The Instigator
august55433
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
SebUK
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Its good that restaurants ban smoking indoors

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 1 vote the winner is...
august55433
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 63422
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

august55433

Pro

I believe that smoking is a very bad habit. I think that it is a good thing that most restaurants ban it. Second hand smoke is very unhealthy. I will look forward to a lively debate with my opponent! Thank you.
SebUK

Con

I accept , The Burden of Proof is on Pro to prove that it's good that restaurants ban smoking indoors, I'm simply here to counter-argue. 'I believe that smoking is a very bad habit' Of course it's a bad habit it has been scientifically proven but how does that matter at all . It's none of your business what somebody wishes to put into their body. 'I think that it is a good thing that most resaurants ban it' That is an opinion not an argument. 'Second hand smoke is very unhealthy. ' Indeed it is and therefore nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking. Sorry if I appeared to harsh in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
august55433

Pro

Lets start off with " It's none of your business what somebody wishes to put into their body." When did i mention that it was my business? I really don't care if you smoke or not, this is about that being brought into restaurants. By me saying that i don't think people should smoke in restaurants, means that i want to control what people put in their body? No! This is a senseless and un-factual accusation that was not relevant to this discussion. Now lets go to "That is an opinion not an argument. " Yes it is my opinion. Shouldn't my opinion be in my opening statement? Why was that up for criticism? Finally lets look at "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No they don't, and I didn't say that anyone did. This was a very flawed and feelings based first argument from my opponent.

I would like to expand on "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No, people don't. But what if all restaurants allowed smoking indoors? Where would the majority of the country go if they wanted to eat out? Why should the people who don't smoke, be "punished" by halving to share a space with smokers? I say, let the people who have the habit, go outside. That way they don't bother others with their habit. Only 18.1% of Americans smoke according to the american lung association. Why should 81.9% of america suffer from that? The majority of the country does not smoke. There fore the decision should be to the advantage of them, not the smokers. They can smoke in their house, outside, in many public places. Why where people eat? Here are some facts to back up my argument.

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.

A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine confirmed that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks, and concluded that relatively brief exposure could trigger a heart attack.

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and 22,700 to 69,600 deaths from heart disease each year.

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke in a restaurant are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.

Now why should people be exposed to this while they are eating? Like i said before, the large majority of the country is non-smoking, so why should they half to be exposed to this, and where would they go to eat out? Sure some restaurants could have smoking, but not the majority. Because that's not fair to the people who don't have that habit. Thank you.
SebUK

Con

'When did i mention that it was my business? I really don't care if you smoke or not, this is about that being brought into restaurants. ' By saying it's not your business I was litterily saying it is not your business therefore you shouldn't have the right to command someone how to take care of their company. 'by me saying that i don't think people should smoke in restaurants, means that i want to control what people put in their body? No! This is a senseless and un-factual accusation that was not relevant to this discussion. ' It is completly relevant , You are indeed telling them what they can put into their bodies on a property that is not yours and that which you do not own and are not entitled to have a say on. You are basically saying as long as i'm alone on my property I can do whatever I want with it but when you come along I can't. This is what the government is doing right now. 'Shouldn't my opinion be in my opening statement? Why was that up for criticism? ' I apologise for mistaking your opening statement as your main piece of argumentation. 'Finally lets look at "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No they don't, and I didn't say that anyone did. This was a very flawed and feelings based first argument from my opponent.' . You are arguing for it being 'good'. According to the English Oxford Dictionary the definition of good is 'To be desired or approved of:'(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) You did not state that good is defined in this debate as being desired by you therefore we are speaking in a general sense, for all restaurants to ban smoking is certainly not fair not only is it unfair and undesirable for the owner of the property who of course would want to appear more customer friendly, it is dicriminatory against smokers who now would have to leave the property to smoke . If there were no laws against smoking in places such as restuarants then there would be competition , you could go to a restuarant that allows smoking or does not allow it , People would have freedom of choice and wouldn't that be more desirable and morally right (Worth of societies approval) ?.
Debate Round No. 2
august55433

Pro

Going off my opponents argument about how it is not my business. No, it is not my business and i cannot tell owners what to do. But that is not what we are debating here. This isn't literal where i am saying that we should or shouldn't tell owners what to do. this is about how it is good if a restaurant bans smoking. Not should we make owners turn their restaurants into non-smoking restaurants. Its the idea of it.

I also am not telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies like i said earlier. If i said "we should ban smoking" then i would be telling people what they can and cannot be putting in their bodies. In this situation, it is simply that you shouldn't put that in your bodies HERE. Not that you shouldn't do it, just that you cant do it HERE. There is a big difference.

My opponent says "on a property that is not yours and that which you do not own and are not entitled to have a say on" Why are we still talking about this? No it is not my property, i am merely arguing why they SHOULD make it smoke free. Not why they NEED to.

