The Instigator
fire_wings
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Fire_wings 50th debate: Smoking Ban

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,122 times Debate No: 85118
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Con

Debate for donald.keller

Rules

1. over 3000 ELO to vote, and accept.

2. No FF unless same number

3. No trolling

4. No kritiks, semantics

Strucuture

1. Rules/ Arguments


2. Arguments/ Rebuttals

3. Rebuttals/ Defense

4. Defense/ Waive

Definitions

Smoking: Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes, and cigars.

Ban: A stop to.

Begin!

donald.keller

Pro

Thank you Con for letting me accept this honorable debate.

Premise I: Harms v Benefits.

As is the basis of most debates, and many philosophies, such as utilitarianism and the Harm Principle (the centerpiece of all, or close to all, arguments on the Con side), this is a vital premise I shall base my cases on. If something hurts the US more than it benefits the US, rights and freedoms included, it should be banned.

Premise II: Limitation of Rights.

Rights aren't the end game. They aren't the goal of Government, or the People. The endgame is a balance of law and rights. Freedom of Speech is the prima facie example of this. I may not say I wish to bomb my school, or reveal the location and name of US spies because the harm is greater than any benefit. Rights end where the impact on others is greater than the reward.

Argument I: Economics of Smoking.

Con will likely bring up the profits of smoking. Let me do so first. The Smoking industry is very profitable. It returns revenues of $35 billion for the US (1). At best, this provides taxes of $4 billion+ (2). These numbers are vast, indeed, but not hard to counter. The economic truth of smoking is that it is related directly to millions of illnesses in the US, annually.

The cost of these medical illnesses, as reported by a late 2014 study (Xin Xu, Bishop, et al), is nearly $170 billion (3). It takes the cigarette tax revenue of the US over 42 years to pay the medical costs of one year of smoking (although the costs of smoking would exceed $7.1 trillion in 42 years, inflation excluded). The costs far exceed any profits by a vast margin. Of the costs, 60% ($102 bn a year) is federal in origin. Since the majority of smokers are poorer (4), it's the non-smokers paying this cost.

Of course, there are many deaths from smoking. I'll detail them further in Argument II, but until then, let's move on. The economic impact of smoking from illnesses and death exceeds $140 billion, from causes such as lost productivity, lost spending power, and importantly, death (5). These costs, when put together, equate over $310 billion in negative impacts to the economy. The costs from death and illness is an actual loss, and not just negative spending. It is made of lost spending, lost work, and lost revenue. The $140 billion is the equivalent of over $24.5 billion in taxes, based on taxes relative to GDP (6). This far exceeds the $4 billion brought in from smoking. The thing about lost economy is that it does not end that year... The $140 bn+ hit to the economy is huge, and takes away investable capital and growth. This leads to a domino effect. $145 bn in 2015 leads to $50 bn in growth lost from 2016, leading to $80 bn in loss growth the year after. Since 2005, the US would have lost $1.45 trillion in economy, costing us perhaps $2 trillion in investments, capital growth, and economic stimilus. The impact of smoking would be trillions in the making each decade, every decade.

This impact hurts non-smokers far worse than it hurts current smokers. Due to the impersonal nature of medical costs and government spending, smoker's aren't just making the choice for them, they're making it for everyone. Smokers come out of this with the least harm. Taxes on smoking would have to exceed 885% just to make the cost.

[1] http://www.worldlungfoundation.org...
[2] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
[3] http://www.prevent.org...
[4] http://www.gallup.com...
[5] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...
[6] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

Argument II: Secondhand Smoke.

As the CDC reports, secondhand smoke causes 34,000 deaths in the US from heart disease alone. Another 8,000 deaths are caused by strokes annually from secondhand smoke (5). A study by J. Barnova and S. Glantz show that the cardiovascular impact of passive amounts of secondhand smoke is almost the same as actual smoking (80-90% as effective as smoking)(7). Another review put the death toll from heart disease as high as 42,000 (8). It's assumed nearly 7000-8000 die annually from lung cancer. The impact of secondhand smoke also includes worsening asthma and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children.

