RESOLVED: Smoking should be banned
9spaceking has said in his account that he would gladly accept this debate challenge. So onto it my friend.
Our resolution: Resolved: Smoking should be banned
Smoking: is defined as a form of inhaling tobacco or any other potentially addictive substance for one's pleasure.
Banned: is defined as the act of completely criminalizing an action, object or practice.
1. No trolling. 9space take dis srsly
2. No trolling. 9space you better take dis srsly
3. No trolling. 9space plz take dis srsly
4. No ad hominems.
5. No vulgarity.
6. No trolling.
7. No FFs. FFs will lead to a 7 points loss.
8. No semantic plays. We are using the above definitions.
Rnd 2-Constructive Arguments
Rnd 4-Counter Rebuttals
Rnd 5-Conclusive Statements, no new arguments
Whoops, I posted the wrong picture. Please excuse me while I present the correct picture.
Ah, that's much better.
Before we start this debate, may we first rise up and pay respect for our great and glorious leader, Eduard Khil.
May he live on in Valhalla, trolling the Gods in the same manner he trolled all us.
Note that I am trying a different format in this debate.
Nevertheless, let us start with this troll………serious, yes, serious debate. The resolution presented to us today is:
Resolved: That smoking should be banned
Before I start introducing my cases, I would like to talk briefly about the resolution. The resolution infers that a worldwide ban would be beneficial. Although I am for the heavier regulation of tobacco and other addictive substances, the complete banishment of smoking would be detrimental on many points of views; the points I present to you mainly deal with moral and economic complications on the banishment of smoking. BoP is shared.
Argument One: The Moral Complications of Banning Smoking
Definitions needed in this argument:
I. Government is defined as an institution that controls the every administration of the state, a wholly coercive institution that exercises a monopoly of power.
II. Morality is defined as something that is correct; immoral, the opposite of this, is defined as something that is not wrong. This term will be used in the regards of human rights only, a widely agreed measure of morality.
III. Man is defined in this case as the human, not referring to a specific sex, race or nation.
IV. Individuals are defined in this case as a singular of man.
1. Every man has his individual moral worth; this worth is called liberty.
2. Every government must respect this individual moral worth
Propositions (and defense):
Prop 1. Every man has the rights to choose whatever he wants to do within the limits of law
This right, which we shall define as liberty, is one of the many rights that the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) recognizes; according to Locke, the right to liberty is a natural right, and no institution, without the consent of the individual, may violate this right. This right is also, as stated in the above axioms, the moral worth of every individual.
Prop 2. No government can still claim to be moral when this moral worth (liberty) is violated
According to the social contract theory elaborated by John Locke, people come and establish the state on the grounds of the need to preserve liberty, but as the minds of men are easily corrupted by power, then the government could easily fall into tyranny. A moral government, a just government, respects the liberty of all people. The duty of the state is not to impose tyranny, but to protect civilized society.
Prop 3. All violations of human rights are immoral
Just as a support decision to this, all violations of human rights are immoral; albeit some (in cases of murder, rape and crimes against humanity) violations can be justified.
Prop 4. The right to smoke is a personal individual decision
The right to smoke is indeed a personal decision; one has the liberty to choose whatever he does. The government cannot, without good moral judgment, interfere with the choices of its own citizens, providing that the choices made by these citizens do not directly affect the rights of other citizens. For example, a citizen may choose to have intercourse with another citizen (as long as there is consent) as the government has no place in the bedroom. The government also has no place in the smoking dilemma, because the individual chose to do it.
Prop 5. Any government that violates the moral worth of an individual is immoral
This is a build an extension of Prop 2 and John Locke’s arguments on a good and just government. Men naturally like liberty, and the government is here not to infringe on this natural liberty, but to protect it. If the liberty of one man is violated, however, then that government loses all its legitimacy; if the liberty of one man is violated, one could blatantly state that this government is tyrannical and deserves to be overthrown.
