The Instigator
kronosq
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yvette
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Like smoking, extremely heavy perfume wearing should be prohibited in public buildings.

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...
Yvette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,023 times Debate No: 12266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

kronosq

Pro

Considering the bans on public smoking that have swept the nation, I feel as though a similar ban should be placed on extremely heavy perfumes.

My reasons are thus:

1) Many people are allergic, and can suffer health risks as a result of exposure to heavy perfumes in enclosed spaces.

2) It is extremely unpleasant, especially in restaurants when someone is wearing perfume so thick that you can literally taste the air.

3) It shows a gross level of inconsideration for both of the previous cases. Like cursing in front of children, or indecent exposure, the wearing of extremely heavy perfumes should be considered a rude, uncouth act.

If we as a society are going to continually augment our smoking bans, we should also consider other, similar offenses to public air space.
Yvette

Con

Thank you for the debate, first of all. This'll be my first debate as well, on the site and otherwise--unless you consider comment-type deals a debate and I really don't. Here's to a good debate and hoping we both learn a lot.

Unfortunately, you haven't made much of a case. I'll get into what's specifically the problem, but I'll remind you that you have burden of proof and need to prove point one. If you can be more specific about what this health problem is--because at the end of the day you are trying to convince me and the voters that there is a problem that warrants taking personal liberties--you might have an argument.

Response to point 1:
How many people are allergic? 100 out of all Americans? 50% of Americans?

What health risks? They need to be serious enough to get the law involved.

How close must the exposure be? If you have to be a foot away from a person wearing extremely heavy perfume to be harmed, and exposed to it every day, that is a far cry from a small amount of exposure a good distance away killing someone.

If it is a serious enough problem to warrant making it illegal, can you give me a compelling reason why the manufacturers can't use an ingredient that doesn't harm those allergic to it?

Finally, you've failed to provide any proof whatsoever to back up your claim that "many people are allergic and can suffer health risks..." etc etc. Since a third of your argument rests on this being true, you should probably back this up.

Not to mention the comparison here is weak at best. You're comparing extremely heavy perfumes to smoking. However, there is a much stronger case to be made for making smoking illegal that cannot be made for extremely heavy perfume. The reason for making smoking illegal is that it presents health problems for everyone exposed to it--everyone--especially children.

I quote the Surgeon General: http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
"There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke: even small amounts of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful to people's health."

"A smoke-free environment is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke."

Can you honestly say the same of perfume? Even if it does represent serious risks for those allergic to extremely heavy perfume at far distances, it cannot compare to something that harms everyone at any level.

Response to point 2:
Why should extreme unpleasantness mean something should be illegal? It is not illegal to smell foul, dress in bad taste, be Republican (just kidding!), allow children to run around irritating everyone, etc. It's possible there's legal precedent set for this but you'll have to prove it--and that does not make it right. Even then, it is one thing to ban something that everyone finds unpleasant and it's another to ban something that a single person does that is unpleasant. Personal liberties are harmed in the second scenario and not in the first.

Response to point 3:
Cursing in front of children is not illegal, neither is rudeness and it never has been.

Conclusion:
I encourage you to prove your claims in point one, and to make a compelling case for why personal liberties should be surrendered to keep from irritating people.
Debate Round No. 1
kronosq

Pro

kronosq forfeited this round.
Yvette

Con

Life is busy and takes precedence over internet business, so I hope all is going well with my opponent and I look forward to his rebuttal in the next round. I'll simply add that wherever there is not significant reason for infringing on personal liberties, personal freedom should be unrestrained.
Debate Round No. 2
kronosq

Pro

kronosq forfeited this round.
Yvette

Con

Unfortunately my opponent seems to have started a debate than left the site. I would be happy to debate this with anyone else. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
Thank you for conceding that it would have been wrong to vote someone down out of anger and no longer planning to do so. Best of luck.
Posted by Acts2-38 7 years ago
Acts2-38
No because you said that I never told him I wanted him to use bible when I did. But I'm not going to vote against you because you became a little bit more understanding. Plus that would be messed up.
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
Because I voted against you in a debate? That's poor form. Thank you for letting us know ahead of time, though.
Posted by Acts2-38 7 years ago
Acts2-38
I am going to vote against Yvette .
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
Whatever it is, it's subjective, but the pro argument has worse things to worry about.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
What's a "heavy" amount of perfume?
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
Here's to a fun debate between two first-timers!
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Most certainly it should. This debate topic is the most fun and spot on topic I have seen in a long time. Well done for coming up with this debate. May you be the winner.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Brian_Eggleston 2.0?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 7 years ago
ravenwaen
kronosqYvetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
kronosqYvetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06