It's assumed that there are 5.6 million children today who will die prematurely due to the impact of secondhand smoke on their bodies (5). There is a study claiming that secondhand smoking does not lead to lung cancer. This one study, up against the array of literature on the subject, only rated house wives who had very passive contact with smoking. This doesn't account for people with a lot of contact, or children living in a house with two parents who smoke.

The impact of secondhand smoke is vast, and invasive. Smoking does more to infringe on the bodily autonomy, right to life, and right to security of self and future, of anyone who is harmed by secondhand smoke from drugs.

Banning the act of smoking publicly is laughably ineffective. Most of the 5 million children listed above would die from secondhand smoke caused by parents in the household. Smoking outside does little to prevent the effects, as the smoke contaminates the surrounding area around, and inside, the home (9). Smoking inside, alone, also does nothing, as the smoke travels. So much so that the user can effect houses nearby. A study by San Diego State University shows that smoke will contaminate nearby apartments (10). Other studies show the same (11). Even third-degree smoke is considered a thing, now, as non-smokers can pass on secondhand smoke to those around them.

The only way to prevent secondhand smoke is to ban smoking. The effect on others far exceeds the "rights" of those using the product. The "freedom of bodily choice" far from compares to the severe deterioration of other freedoms caused by smoking.

[7] http://circ.ahajournals.org...
[8] http://www.cancer.org...
[9] http://www.nature.com...
[10] http://www.usatoday.com...
[11] http://tobaccofreeca.com...

Argument III: Economic Freedom.

Smoking is, at it's roots, a violation of our most basic right... The right to say no. More important than the right to say yes to a product, is the right to say no before and after using it. Legalization allows companies to violate our bodily autonomy, and make us HAVE to buy their product, at $7,000 profit a death (12), or face major physical withdrawals.

The freedom of choice only exists if the choice to say no exists. Without it, the idea of choice is a myth.

[12] http://www.techtimes.com...

Summary:
The cost of smoking is SO FAR above the economic profits of smoking that it is considerably one of the greatest economics disasters of all time. The impact on others make smoking a choice that harms everyone around us. It is NOT a personal freedom. It is a very public choice with very public consequences that outwieght, by at least 9 to 1, the benefits.

Essentially, everyone is paying the price for smokers to continue killing them.
On to Pro for his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Con

Framework

I thank my opponent for his arguments. The debate is about Smoking Ban, I am Con. BoP is on Pro, he has the burden to prove of why we should ban smoking. I will make my 4 arguments, and one plan. My three arguments are the economy, liberty, and dependency, illegal tobacco, my plan will be called later. I will only have my arguments this round, because the structure only says construct and write your arguments.

What is tobacco?

I know that it was a rule of Pro's that I accept the definitions, however I know that most of our definitions will be similar.


Okay, what is tobacco?

Tobacco: a preparation of the nicotine-rich leaves of an American plant, which are cured by a process of drying and fermentation for smoking or chewing. [3]

Okay, so the main argue of this debate is if we should ban tobacco, which is a plant which is not healthy, and you smoke. I will be arguing we should have tobacco, when my opponent will argue we should ban tobacco.

Argument 1: Liberty

We have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others. This is what the harm principle states. It states that we can do anything unless it does not harm others. Pro might argue that smoking does harm others, but I will adress that so my opponent cannot say that in his counterplan later, that we can smoke designated areas. I will adress this later, and go to the actual argument.


We have moral reasons not to ban smoking. First, we have self-ownership, meaning that we have the right to do what we want. If we do not have self-ownership, which the Pro side must say, that is same that we can do nothing we want, then that is slavery. Slavery is banned, so not self-ownership should be banned.




Why should others care if we drink smoking? It is our own bodies, and we have the right to do anything with it.




This means that we have self-ownership and can do anything we want unless it does not harm others.

Argument 2: Economic Impact

A smoking ban causes economical impact. Think about how much money the government gets by smoking.

"Total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year [1]"

Yes, 300 billion dollars will be for smoking. Many people think that is a waste, but then government gets lots. However, if we ban smoking, then they won't earn these profits. Also, the tobacco workers will have no job, leading to the next argument, dependency.

