The Instigator
sweetbreeze
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
hightreason
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 7 votes the winner is...
hightreason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 35276
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

sweetbreeze

Pro

I believe that everyone smoking have to QUIT IT, since it's a very bad and stupid habit. It could cause lung cancer and your life get's shorter every time you smoke. I know that many people don't like to live to old age, but when you start smoking, you can't end it as quickly. Some people might be able to quit quickly, but many can't. Smoking won't just harm the person smoking, but it can also harm the people around them, because when those people around the smokers breathe in the smoke, it ruins their lungs bit by bit. These people are called passive smokers, if you don't already know. Smoking isn't pleasant for anyone, so I suggest that if anyone is smoking, they should QUIT IT as soon as possible.

Thank you, sweetbreeze.
hightreason

Con

I will argue that it is not true that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

The negative effects of smoking are well-known. However, people have a right to weigh the risks for themselves and decide what risks they feel are acceptable. Every decision involves a risk. Driving a car involves a risk. Walking out of your house involves a risk. Staying in your house involves a risk. People have the ability to make their own decisions and should be allowed to do that.

Pro asserts that smoking is "bad and stupid." These are subjective judgements that do not carry any weight. Pro presents no arguments that smoking itself is objectively bad or stupid.

Pro asserts that "many people don't like to live to old age." If this is the case, Pro's argument that "life gets shorter every time you smoke" does not constitute a reason to quit for those people. This is true regardless of the fact that "when you start smoking, you can't end it as quickly" because these people presumably do not care to end it as their goal is to shorten their lives.

Pro asserts that "Smoking won't just harm the person smoking, but it can also harm the people around them." While there is some evidence for this, it is often blown way out of proportion in the media. Even ignoring that, however, people who are smoking are often not smoking around other people or are smoking around other people who are around it by their own free will. In the case of the smoker who is smoking alone, there are no other people around to be harmed, and in the case of the smoker who is smoking only around other adults who are there by their own free will, the potential harm is part of that passive smoker's risk assessment just as much as smoking is part of the smoker's risk assessment.

Lastly, Pro argues that "Smoking isn't pleasant for anyone." This is not the least bit true. There are many people who find smoking pleasant. [1]

Because of the following facts

1. People are rational beings who can weigh the risks and make their own decisions
2. Smoking does not necessarily harm anyone who has not made the risk assessment and chosen to accept the risk
3. People often find smoking to be pleasant

it is not true that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.

[1]http://www.smokingfeelsgood.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
sweetbreeze

Pro

I know that my arguments are subjective, but the truth is, smoking harms people around the smokers.
The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way, which makes it truly unpleasant. I will tell you a true story about a smoking situation.

[My father used to smoke continuously each day and he couldn't stand a minute without it. Then, one day, he was smoking near my older brother, who was just 7 y/o at that time. The smoke went into his face and he was fanning it away with his hand. Not soon later, he had asthma and my dad decided to quit smoking forever. And he just did it, like that, not needing anything to help himself quit. From the time he made that decision on, he never smoked again IN HIS LIFE.]

My brother had asthma because of my father smoking. You could also get ear infections, but luckily, my brother didn't get it.

So, that's why I'm saying that everyone smoking should QUIT IT.
hightreason

Con

Pro says that "smoking harms people around the smokers." I already addressed this above and Pro offered no counterarguments. To reiterate my argument, smoking often does not harm people around them (in the case when there is no one around them) or it often only harms people who are aware of the dangers, have accepted the risk as rational adults, and could leave if they wanted to. If Pro wanted to argue that people should not smoke in certain situations in which people can be harmed unwillingly and do not have a reasonable ability to simply leave the situation, then I could agree with that, but that is not the resolution being debated.

Pro says that "The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way." As explained in my last argument, this is cost benefit analysis. A lot of decisions have both good and bad consequences. As rational beings, people can decide what risks they are willing to take for what benefit.