Conclusion: The banning of Smoking Is Immoral and Governments that enact this banishment must be overthrown
Argument Two: Economic Complications of Banning Smoking
I. Market is defined in this case as an exchange of a commodity within one country.
II. Profits are defined in this case as the financial gain after the commodity after it has been sold.
1. All markets have profits
2. In different countries, different markets have different profits.
Propositions (and defense):
Prop 1. The Tobacco market is a profitable market
The tobacco market is a profitable market, for both the country producing and exporting the tobacco and the country importing tobacco. In 1999, India tobacco export earnings amounted to 5% of the foreign export profits received from that year. During that year, India gained $2.1 billion dollars (not adjusted for inflation). The story for China is similar; in the province of Yunnan alone, the total sales of cigarettes reached $8.3 billion dollars in 1998. Turkey also provides us with a similar success story, with $530 million dollars being earned in 1998, despite the harsh tobacco taxes that the country had imposed on. 
Prop 2. The Tobacco market provides for 90% of an impoverished country’s economy
The tobacco market provides for 90% of the export profits earned by the impoverished country of Malawi; Malawi is the 7th largest exported of Tobacco in the world, yet it is an impoverish country. By busting the tobacco market worldwide, Malawi would lose 5 million jobs and a profit of $165 million yearly. Why should we care about Malawi? Because Malawi is one of the most impoverished countries in the world, with a highly undeveloped agrarian economy, we must take note that many would die from starvation if this collapse ensures.
Prop 3. The Busting of the Tobacco Market will cost many jobs
The tobacco market provides for 600,000 jobs in America alone. Apart from this, the bustling tobacco industry also indirectly influences 1.6 million American workers. Via taxes, the tobacco market gives $10 billion to the Federal Government yearly.  Can the United States survive such a collapse in jobs and economic profits? This United States highly depends on the Tobacco industry. Many argue that such a collapse would be detrimental to the US economy; however, if we look at the world, 30 million jobs are created in farming the tobacco alone.
Conclusion: The banning of tobacco and the downfall of the tobacco market will be detrimental to the American and worldwide economy, putting high emphasis on Malawi
Argument Three: The Uselessness of a Smoking Ban
1. Addiction is a health issue
2. Addiction is not a legal issue
Prop 1. Addicts will take any measures, draconian included, obtaining the addictive substance
Substance Addiction is a mental disorder recognized by the DSM V. When someone is addicted, they would take draconian measures to obtain the substance; tobacco in this case. A substance found in tobacco, called nicotine, is described by the DSM to be an axis three mental disorder; more precisely, nicotine addiction has the number prescription of 305.10. Going away from the psychiatry of this all, however, there have been numerous cases showing a black market developing for banned goods. This is due to the body’s quick physiological adaption to the substance used. Once the substance reduces, then the body does not go to the status quo ante of the pre-addiction equilibrium, but starts on a new equilibrium. This causes the mind to need more of the substance. 
Prop 2. When we turn a health issue into a legal issue, we are arresting people for their mental and physiological condition
Even the DSM V recognizes addiction as a mental condition; however, many governments are treating addiction as if it were an issue of choice; if it was, then we have the abilities and the right to deal with it in the same way we do with crimes like fraud and money laundering. However, it is not; we are targeting a group of people, whose mental condition cannot be controlled. It is equivalent to targeting all those who suffer from schizophrenia or schizoid; a mental issue cannot be a legal issue. 
Prop.3 Banning Tobacco will not stop addicts from obtaining tobacco
We are banning tobacco because we want to stop addicts from obtaining tobacco. However, this is inherently a false belief to hold; banning tobacco will cause a huge interference with the process of obtaining tobacco, but a black market will eventually develop out of it. The Fat Tax in Denmark was an example; people were smuggling fat-filled substances from other countries, leading to the halt of the fantasy taxes. Apart from this, the criminalization of drugs is also an indication that albeit drug laws can be tough in many countries, it doesn’t reduce drug usage.
Conclusion: Banning Tobacco will be a ban on a condition and will not stop addicts from obtaining the substance
Resolution is NEGATED
Over to you, con.
I actually don't need any rebuttals. Let me paste my Smoke-Ban essay and bold the important parts that rebut your points.