Argument 3: Dependency

If smoking gets banned, then think about the people who have jobs related to smoking. There is about 800,000 people in a tobacco farm [2], so there will probably be like 10 million people. If we ban smoking, then what job to they have? They have no job. Then they will be dependent to the government, meaning that they need the government's support because they have no job.

Argument 4: Illegal Tobacco

Tobacco will just become an illegal drug like cocaine. Then a black market will form. Illegally, people will sell tobacco, for 3 times more, and also this strengthens the criminal networks. So if we ban tobacco, it will be bad, strengthens the criminal networks, you are illegally doing this, and also a black market will form.

Counterplan 1: Desingated Areas for Smoking

Pro might say that it does harm others, when we smoke, it causes pollution. This is one of my opponent's arguments, and for him to not say that I am wrong, I will make this counterplan which is Desingarted Areas for Smoking

Posted Image


Smoking Area

Did you ever see these things in some places. I agree, there is not much. However, if we use my plan, and make more of these areas, it will be much better, no innocent people dying, and lots of people who like smoking to smoke. If it just takes a bit more space, we will have a good environment.

Conclusion

I will post my rebuttals in the next round. My arguments were that we have self-ownership, the economy gets a bad impact, people will be dependent to the government, tobacco will be an illegal drug, people will buy it illegally, and my counterplan that we need desingated places to smoke. For all these reasons, vote for Con.

Sources

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...

[2] http://www.morganmcmanussolicitors.com...

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Thanks. Over to Pro!





donald.keller

Pro

Thank you, Con.

Rebuttal I: Liberty.

Con's case of Liberty is simply too vague. As I mentioned in my own Premises, freedom is not the endgame. The goal of men is to find the balance of liberty and law. Con's own philosophy greatly underestimates the complexities of liberty, and presumes that more freedom = good.

He brings up the harm principle, which is good... Since the impacts of smoking on the economy is great, and it hurts ALL people. The economic loss is around $580 per adult citizen. And an additional $420 in taxes per tax payer. Another $260 in expanses per adult. The total cost is $1250 a year per citizen. I, a non-smoker, pay in costs and losses, $12,500 a decade for the "liberty" to smoke.

Of course, there is also secondhand effects, which will cost 5,600,000 children, alive today, their lifes. As my own arguments made clear, the impact of secondhand smoke escapes the home. Restricting it's use to the house does nothing to stop it's impact on homes nearby. Since most smokers are poorer, they tend to live in apartments with others, each at risk of cancer and potentially death. Secondhand smoke itself kills 42,000 non-smokers alone every year, 900 of whom were babies (1).

Secondhand smoke even causes serious long-term issues, such as learning disabilities. 21.5 million children will likely have reading disabilities because of secondhand smoke, found in a study by Yolton (2). Another study by Batty found that children exposed to secondhand smoke are likely to be, on average, 3 IQ points lower than non-effected children (3). It is assumed that women exposed to secondhand smoke are 68% more likely to have a miscarriage (4).

The effects of smoking are economically huge for non-smokers, and the smoke itself is destructive. I will save the many other effects and harms for my defense. The problem with Con's case is that liberty is only a benefit. It can, and gravely is, undermined by the vast negative impacts of smoking. The invasion of the liberties of every non-smoker far outweighs the very meager freedom to smoke.

[1] http://www.livescience.com...
[2] Yolton, K. et al., "Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cognitive Abilities of U.S. Children and Adolescents," Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(1): 98-103.
[3] Batty, G.D.; Der, G.; Deary, I.J., "Effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy on offspring's cognitive ability: empirical evidence for complete confounding in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth," Pediatrics 118(3): 943-950, September 2006.
[4] "Secondhand smoke raises odds of fertility problems in women," Science Daily, December 5, 2008.

Rebuttal II: Economics of Smoking.

Con seems to presume all $310 billion in losses are gains for the tobacco industry, but they aren't. In economics, there are two types of expenses... Negative and Positive. Losses and Stimulus. Some expenses boost the economy while others hurt it. Medical expanses are considered negative expenses. More medical expenses make insurance more expensive and can even hurt an already overly crowded medical industry.