My opponent said " for all restaurants to ban smoking is certainly not fair." Like i said in my earlier argument, and i quote "Sure, some restaurants could have smoking" My opponent must have been mistaken or mis-read my argument. For i did not say that all restaurants should ban smoking.

My opponent states " it is discriminatory against smokers who now would have to leave the property to smoke " Really? if that is discriminatory, then wouldn't it be discriminatory against people who don't smoke, to allow smoking in a restaurant? They would "now would have to leave the property" as you said earlier about smokers. You could argue that anything is discriminatory if it leaves someone out.

So my statement that "not all restaurants would need to be non-smoking", pretty much makes my opponents entire last paragraph untrue, as he was arguing to the point that all restaurants would be non-smoking.

The reason i stated facts about second hand smoke was because i wanted to let the reader know, how dangerous second hand smoke is, and how it would effect people if they were exposed to it in a restaurant.

My opponent says in the comment section "A public place is different as it not owned by a private individual , Restaurants , pubs and such are not really 'public places' therefore it should be up to the owner to decide how to run his business." Did i use the definition of a public place wrongly? I know a restaurant is owned by someone, and therefore it is their decision. Like i have said many times, this isn't about forcing owners to do this, its the idea that it SHOULD be this way. Thank you.
SebUK

Con

SebUK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
My opponent continues and I quote 'Really? if that is discriminatory, then wouldn't it be discriminatory against people who don't smoke, to allow smoking in a restaurant? They would "now would have to leave the property" as you said earlier about smokers. You could argue that anything is discriminatory if it leaves someone out.'I was reffering to the current smoking laws but clearly you do not advocate for such or at least you haven't made it clear that you do so we can leave that out the point is you are saying it is good if restuarants ban smoking , but no that is not desirable as there would be limited competition and it would be harder for smokers to find restuarants that allow smoking . For the business it could be good to allow smoking if the restuarants around have banned it because then the smokers from the area would go there. Conclusion : My opponent tends to hang on to the fact that I wrote about anti-smoking laws and seems to have forgotten that I wrote about the 'goodness' factor too. It's been a pleasure debating.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
i forgot that the time limit is so short I apologise for not posting my final argument nevertheless , I will write it here.'Going off my opponents argument about how it is not my business. No, it is not my business and i cannot tell owners what to do. But that is not what we are debating here. This isn't literal where i am saying that we should or shouldn't tell owners what to do. this is about how it is good if a restaurant bans smoking. Not should we make owners turn their restaurants into non-smoking restaurants. Its the idea of it.' I see but I already responded to the 'goodness' of it later in my argument. 'I also am not telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies like i said earlier. If i said "we should ban smoking" then i would be telling people what they can and cannot be putting in their bodies. In this situation, it is simply that you shouldn't put that in your bodies HERE. Not that you shouldn't do it, just that you cant do it HERE. There is a big difference.' No , that is flawed argumentation it is like if a government banned smoking and an anti-smoking law supporter told me 'nobody is telling you that you cannot put tobbaco into your own body they are simply telling you that you cannot do it here' Banning smoking in places like restaurants is telling people what they can put into their own bodies because they cannot do it anymore on their own property it is equivelent to me telling you , that if I come to your property on your invitation that you cannot smoke in your own property in my presence or allow others to do it.
Posted by Carthage 2 years ago
Carthage
Hey, if you like the ban, stay, if you don't, go, and vice versa. If a restaraunt can make more money from banning than from not, it should. The free market is the best driving force.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
I accidently pressed post when I haven't finished writing my argument to the fullest.... here is Part 2 : 'I would like to expand on "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No, people don't. But what if all restaurants allowed smoking indoors? Where would the majority of the country go if they wanted to eat out? Why should the people who don't smoke, be "punished" by halving to share a space with smokers? I say, let the people who have the habit, go outside. ' All restaurants would not allow smoking as clearly not everyone is a smoker therefore it would be profitable for some restaurants to ban smoking since it would attract the kind of customers that do not enjoy second hand smoke.'Only 18.1% of Americans smoke according to the american lung association. Why should 81.9% of america suffer from that? 'They would not. 'They can smoke in their house, outside, in many public places. Why where people eat? Here are some facts to back up my argument.' A public place is different as it not owned by a private individual , Restuarants , pubs and such are not really 'public places' therefore it should be up to the owner to decide how to run his business. My opponent then talks about studies showing negative effects of second hand smoke , forgetting that if you choose to go to a restuarant that allows smoking you are expressing your consent to such exposure.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by cool.dude 2 years ago
cool.dude
august55433SebUKTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not a smoker so naturally I don't like it in restaurants. But at first I agreed with con, but pro persuaded me. Con fore fitted the round so conduct goes to pro. I say con had better grammar.