6 million people every year from smoking, the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. That's a bigger number of deaths than those caused by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm-related incidents combined together! It is always a dreadful scene. Those families that lost their parents or children were crestfallen, as they had failed to prevent their family members from smoking. Even their friends were worried, as the family lose huge amounts of money as a result of the great expense of treating the sick at the hospital. Everyone should stop smoking ,and cigarette smoking should be banned, because its hazardous for peoples' health, and it is also very expensive.
First of all, cigarettes contain more than seven thousand dangerous chemicals in it when burned, and at least 70 are known to cause cancer! First-hand smokers get yellow teeth, skin, and fingernails from smoking too much. They are also known to get headaches, lung cancer and bad breath much more easily than normal people do. Furthermore, they get heart attacks, their kidney become unable to function, they other diseases, such as the cancers of the lung, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, stomach, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia are all possible outcomes of smoking. Smoking can also cause stroke, nausea and uneasiness. Smoking adds a terrible chemical called Dopamine into people´s brains that make them more addicted to smoking--so people should quit early before the situation grows too bad; or just not smoke entirely.
Many arguers against the banning of smoking say people have the freedom of choice, and that freedom is completely declined with the ban of smoke. This is true, but does allowing smoking allow this freedom of choice? At the first time of smoking, it may seem so--people can stop themselves once they see the terrible effects. But what about the people who don't know the harmful effects and are curious to know why people smoke? Immediately they will be swirled into a mess which they cannot clean up, as the pleasure that Dopamine gives is nearly impossible to put down--in fact, It is estimated that nearly 17 million Americans try to quit smoking each year. Unfortunately, only about 1.3 million Americans are able to remain smoke free. This is only 8 percent or so of smokers that manage to be successful in their action of quitting smoking. It can thus be concluded that 92% of people lose their freedom of choice, and what good is that? What good is the 8% who gain their freedom of choice? They will never smoke again anyways, and thus have already locked onto one choice and limited their freedom of choice themselves. The banning of smoke, although having 100% declined the freedom of choice, has no negative health benefits and helps people rather than harm them.
However, even quitting smoking can still harm, as even if present rates of consumption steadily decline to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century. However, earlier is better than never, so people should stop smoking as soon as possible. In addition, smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and diminishes a person"s overall health. Millions of Americans have health problems caused by smoking. Women in particular are greatly effected, as the have the possible effects of obtaining Preterm (early) delivery, Stillbirth (death of the baby before birth), Low birth weight, Sudden infant death syndrome (known as SIDS or crib death) Ectopic pregnancy, and Orofacial clefts in infants when pregnant. To stress the negative health effects of smoking, the teeth is greatly affected as well, as the health of your teeth and gums are negatively impacted and can cause tooth loss.
Even worse, smokers occasionally are smoking outside, making the people beside him or her breathe in smoke too. These people, known as second-hand smokers, when they breathe in first-hand smokers smoke, their body system also get badly damaged by the chemicals within the air and get the effects that first-handers get, if only a lighter effect. Statics show that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure, telling us that even secondhand smoke is very hazardous. Moreover, in the United States, two out of five adults who don't smoke and half of children are exposed to secondhand smoke, and about 3,000 people who never smoked die from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke every year. And the smoking doesn't stop there. That's right--there exists third-hand smoking. Impossible? Far from it. Tobacco smoke can linger in the air for a long time after the smoking stops, and even remain on our clothes. Many dangerous chemicals can be formed from this third-hand smoking, such as carcinogens and heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, and cyanide. Sticky, highly toxic particulates, like nicotine, can cling to walls and ceilings. Not only that, these chemicals can re-emit back into the air and recombine to form harmful compounds. Which could kill many, many innocent bystanders who don't smoke.
Because of the massive harms and damage of cigarette smoking, People have to check every few months to make sure that their body is healthy, and if they are not, then they have to spend huge amounts of wasted money. People should really spend their money on something else better than smoking. Already, a few years ago, partial places in the USA have been banned of smoke--and a positive effect has spread across those places with smoke prohibited. A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban. Nearly two fifths (39%) of all smokers said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital. These statistics show that the banning of smoking helps, and unlike the prohibition of alcohol, there are more people that go along with the government rather than against it. The government should continue its command of banning smoke across the country and help everyone quit smoking.