So the $310 bn isn't stimulus... They are all losses. $145 bn in actual losses from death, lost expenses, lost productivity, and lost taxes. Of the $170 bn in medical costs, $105 bn is Government expenses. If we were to take taxes into account, the Government would get only, at most, $10 billion from expenses, and pay $105 billion to get it.

The Dependency argument is economical in origin, so I'll include it here. Con says there are 800,000 people working on a Tobacco farm, and a likely 10,000,000 in total... This is a silly number, as no farm in the world would hold more than a few hundred workers at max. And his source is about safe areas in bars, mentioning nothing about the industry, farms, or jobs. The industry, as a whole, actually employs only 660,000 workers, and $15 billion in payrolls... However, many of these workers are children, even in the US, some as young as 7 years old [6]. These children face severe issues doing so.

The 660,000 jobs are meaningless. Cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands of US workers. If JUST half of the 480,000 annual Americans killed by smoking were workers, then the tobacco industry has killed 1,200,000 US workers since 2010 (7). The number goes as high as 2,400,000. This far outweighs the 660k workers of the tobacco industry. And the $15 billion in payroll is outweighed by the increased cost of living and the lost $145 billion the economy never saw.

[5] http://www.encyclopedia.com...
[6] http://www.cnn.com...
[7] http://www.cdc.gov...

Rebuttal III: Illegal Drugs.

Con says cigarettes will become an illegal drug like cocaine. However, cocaine use became rampant in the 70's and 80's, but has since been nearly wiped out by US drug policy (8). Cocaine is perhaps one of the US's greatest success stories. Regardless, Cigarettes don't have an aggressive enough addiction rate to last long in the US. Not only are most addictions born only because the drug is legal, but it's hard to quit because the circumstances (it's legality) allow it to be. Trying to quit is hard when you see hundreds of variants of the product lined up colorfully in the entry of every shop in the US. It's legality is why it's addiction is so aggressive. If the drug were illegal, it'd be far easier to quit.

Another reason why banning smoking wouldn't lead to a massive black market is because the product is so widely hated by Americans, and secondhand smoke is such a popular topic. Drugs like marijuana have popular opinion on their side. We see that public opinion leads to larger black markets because only the drugs with a positive public image have growing/large markets, while unpopular drugs (cigarettes being included) have dying markets.

[8] http://www.dea.gov...

Rebuttal IV: Smoking Areas.

My first argument in R1 addresses this... To copy my case, smoking in a designated location does nothing, as the smoke travels. So much so that the user can effect houses nearby. A study by San Diego State University shows that smoke will contaminate nearby apartments (9). Other studies show the same (10). Even third-degree smoke is considered a thing now, as people can pass on secondhand smoke to those around them.

Restricting smoking to certain areas doesn't work, as a study by Gideon St.Helen found that such areas simply contaminate the bar and surrounding areas (11).

[9] http://www.nature.com...
[10] http://www.usatoday.com...
[11] http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

Summary:
The effects of smoke on the economy and others negates any case for freedom, and puts an end to the idea that tobacco is healthy for the economy.
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

I will cover as much as I can, because we are getting ready for our trip to Paris. Please do not penalize me if I cannot get onto something, I will try to get it on the next round. I might not get to my defense, but I will try.

Framework

I will mostly go on about all the rebuttals, or I will try to cover up my opponent's case. I will not go to my defense yet, as it says in the structure. Sorry if my case is weak, I don't have lots of time. As again, BoP is on Pro.

I mostly accept Pro's first premise, but then I disagree with it also. He states, "If something hurts the US more than it benefits the US, it should be banned." This is unreasonable. Even if it hurts the US more, that does not mean we should ban it.

I accept his second premise.

Rebuttal 1: Economics of Smoking

Yes, I did mention the profits of smoking. I will rebut his argument now.

