debate must first go to my profile and choose a topic (big issues, politics, religion, etc.,) that they differ personally on and propose that topic in their first acceptance round. The only restriction is that I must have stated an opinion on the topic on my profile. If one wishes to believe something, one must be confident that they can defend said belief. Anticipating an enjoyable debate!
9spaceking

Con

This topic: Smoking should be banned. My opponent's profile says he does not think so.
I will let my opponent begin.
Debate Round No. 1
aburk903

Pro

I will leave my introductory statements as simple as possible, and offer rebuttal and counterargument only as needed to defend my case. Smoking should remain legal as it is a victimless action. The responsibility of the government is not to over-regulate the lives of the people, but to defend the people from each other. Since smoking is a personal choice (and one that directly impacts only the user) it should not be banned.
9spaceking

Con

I can... begin?? Well, since pro never said this round was reserved for introduction on both sides, I shall state my argument.
Remember that both sides have the burden of proof to uphold their sides.

MY ARGUMENT
6 million people every year from smoking, the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. 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! It is always a dreadful scene. Those families that lost their parents or children were crestfallen, as they had failed to prevent their family members from smoking. Even their friends were worried, as the family lose huge amounts of money as a result of the great expense of treating the sick at the hospital. Everyone should stop smoking ,and cigarette smoking should be banned, because its hazardous for peoples' health, and it is also very expensive.

First of all, cigarettes contain more than seven thousand dangerous chemicals in it when burned, and at least 70 are known to cause cancer! First-hand smokers get yellow teeth, skin, and fingernails from smoking too much. They are also known to get headaches, lung cancer and bad breath much more easily than normal people do. Furthermore, they get heart attacks, their kidney become unable to function, they other diseases, such as 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 stroke, nausea and uneasiness. Smoking adds a terrible chemical called Dopamine into people´s brains that make them more addicted to smoking--so people should quit early before the situation grows too bad; or just not smoke entirely. Many arguers against the banning of smoking say people have the freedom of choice, and that freedom is completely declined with the ban of smoke. This is true, but does allowing smoking allow this freedom of choice? At the first time of smoking, it may seem so--people can stop themselves once they see the terrible effects. But what about the people who don't know the harmful effects and are curious to know why people smoke? Immediately they will be swirled into a mess which they cannot clean up, as the pleasure that Dopamine gives is nearly impossible to put down--in fact, It is estimated that nearly 17 million Americans try to quit smoking each year. Unfortunately, only about 1.3 million Americans are able to remain smoke free. This is only 8 percent or so of smokers that manage to be successful in their action of quitting smoking. It can thus be concluded that 92% of people lose their freedom of choice, and what good is that? What good is the 8% who gain their freedom of choice? They will never smoke again anyways, and thus have already locked onto one choice and limited their freedom of choice themselves. The banning of smoke, although having 100% declined the freedom of choice, has no negative health benefits and helps people rather than harm them.

However, even quitting smoking can still harm, as even if present rates of consumption steadily decline to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century. However, earlier is better than never, so people should stop smoking as soon as possible. In addition, 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 particular are greatly effected, as the have the possible effects of obtaining 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, and Orofacial clefts in infants when pregnant. To stress the negative health effects of smoking, the teeth is greatly affected as well, as the health of your teeth and gums are negatively impacted and can cause tooth loss.

Even worse, smokers occasionally are smoking outside, making the people beside him or her breathe in smoke too. These people, known as second-hand smokers, when they breathe in first-hand smokers smoke, their body system also get badly damaged by the chemicals within the air and get the effects that first-handers get, if only a lighter effect. Statics show that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure, telling us that even secondhand smoke is very hazardous. Moreover, 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. And the smoking doesn't stop there. That's right--there exists thirdhand smoking. Impossible? Far from it. Tobacco smoke can linger in the air for a long time after the smoking stops, and even remain on our clothes. Many dangerous chemicals can be formed from this thirdhand smoking, such as carcinogens and heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, and cyanide. Sticky, highly toxic particulates, like nicotine, can cling to walls and ceilings. Not only that, these chemicals can re-emit back into the air and recombine to form harmful compounds. (This is straight out of the two last last sources)

Because of the massive harms and damage of cigarette smoking, People have to check every few months to make sure that their body is healthy, and if they are not, then they have to spend huge amounts of wasted money. People should really spend their money on something else better than smoking. Already, a few years ago, partial places in the USA have been banned of smoke--and a positive effect has spread across those places with smoke prohibited. A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban. Nearly two fifths (39%) of all smokers said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital. These statistics show that the banning of smoking helps, and unlike the prohibition of alcohol, there are more people that go along with the government rather than against it. The government should continue its command of banning smoke across the country and help everyone quit smoking.