Overall, the world would be a much better place without cigarettes. The government should take action immediately and stop that puff of smoke from coming out of a persons mouth, as it would benefit everybody, as they will be smoke-sick-free from the banning of smoke.
I believe my massive essay effectively rebuts my opponent's arguments. In case it's not clear, let me repeat my arguments:
1. There is no point to choose 92% loss of freedom of choice + terrible health over 100% loss of freeedom of choice + excellent health.
Let me stress that:
100% loss of FoC + Healthy body > 92% loss of FoC + Not-healthy body
2. The government is so darn greedy; why, people have to spend so much money within the hospital. It doesn't matter how much money the government earns, the people are more important!
3. Innocent bystanders get harmed. If only people who smoked were harmed, then it makes sense that they're punished via addiction. (and my opponent's arguments might have worked out) However, bystanders unwillingly get bad health effects, as well as the environment getting contaminated. 8% more freedom of choice? Yeah, as if that matters.
Onto you, con.
Sources: (in no particular order)
Kc1999 forfeited this round.
Thanks for the opponent's FAST AND COPY AND PASTED REPLY.
This implies that the state has no power to ban the citizens from smoking, as it is util justifiable to smoke.
The opponent misunderstands the concept of free will; free will is not a physiological concept, nor is it a psychological concept. It is more of a philosophical concept; if a physiological condition of a person forces a person to do this, this means that the person did this in the free will, as the physiological changes in his body is his own choice, not others.
1R2NC: Banning would not solve the smoking problem
Let us take an example of the world’s first smoke-free country; Bhutan. After the Tobacco Control Act of 2004 and 2010, there has been a huge public outcry against the nation’s state to amend and even repeal the acts. "Look at everything in the store. Cigarettes bring more profit than anything else. I have to pay rent for this place and if I stop selling cigarettes my profits will plummet” This was a direct quote from a vendor, whose livelihood was selling cigarettes before the 2010 Tobacco Act, which reinforced the ones in 2004. Albeit Bhutan has a strong and advanced ban on Tobacco, the Tobacco ban is facing huge ineffectiveness. This report published by Tobacco Control summarizes the dilemmas of the two legislations:
“Respiratory infections constitute about 18% and 25% of all morbidity in the hospitals. A recent study found that 8% chew/sniff tobacco (7% females and 10% males.) Smoking prevalence is estimated at 1%. Predicted increases in smoking trends among youth who comprise 43% of the nation’s population implies that legislative and price measures for tobacco control be given high priority.”
We have to look at the center of this ban; as a Buddhist Country, Bhutan considers smoking (as I do) a karmic sin. The majority of the population is Buddhist in Bhutan. Yet these statistics suggests the following proposition; even in a sectarian country like Bhutan, obtaining tobacco is not difficult at all, and the desire to smoke the substance is not absent. For the smoking problem to end, the desire must go away. As stated, the physiological changes will make the addicts Machiavellians in obtaining the substance.
With this evidence, it would be correct and rational to conclude that the smoking ban in Bhutan is making it harder, but not impossible, to obtain substances. In fact, many people are drawn to the Tobacco trade due to the ease of making quick money without any investment from it. “Profits cha-ching!”
Secondly, the opponent’s points on the health effects of smoking goes cold by this; I agree; smoking is a huge issue. But banning smoking would not make this problem disappear; does banning me from the refrigerator stop me from covertly obtaining my life-sustaining chocolate from it? In fact, it only makes the problem worst; Bhutan is not the only case. In Canada, smoking related deaths have increased by 8% since the implementation of horrific and outrageous taxes on them!
Note that the opponent bases his argument on the postulate that banning a substance can reduce deaths caused. Even if the opponent states that 39% of all smokers in undefined states can “stop smoking” we are receiving statistics that death rates by smoking-related causes in smoking-banned countries are increasing. This leads us to conclusive evidence that a smoking ban does not and cannot work.