Pro states that the cost of the medical issues is nearly $170 billion dollars. Yes, this is a big cost of money, but however, whose medical cost is this? The smokers. The smokers can have the right to smoke, that is why they were unhealthy and that is why they went to the hospital. Not the other people's fault, it was the right if choice for the smokers.

Pro says that it is the non-smokers who pay. However this does not make sense. Why do other people who do not get hurt pay? They don't, at least it most of the places. Why do other people pay of other's medical things? They do not, making this argument unsufficient.

Pro states all the things that can happen, and says it is 310 billion dollars. However, over 500 billion dollars are made from smoking every year, and with that, also with the smoking ban, and the tobacco farms, there will be way more than trillions. The cost of a smoking ban is more.


Rebuttal 2: Secondhand smoke

"As the CDC reports, secondhand smoke causes 34,000 deaths in the US from heart disease alone. Another 8,000 deaths are caused by strokes annually from secondhand smoke (5). A study by J. Barnova and S. Glantz show that the cardiovascular impact of passive amounts of secondhand smoke is almost the same as actual smoking (80-90% as effective as smoking)(7). Another review put the death toll from heart disease as high as 42,000 (8). It's assumed nearly 7000-8000 die annually from lung cancer. The impact of secondhand smoke also includes worsening asthma and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children."

I will start rebutting this. Pro states that 34,000 deaths will be in the US of heart disease. 8000 from secondhand smoke, it says. With my plan, there will be much of a little amount of deaths.


It is impossible of secondhand smoke is 80-90% because the smokers drink almost all of the smoke, and put it in their lungs.

Pro says that 5.6 million people today die because of secondhand smoke. But as I said, my counterproblem. In his rebuttal he said smoking moves and shifts. Then we can have ventalized rooms.

"The new law restricts smoking to sealed and ventilated rooms, so smokers fear even these zones could be threatened."

Also we can make the rooms so that doors are always closed. Much more people die because of other things, and with this stategy, no one will die, and even though there is not lots of smoke, it is still smaller than factories.


Rebuttal 3: Economic Freedom

Pro says that there is a basic right for us to say no. However there is a more basic right: we get to do the things we want. The smokers can have the right to do what they want, because they have self-ownership, meaning that they can do anything they want. Why do people have to buy their product? As Pro says we have the right to say no, why not say no. His first statement had rebutted and made his second statement wrong.

Why is the idea of choice a myth. It is an very important thing. Without the right of choice, we can't do anything we want. We can do what we want. If we don't want our self-ownership to be taken, vote for CON!

Conclusion

Vote for Con. Pro thinks that we do not have the right of choice, and is going weird. If we do not have the right of choice, we cannot do anything we want. If we want the right to do what we want, vote for Con.

Thank you. I appoligize for the weak argument.


donald.keller

Pro

Premise I: Harms v Benefits.

Con says the following statement is unreasonable: "If something hurts the US more than it benefits the US, it should be banned." However, he can not accept Premise II or the Harm Principle, and then deny this statement. If something you did hurts the US more than it benefits it, it invokes Premise II's statement: "Rights end where the impact on others is greater than the reward."

Premise II: Limitation of Rights.

Con has accepted this.

Argument I: Economics of Smoking.

I will start by noting that Con dropped this point: "Since 2005, the US would have lost $1.45 trillion in economy, costing us perhaps $2 trillion in investments, capital growth, and economic stimulus. The impact of smoking would be trillions in the making each decade, every decade."

It's perhaps likely the US GDP could be 17% larger based on loss growth and capital investments from 2005+ alone... It'd be MUCH larger if we used numbers going back 50+ years. By dropping the above statement, Con largely concedes to this.

Con ignores several key points of my argument where I explained why Medical Costs are bad... Firstly, $105 billion of the cost is tax-payer funded, meaning the average tax payer pays $640 a year on smoker's health. Non-smokers pay more because they are typically wealthier, a point Con dropped. As well as costing tax payers over a hundred billion dollar (over 3% of the Federal Budget), the $170 billion in total increases Insurance Costs on EVERYONE.