Pro's anecdote proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I have never made the claim that people should smoke around children or others in a situation in which the person who is potentially harmed cannot just leave. Second, Pro provides no evidence that her father's smoking caused her brother's asthma. As a counter-anecdote, I also got asthma as a child. My parents did not smoke nor did my grandparents or anyone around me. Pro also seems to indicate that her brother got asthma because of one particular incident in which smoke got in her brother's face. While exposure to smoke over a period of time may contribute to developing asthma, it is medically ridiculous to claim that someone got asthma because of one time some smoke went in their face.

Pro has failed to address anything I wrote in my argument and has simply presented an anecdote which not only does not prove anything at all but also is an example of a situation which my arguments did not condone. Even if I agree that one should not smoke around children (which I do) it does not affect my argument in the slightest.

Pro has failed to provide any evidence or arguments that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.
Debate Round No. 2
sweetbreeze

Pro

Con had said that what I said about smoking was just subjective, but he didn't realise that it's really objective.

-Firstly, doctors have proven that smoking takes time off your life.

-Secondly, doctors have proven that smoking also harms the people around the smokers.

-Thirdly, it is not subjective that smoking is a bad and stupid habit, because as I said before, it not only harms the smoker, but the people around them, and it takes time off their lives every time they smoke.

-Another thing, Con said that it wasn't the least bit true that smoking isn't pleasant for anybody, but it's very true. Yes, the smokers do find that the flavour of the cigarettes are pleasant, but it affects your health in the bad way. Now is that the least bit pleasant anymore? You must know that it's not the taste that counts, but the way it affects your health. Con thought that I was just being subjective, but I'm not. My cousins smoke and my brother smokes. I know, the smell of the cigarettes before they got lit on fire was pleasant, but the smell after they got lit on fire was not very pleasant.

Con would only say that my arguments are subjective because he would say anything to convince everyone that I'm wrong and that smokers shouldn't QUIT IT.
hightreason

Con

"-Firstly, doctors have proven that smoking takes time off your life."

I agree with this and already agreed with this before when I said "The negative effects of smoking are well-known." It does not affect my argument.

"-Secondly, doctors have proven that smoking also harms the people around the smokers."

I will concede this. However it does not affect my argument.

"-Thirdly, it is not subjective that smoking is a bad and stupid habit, because as I said before, it not only harms the smoker, but the people around them, and it takes time off their lives every time they smoke."

Bad and stupid are pretty much by definition subjective judgements. If Pro wishes to argue that they are in fact objective descriptions of something, I believe it is up to pro to provide objective definitions of these words because the way they are understood in general is subjective.

"the smokers do find that the flavour of the cigarettes are pleasant, but it affects your health in the bad way. Now is that the least bit pleasant anymore? You must know that it's not the taste that counts, but the way it affects your health."

Con is simply trying to redefine the word "pleasant" such that it supports her case. Something is pleasant if it gives or affords pleasure or enjoyment.[1] There is nothing in this definition to suggest that having negative repercussions in the future would revoke something's pleasantness. However, even if Pro had a case here, it is still true that people can choose to do things that are unpleasant and it is not up to others to decide that they should not do it.

"I know, the smell of the cigarettes before they got lit on fire was pleasant, but the smell after they got lit on fire was not very pleasant."

Pro is only stating her opinion. Many people would disagree. See my source in round 1.

"[Con] would say anything to convince everyone that I'm wrong"

This is not true and is an ad hominem attack against me. While it is the case that I am attempting to prove that Pro is wrong, I would certainly not say anything in order to convince people of it. In particular, I would not say anything that I do not believe to be true.

In round 2, Pro wrote: "I know that my arguments are subjective" and yet in round 3 she claims the opposite. Pro has contradicted herself from one round to the next.

Pro has yet to offer any arguments against the fact that smokers are aware of the risks of smoking and choose to smoke anyway. They have weighed the positives against the negatives and made a decision. It is not up to Pro or anyone else to decide what these people should do.

It is therefore not the case that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.


[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
sweetbreeze

Pro

Con would say anything to convince people that smokers can keep smoking.

Yes, 'bad' and 'stupid' are subjective words, but if you say that smoking is bad and stupid, then that's completely different. Con is not understanding that what I'm saying is true. Con is "defining" the meaning of pleasant?

