The Instigator
Majducator
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
tmar19652
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Make Smoking Illegal

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 5 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,796 times Debate No: 30019
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Majducator

Pro

I am issuing an open challenge to anybody who thinks smoking should stay legal.

HERE ARE THE RULES:
1.) The first round is only conformation that you accept my challenge
2.) No profanity allowed in this debate.
3.) Must not waste time during turns.
4.) Go Big or Go Home!

Good Luck,
Majducator
tmar19652

Con

I will argue that the smoking of meat (1) should remain legal, you did not clarify, but you have burden of proof as you are the instigator.

1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Majducator

Pro

LOL! I meant smoking cigarettes!
tmar19652

Con


My opponent has now tried to confine me to arguing that smoking cigarettes should be illegal, however, they should have clarified this in round 1 like I did.


Remember, pro has the burden of proof to prove that the smoking of meat should be illegal, and they have not satisfied that. Vote Con!!!


Debate Round No. 2
Majducator

Pro

I am not losing because I didn't clarify what kind of smoking! I object from losing! Vote Pro!
tmar19652

Con

You have the burden of proof, by not proving anything, you lose.
Debate Round No. 3
Majducator

Pro

I see no reason why the smoking of meat should be illegal! It's the smoking of cigarettes that should be illegal. I have three arguments why the smoking of cigarettes should be illegal (not the smoking of meat, challenger!)

Arguments:
- Second hand smoke from cigarettes could cause nearby sufferers of COPD, Asthma, Allergies, or Bronchitis to have an outbreak of their symptoms which include trouble breathing, nausea, and even death! This is one reason why the government should make the production and consumption of cigarettes illegal!

- The problem of cigarette smoking in the United States of America lowers life expectancy rating which make U.S. Citizens leave the USA. This is caused by about 200 known cancer causing poisons in cigarette smoke like tar, nicotine, methane, lead, and carbon monoxide! This is another reason why the United States of America should ban cigarette smoking!

- Michelle Obama and the rest of the United States of America have created plans to cut down on obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, and strokes but they are forgetting one disease that kills more people than the 4 disorders that I listed above combined, that is cancer! One way that the White House could cut down the cancer rate in the United States is by banning the production and consumption of cigarettes!

- My last argument of why consumption and production of cigarettes should be banned is it will lower the rate of wildfires! Approximately 50% of all wildfires are created by careless loggers, moonshiners, and other people that flick lit cigarettes at wood which ignites the wood and creates a wildfire that depending on it's location could kill more than 100 innocent people and 200 innocent animals. This is my last argument why the production and consumption of cigarettes should be illegal!

Since I proved something, I no longer have the burden of proof. Don't vote con, vote pro!
tmar19652

Con

My opponent has provided several examples of how smoking can be bad for your health, and for the environment, but none of those proves that the government should outlaw the action.

You will argue that cigarette-smoking causes harm, however every single smoker is well aware of danger of cigarette smoking. In many countries, cigarette companies are required to leave a warning message on their cigarette pack regarding the danger of smoking. Often, they are also required to illustrate the message with gruesome, grotesque and gory pictures of what excessive smoking can do to a person (1). Already, smokers are restricted in many ways so that they do not harm others, such as restrictions on smoking in parks, public restrooms and airplanes. Laws can prevent smokers from harming others but the government cannot/should not go further and stop responsible adults from harming themselves.

The funny thing about this though, Is that I do not even have to address the smoking of cigarettes as this debate is about meat smoking, and my opponent has provided no reasons as to why meat smoking should be illegal. Vote Con!!!

Sources
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Majducator

Pro

I will give out 3 rebuttals for what you say. Lets go with the rebuttal of why smoking cigarettes (not meat) should be illegal first!

Rebuttals:
1. You say that the government should not ban responsible adults from smoking, well here's a fact against that. The Top 10 Healthiest Countries in The World are (from 1 to 10) Japan, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Austria, and Australia. Do you see the United States of America up there? The answer is no! (http://www.healthfiend.com...) The reason why is because 20% of all Americans use tobacco. If the government were to ban production and consumption of tobacco products, the United States of America will be up in the Top 10 Healthiest Countries. (http://www.cdc.gov...)

2. Like you said that most parks, public restrooms, and airplanes prohibit smoking. How about outside of parks, public restrooms, airplanes, restaurants, and taxicabs/public transportation? When your at home or walking on streets there aren't strict restrictions so people could smoke wherever they want and get away with it! That increases risk of COPD/Asthma/Bronchitis/Allergy Attacks. If the government bans smoking police and businesses will be more strict.

3. I totally disagree with your statement that "The government should not ban responsible adults from harming themselves." Well 33% of high school students use some kind of tobacco. One reason why is they don't read the Surgeon General Warning Label because they are too lazy to read it. High School students are ages 14-18 so that means that not all smokers are "responsible adults." (http://www.livestrong.com...)

So Challenger lets see if these people think that I'm debating about smoking cigarettes or smoking meat! Please leave a comment saying Meat or Cigarettes in the comment box and don't forget to Vote Pro!
tmar19652

Con

My opponent has now laid out 3 reasons for why people should not take up smoking, but they did not prove that these reasons warrant a ban on smoking.

1.My opponent makes the claim that smoking is the reason that the United States is not one of the top-10 healthiest countries, but they do not prove that this is due to smoking, and not obesity, sugar intake, alcohol consumption or any other cause. Therefore, this is a moot point, and does not warrant a government ban on smoking.
2.My opponent then makes the claim that says restrictions on smokers" rights are not strict enough, but why is it the smoker"s responsibility not to smoke around other people? My opponent has not proven that a government ban would remedy this, nor did they show that non-smokers have a right to clean air.
3.I would also like to state that minors are not allowed to smoke. My opponents point only proves that a smoking ban would be ineffective and easy to circumvent.
Now I have proven that both the smoking of meat and the smoking of cigarettes should remain legal. My opponent has completely avoided the topic of this debate (meat smoking), and therefore has not fulfilled their burden of proof. Vote Con!!!!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by induced 3 years ago
induced
oops, i dont know why i thought tmar was female :P
Posted by tmar19652 3 years ago
tmar19652
I didn't have to make any, he made no arguments as to why it should be illegal.
Posted by Avamys 3 years ago
Avamys
I see no real arguments.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
Majducatortmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter voting induced (4 points) , who did not give valid reasons for voting.
Vote Placed by induced 3 years ago
induced
Majducatortmar19652Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to PRO because CON was trolling. PRO made strong arguments, while CON dismissed them as not strong enough. CON said nothing to help sway me to her position
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Majducatortmar19652Tied
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: Sorry, Pro. This is a good lesson to spend a few minutes considering your resolution. Con's interpretation is perfectly valid and in-line with the standard meaning of words. Pro did not prove smoking, in general, should be illegal. At most, Pro showed smoking cigarettes is harmful.
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 3 years ago
DebaterAgent
Majducatortmar19652Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate... I only gave out a 1 point category which was the "conduct". the conduct goes to con tmar19652.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
Majducatortmar19652Tied
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: Pro never specified "cigarette smoking" in round one or in the resolution, and Con gave an acceptable interpretation. If literally interpreted, to affirm this resolution Pro has to show why smoking anything should be illegal, and Con showed one example that shouldn't be illegal. If I need to expand on my RFD, I can do so in the comments section.