It's also the case that many of those billion of dollars go to fixing the effects of Secondhand Smoke... Pro also forgets that not all expenses of Stimulus in nature... Even if it were only smokers paying the $170 billion, that's $170 billion they can't spend on things that stimulate the economy, like a new Car, or on debts. If it were only smokers paying, it'd be $3,750 per smoker (excluding the cost of buying cigarettes.) Such a cost among 45,000,000 Americans would have huge effects on the Economy... So even by Con's assumption, the economy would boom after decades of a smoke ban.

To believe the smoking industry produced $500 billion a year is a misuse of Information. That is GLOBAL revenues. While the costs I listed were US costs. So it's only appropriate to use US revenues (under $35 billion). If we were to project costs onto a GLOBAL field, the number of deaths increases from 480,000 to 6,000,000. Secondhand smoke kills 600,000 people, including 150,000+ children (2). The medical costs alone are $500 billion... But at the same time, if the medical costs and quality of medical aid in those nations were comparable to the US's, we'd see expenses over a trillion dollars. As well, many of these people don't add costs because they are too poor to pay, thus making the real cost higher.

The EU believes the total cost of smoking on the economy was $608 billion USD... In Europe alone (3).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://www.tobaccofreekids.org...
[3] http://www.erswhitebook.org...

Argument II: Secondhand Smoke.

Con's case is a little confusing... "It is impossible of secondhand smoke is 80-90% because the smokers drink almost all of the smoke, and put it in their lungs." I'm not sure what this means...

Either way, Con gives us no reason to prefer his plan over a full ban. His plan would still endanger 45,000,000 Americans, and despite his assumption that "what we do with with our bodies hurts no one," such causalities would still effect EVERYONE. Most medical costs and lost economy aren't caused by secondhand smoke, so all of those impacts on the average non-smoking American would still exist. And Con's plan for a fully ventilated room with sealed doors would be expansive for the majority of bars and homes to implement. Most bars simply don't have the space, revenue, or land needed to install such a thing. Forbes put the cost of the ventilation system, by itself, at as high as $15,000 (4). And that cost is for private only. The system needed for a full bar room with potentially 100x the smoke exposure would be much higher.

Even then, the Surgeon General warns that ventilation systems do not work (5). The system still leaves patrons and workers exposed, and doesn't prevent secondhand smoke because the smoke carries with the user. It doesn't just stay behind.

That being said, my plan would end both secondhand smoke AND smoke-related causalities/costs of all kind.

[4] http://www.forbes.com...
[5] http://www.no-smoke.org...

Argument III: Economic Freedom.

"...we get to do the things we want."

Such a freedom can only exist by banning smoking, as most smokers don't get the right to do what they want. As many as 85% of smokers wish they could quit (5). So in truth, smoker's don't "want" to smoke. They simply don't have the right to do what they want, which is quitting. No matter which plan we go wish, someone is losing either the right to start, or the right to stop, smoking, and it's clear which one is more economically sound and enjoyed.

The right to say yes can only exist when the right to say no exists with it. I don't have the right to say yes to paying my taxes, because I don't have the right to say no to them, as an example. So no, allowing the right to smoke cigerettes doesn't grant one more freedom.

It is better to lose the right to start something that will kill you and your children, than to lose the right to say no to something is killing you and your children. Likewise, it's reasonable for the government to revoke the right to start a drug that will hurt everyone and the economy, than for corporations to take away your right to not buy self-harming products from them...

"If we do not have the right of choice, we cannot do anything we want."
This is silly. The right of choice is not one singular right... You lose the right to smoke, and suddenly you aren't allowed to do anything? There are millions of choices we can make, and the choices that impose massive costs and health hazards onto others should not be allowed. This does not mean all choices are therefore also banned. This is the very idea behind the Harm Principle.

Conclusion:
Smoking costs the US 8x what it brings in, and leads to 25% of all US deaths. The effect on others violates the Harm Principle, and the effect on the Economy harms everyone, smoker or non-smoker. Therefore smoking causes so much more harm to everyone, non-smokers included, that it would be universally more benefical to all the US if smoking was banned.
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Con

I said in the comments that I have too little time... I will try to post as well and defend my case. Sorry if my case is weak.