Smoking IS a bad and stupid habit because some people smoking don't even realise how much risk they're in because they're adicted fast. Cigarettes are an adictive drug and now all the ads on TV tell everyone how bad they are and that everyone smoking should QUIT IT. It ruins people's lungs and the lungs of other people around them.

Smoking is NOT truly pleasant for anyone, because it affects your health in the bad way. Is that the least bit pleasant anymore?! Seriously, it's not the flavour/taste that counts, but the way it affects your health.

Further more, I DO NOT think that my arguments are subjective anymore, because it's Con that's being subjective. He is not understanding that he's being subjective about my "subjective arguments" himself. Just because he wants to prove me wrong and convince the smokers to keep smoking. He is NOT understanding that my arguments are true.
hightreason

Con

"Con would say anything to convince people that smokers can keep smoking."

Pro simply repeats her ad hominem attack against me.

"Yes, 'bad' and 'stupid' are subjective words, but if you say that smoking is bad and stupid, then that's completely different."

I believe Pro is saying that even though the meaning of a word refers to a subjective judgement, the use of that word changes the meaning to something different? I ask Pro to please explain this because it makes no sense to me.

"Con is "defining" the meaning of pleasant?"

I provided a link to an online dictionary to back up the definition. If Pro has a different definition and a source to back it up, I invite her to present it.

Everything else Con says is just repeating what she has said before and that I have already provided arguments against.

"[Con]wants to ... convince the smokers to keep smoking"

I don't see how Pro got this from my arguments. I do not believe anything in my arguments so far can be contrued as an attempt to convince smokers to continue smoking. If Pro believes otherwise, I hope she will point out exactly what I have said that makes her think that way.

The resolution continues to stand negated.
Debate Round No. 4
sweetbreeze

Pro

I'm not the one attacking Con, but Con is the one attacking me. He disagrees with my facts and say they're my opinions. By doing that, he won't make me give up, but will make me try even more until the end of this challenge.

If Con really understands the meaning of 'pleasant', he should know the meaning of how something is truly pleasant. Truly pleasant is when something affects your senses in the good way and affects your health in the good way. If something is truly pleasant, it can't be only pleasant for your senses and not your health. It has to be pleasant for your health AND your senses.

Con constantly disagrees with me. Disagreeing with me will not be meaningless. No matter what it takes, I'm finishing this challenge.

;)
hightreason

Con

As far as I can tell, the only substance in Pro's argument this round is an attempt to define a phrase "truly pleasant" that differs in meaning substantially from the word "pleasant." A quick search for such a phrase turned up nothing relevant, and Pro has provided no sources for this term.

However, even if such a phrase did exist, it still has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
I don't think Guy_D has a very good RFD for his vote
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
My father IS a doctor. And doctors have proven that people CAN contract asthma from people around them smoking. They can also contract ear infections and lung cancer. My brother did contract asthma from my father smoking, and doctors have proven it.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
*Doctors.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Doctor have proven that many people can get asthma from other people around them smoking. There are other diseases you can get, like ear infections and lung cancer.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments flow Con.
Vote Placed by D.Wolf 3 years ago
D.Wolf
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well done Con.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: counter annanicole
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Guy_D
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT." Wrong!! Pro loses based on the title alone. Con must have been looking for an easy victory. He found it!
Vote Placed by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: While I find smoking vile and masochistic, and completely agree with Pro's stance, Pro went about agreeing with [her?] stance horribly. Con calmly cited sources and applied logic whilst Pro built a 'case' around sensationalism and poorly-organized emotional appeal. While I found Con's arguments weak and unsatisfactory, Pro's arguments were even more so, and Pro failed to refute anything Con said, whereas Con eloquently countered each of Pro's arguments. Pro listed no sources at all, whereas Con listed several. Pro's spelling and grammar were also wanting for improvement. I'm disappointed that the person whose stance is, in my opinion, the healthier and more civic one, should walk away from this debate looking like a neurotic conspiracy nut.
Vote Placed by annanicole 3 years ago
annanicole
sweetbreezehightreasonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ridiculous arguments by Pro. Who can prove her brother contracted asthma from her father's smoking?