Overall, the world would be a much better place without cigarettes. The government should take action immediately and stop that puff of smoke from coming out of a persons mouth, as it would benefit everybody, as they will be smoke-sick-free from the banning of smoke.

Sources: (in no particular order, but loosely are where arguments are located. In other words, if you want to prove a fact in the fisrt paragraph, it is probably found within the first source)
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...
http://www.lung.org...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://stopsmoking-tips.org...
http://no-smoke.org...
http://prezi.com...

I now hand the debate over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
aburk903

Pro

I forget that my opponent is functioning on extremely limited time. In the interest of brevity, I will offer only an idealistic summation of my belief. Indeed, my opponent has presented strong evidence that if one was interested in preserving one's health and well-being one would not smoke, and that tobacco products should be regulated to the extent that their use does not effect other individuals who choose not to consumethem. However, this debate regards whether smoking should be banned. My opponent has not presented evidence that a well informed individual (knowing of the risks) should lose his individual autonomy to choose to "self destruct" as it were. I ask that further argumentation be framed through this contention- that my belief stems from the ideal that man's autonomy supersedes his personal safety (safety when it violates his own will).
9spaceking

Con

To pro: It is okay if you take your time, as long as I finish this debate by July fourth, then all will be good.
As far my rebuttal, well, a well-informed individual knows not to smoke and has thus chosen to limit their own freedom of choice. Why, the banning of smoke will have absolutely no effect upon those individuals' choices. Don't ban smoke? They don't smoke. Ban smoke? They don't smoke.

I extend arguments about cigarette's dangerous chemicals, addictiveness, pretty much 92% loss of freedom of choice, showing the longetivity of cigarette's harm, second-hand smoking, thrid-hand smoking, and finally the financial burden of the families. All of these massive arguments have yet to been refuted. I ask my opponent to take his time on his next round and try to refute these arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
aburk903

Pro

My opponent begins with a fallacious assertion- that all well informed individuals choose not to smoke. This is not the case. Humans often participate in actions that they know will ultimately harm them, even to the furthest extreme of suicide. Typically these actions are not taken based on delusion or misinformation, but based on a difference in values from an individual who chooses not to act in such a way. My opponent also states that choosing not to smoke is an individuals choosing to limit his freedom of choice. On the contrary, choosing to lose one's freedom of choice would involve not participating in the decision making process at all. Choosing not to smoke involves just as much freedom of choice as choosing to smoke.

As to my opponent's request for me to address his specific contentions more closely, most of my rebuttal can be offered in the single argument that smoking may be unhealthy but should not necessarily be banned. Forcing individuals to smoke or pay for the medical expenses of smokers is of course immoral because it violates their autonomy, but in the same respect banning smoking also violates the individual's rights to make personal choices (be they wise or foolish).

To summarize and restate my argument from the previous round, my opponent has failed to present compelling evidence to show that smoking is incurably detrimental to individuals who choose not to smoke. There are alternatives of regulating smoking areas, restricting purchasing age, insuring consumer awareness, and not providing federally funded health care for smoking related illness- but no compelling evidence to justify the restriction of an individual's freedom of choice in such a totalitarian way.
9spaceking