Framework

This is the last round of our debate, because Pro needs to waive the next round, as it says in the rules. If you break this= you lose. BoP is on Pro. As I said Pro's premises do not work. Freedom is the most important. Without freedom, we cannot do anything making freedom the most important. My opponent needs to say "No round as agreed upon, or round waived. He cannot rebut or add into the debate.

Defense 1: Liberty

I said that freedom is the most important in the framework, without freedom we cannot do anything. Yes freedom= good, because banning slaves= good, meaning that freedom= good.

As I said, the economy is much worser in my second argument. Also using my counterplan, there will be no secondhand smoking. My opponent says that smoke that move around, but I said that there can be smoking zones, and strict rules of them. Like in Kenya, there are smoking zones. Even though they are not followed, it is a good idea if we make a strict policy.

Pro fails to rebut my argument that people have self-ownership, meaning that they can own themselves. Because they can own themselves, they can do anything they want.

The right of choice, is simply much of a more important issue then a can be fixed secondhand smoke. With a bit more money, used, then we can have a fair world where smokers can smoke and non-smokers can be wherever they want with no smoke.

Defense 2: Economy/ Dependency

Okay, Pro makes a good rebuttal, but that was not my main point of my argument. My argument was that is smoking gets banned, then the money that the workers earned goes away, and they cannot earn it. Because economy basically equals to the government, that means that them failing and all the tobacco farmers, (sorry, I got the caculation wrong that time) will need support from the government, and as I said, government= economy basically, that means government turns bad, then the economy turns bad.

Sorry for miscaculating, but then Pro fails to rebut of the people's jobs, and they can't earn money. Pro says it is useless to care because more workers die because they smoke. However it was there choice to smoke, people did not force them to smoke, making them irrevlant to the argument. Pro fails to rebut the harms and the bad effects of smoking getting banned, which makes the tobacco farmers have no job, money making the GDP going down.

Defense 3: Illegal Drugs

Pro says that it is so widely hated by Americans. Then why do millions of people smoke it when they hate it? Pro fails to rebut the argument of criminal networks, the criminal networks strengthening. He also fails to rebut my argument that people buy tobacco and cigarettes illegally for 3 times it's worth. So a smoking ban does not good things, as I mentioned, still there will be smoking, and there is and will be no way to stop this.

Defense 4: Smoking Areas/ Counterplan

Pro says that smoke travels to nearby apartments. That is why I said there will be smoking zones, and if we restrict the zones and rules, then there can be smoking without secondhand smoke. So my opponents rebuttal fail, that means that this argument is dropped.

Conclusion

My opponent drops most of my arguments. He drops self-ownership, dependecy, criminal networks and buying drugs illegally, and also my counterplan of smoking areas. For all these reasons, vote for Con. I thank my opponent for the debate and once again,

VOTE CON!!!
donald.keller

Pro

No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
This debate changed my view so I don't care, and can argue in both sides for this debate, I was first Pro smoking ban, but Tejretics persuaded me, but now I am not sure.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
I didn't think I reported it.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Because I was drunk when I wrote it
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Why are debaters abusively reporting votes just because it's against their side or belief..?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hayd// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Pro. If you have an unvoted debate submit it to the Voter's Union by contacting DK, Whiteflame, or Midnight. https://docs.google.com...

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently covers arguments made by both sides in this debate and comes to a clear decision with those in mind. While the reporter seems to find fault with the voter not covering certain issues sufficiently, the standards do not require that voters cover every argument exhaustively in order to cast a sufficient vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
thanks
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
I'll try and get a vote.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
yup, but you did not vote to either side.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
you'd better report mine.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
forgot to change but if someone's elo is less than 3000 ELO, the vote will get reported.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
fire_wingsdonald.kellerTied
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: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/82288/ Vote cast on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
fire_wingsdonald.kellerTied
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: Clear win for Pro. If you have an unvoted debate submit it to the Voter's Union by contacting DK, Whiteflame, or Midnight. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nmN1VYCwajFV4P7tJGZTzca34lkJ2sqYeLc6q1_xySE/edit?usp=sharing