Lastly, the solution to this problem is not smoking ban, but education. According to the American Government:
“Evidence from controlled studies, national cross-site evaluations, and CSAP grantee evaluations demonstrates that prevention programs work. A Cornell University study of six thousand students in New York state found that the odds of drinking, smoking, and using marijuana were 40 percent lower among students who participated in a school-based substance-abuse program in grades seven through nine than among their counterparts who did not”
With the conclusive evidence suggested, we can come to a conclusion that a smoking ban does not and cannot work; the end of the smoking problem is zero deaths from smoking-related causes. The means, however, is not a ban.
1R3NC: Economic Complications
The opponent refers to the economic gains of the people as greedy government gains. However, the worldwide smoking market is huge and wide. May I remind all sides that the tobacco industry supplies the livelihood of 1.6 million American workers (with 600,000 of these workers working directly in the tobacco industry); 30 million jobs are created directly by the tobacco industry, whilst millions more have jobs indirectly.
Let me stress; the opponent states that other people are affected by smoking tobacco. However, many people are affected by me using this computer too; therefore, should we ban the usage of computerized devices? This is the logic at hand here; as proven before, smoking can be a util justified choice. But if utilities are not enough to satisfy our senses, then perhaps an impending economic collapse would?
This impending economic collapse would cause the Federal Government $10 billion, as the taxation on tobacco goes. Malawi, whose livelihood and market depends on the tobacco trade, would be starved and even more impoverished than now; 2.2 million American workers would be effected by the loss of profits, and 32.2 (including Americans) workers would lose their jobs. Now this is something that we cannot, and will not, allow to happen.
In times of economic depression, the loss of millions and millions of jobs cannot ever and will not ever be justified by the public. Yes indeed, I do not negate the fact that the government is greedy, but the government has to mind economics too. “The job of the masses is to keep the rich folks happy” Noam Chomsky
1R4NC: Law and Impact of Laws
The opponent presents cases in regards of smoking. i.e the number of deaths it causes, the harms, but has yet to say anything about how the ban would actually be implemented and the cost-benefits of this ban. I would like to state that a ban will cost more than the costs of regulating it.
By banning it, we take the postulates that tobacco will be placed in the same category as, say, cocaine and heroin, as it is almost as threatening as both. Addictive drug incarcerations cost the Federal Government $41.3 billion dollars yearly; the “War on Drugs” is said to have cost $3 trillion, and has done nothing beneficial.
In fact, this will turn into another race war; because of the African-American usage of drugs has led to the over representation of African-American prisoners in jail, it is easy to predict that many people, caught smoking, will naturally be lower-class Hispanics and Mexicans.
“Once brave politicians and others explain the war on drugs' true cost, the American people will scream for a cease-fire. Bring the troops home, people will urge. Treat drugs as a health problem, not as a matter for the criminal justice system.”
My opponent makes some excellent points.
The util formula is impossible for me to understand, and thus I will not rebut it.
As for the smoking problem not being able to solved, the USA smoke ban has kept 2/5 smokers out of the hospital, as I have already stated within round 2. And while some people may be unable to quit smoking even after the ban, it is better for 2/5 of the smokers to be healthy for the rest of their lives rather than zero percent. However, I cannot rebut the argument that which death-rates by smoke-related causes in smoking-banned countries are increasing, and because such I must drop such an argument.
Economic stuff:I don't know how to rebut this. 10 billion dollars is a lot, and even those people's spending on hospital recoveries I doubt is enough. Still, some people waste up to 1/4 of their money on cigarettes, and this adds to quite a hefty amount. Considering these people pay to destroy their bodies, this money is a complete rip-off!! 
Laws, laws and laws: I'm not sure how to counter this point. I've never seen this before. XD
And with that, I concede the debate. My opponent has bought many critical and powerful viewpoints countering my strong and long unwavered viewpoint. He made some excellent points and were it not for our agreement he'd have certainly won this debate.
But, an agreement is an agreement. I ask the voters to tie this debate.
I won this debate de jure :D
NO VOTES PLZ THO
My opponent has won.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|