Con

Okay, here's the problem, if one does not smoke, and never does smoke, then my argument has full effect and is irrefutable. Alright, you agree, eh? I already proved this in the previous round.
So now, what if there's a guy who knows the harmful effects of smoking but still smokes? Well, then he or she has, based on stats, a 92% chance to lose their freedom of choice forever. (Since, they will try yet fail to quit smoking) Banning of smoke restricts freedom of choice as well, except you don't have the negative health effects, thus, it is shown to be much better than allowing smoke.
However, what if this guy smokes then manages to quit smoking? Then, they will obviously not smoke ever again, having tasted the horridness of smoking. Great. But quitting smoke is extremely difficult; statistics show within round 2 that only 8% get their "freedom of choice" back. But then, do they really still have their freedom? Sure, no negative effects befall these people, but they have chosen to restrict their own freedom of choice, thus doing the same thing as if the banning of smoke was effective. I bet you're saying now "well the banning of smoke is annoying and dumb. It won't help those people who never smoke, or manage to quit smoke." Ah, but did I mention that 92% people fail to quit smoke? Yeah. So, if we ban smoking, these 92% people will not be addicted to smoking and practically forced to take an inhalation out of a cigarette.
As for the alternatives, they do not help to those 92% people I mentioned. They will still smoke, and the addictiveness of the cigarette will get to them, forcing each and every one of them to smoke as much as possible, even within these restricted areas, and they will obtain so much darn health problems, and their family will be financially burdened.
In conclusion I have shown that the banning of smoke is preferable to allowing smoke.
I hope you and the voters understand my evidence, logical reasoning, and how they contribute to the resolution on my side.
Debate Round No. 4
aburk903

Pro

Again, my opponent has overlooked my contention on the purpose of law. Surely it is not a legislator's duty to regulate the dietary habit of the common citizen. If my opponent claims that smoking should be banned due to it's negative impact on health, at what point should his legislative control cease? Should various foods be banned as well? The more logical alternative is to allow the citizens free reign over their lives in as many ways as possible while still ensuring their protection from other citizens. As smoking is a choice that is only personally detrimental it does not violate this standard for law. In order to prove his contention my opponent must show that smoking is so negative that it actually warrants directly inhibiting an individual's autonomy, and given the sole reason of a poor health choice he has not shown that at all.
9spaceking

Con

If there were some kind of food that was extremely addictive, harmed those who ate it as well as giving various deadly diseases that can kill, harmed those beside those who ate it, harmed those in the room even after the food was eaten, then surely we have the right to ban this kind of food!
I have already show that smoking has inhibited an individual's autonomy. 92% people lose their freedom of choice because they can't quit smoking.
Your logical alternative makes no sense, either you are half-conceding to me or you haven't read my arguments and studies.
In conclusion, my opponent has not given a lot of arguments, while I have rebutted every single case of them and contructed a strong case for the horrid health effects of smoking, as well as demonstrating the lack of freedom of choice in either situation, which brings likability to the banning of smoke.
Vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
you can take your time on your next argument. You are barely giving me anything to rebut against. Try harder!
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
Got it. I'll attempt to ensure that the remainder of my replies are a bit more timely.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
waiting... I don't have forever
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
good. you'll need it.
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
I do 9spaceking. I do.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
boom. do you feel confident about winning now?
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
I'll keep that in mind and attempt to keep all subsequent rounds timely
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
oh snap I just remembered i have a cruise on July the fourth. I dearly hope we finish the debate in time.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
anything works, really. But my argument works best for just tobacco smoking, yes.
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
I meant do you want to restrict it to tobacco smoking (to include cigarettes, pipes, etc.,) or broaden it to include other smoked substances. Just to establish some clarity before proceeding.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
aburk9039spacekingTied
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: This is rather interesting, as 9space being Con was being Pro, and aburk being Pro was being Con. I was tempted to tie this debate, but as it seems that aburk was all right with this, and never pointed it out I will let it slide. I will give the argumentation to Con, because even if there were some loopholes, he did present an excellent argument, I believe it would have been better if he had connected these arguments with the resolution. So in example smoking is injurious to health would need another argument about how it is the govt.'s responsibility to disallow injurious substances. This was raised by Pro rather well, and were the resolution not contaning the word "should" I may have given this as a tie. But when one falls into the "ought" then I thought that 9space won this, if for no other reason than because Pro did not enunciate properly.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
aburk9039spacekingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
aburk9039spacekingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Only one who used any sources at all.