The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 82954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




No new arguments last round. Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speech


1. No forfeits
2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc.)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
9. The BOP will be shared
10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss


I accept your debate. I will argue in the first round, and waive the last round.


I had a lot of debate topics like this one, one was with
tejretics of a debate of smoking ban. I was Pro on this topic, so in this debate, I get a new chance to debate on the other side of the topic. This is not that good for me, because I do not know this side well, but much good of an experience for me because I get to know more about smoking ban.

Next of all, I had a taxation of cigarettes increasing debate. I was Con on this debate also. I wish my opponent good luck, and let's have a nice debate.


As I said, I never tried this side before, so please do not be sad or mad if I screw up. I will be talking about if we should ban the use of tobacco. BOP is equally shared, Pro has to prove why tobacco should be banned in the
US, when I say they should not ban tobacco use, or the tobacco in the US. If I fill the BOP, I win. If my opponent does, he wins.

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.

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.


Okay, here comes to my first argument.

1. Economy

My first argument will be about the economy. The economy will become low if we ban smoking.

Smoking makes a lot of money if smoking. There are many tobacco farms. They get more than a million dollars a hour, and about 28 million dollars a day. That is a lot of money just for smoking. However, what happens if we ban this?

Okay, this is the chart. As you can see, if you ban smoking, the economy turns in that state. This is because the US earns a lot of money because of tobacco, in tobacco farms, and also everywhere else. They use this tobacco make cigarettes, people buy them, and the government earns the money. However, the bad thing is that if we ban smoking, there will be no money for smoking, no one buys it, and the government earns less money because of this. If we ban smoking, the economy will be at risk, and turns bad, so that is why we should not ban tobacco.

2. Liberty

Okay, this argument is about the right to choose, liberty.

Why the smokers are smoking? Because they want to. The government does not 'force' the citizens to smoke, it is the citizen's or person's choice. They can just quit smoking, however they aren't. They want to smoke because of some reasons. Why do we ban smoking to people who want to smoke? It is their decision, and we need to have the right to choose what we want to do. The people who smoke, all have the right to do this, because it is harming no one. Pro might say that there is a problem, so I will explain that in the next argument. Our point is that the smokers want to smoke, they are not forced. They need the right to choose what they want to do, and not always get controlled by other's decisions, or the government's decisions. This shows that we need liberty, and do what we want sometimes, and not always be int he government's hands. We can't ban anything that is not that good sometimes. We should not ban tobacco in the US.

3. My solution

This is not really, an argument, just my solution to fix this why we should not ban tobacco.

Solution: Pro might argue that smoking is bad for your health, and other's health in the environment. So there is a solution. Ban smoking in public places, however make more spaces for yes smoking. This does not approve the resolution in any way. The resolution says, "Tobacco use should be banned in the US." We do not ban tobacco use. We ban it in public places, so that there is no bad pollution in the environment from smoking. Another way is that make more private places or spaces to allow smoking. If we used this solution, why would anyone smoke outside if there is a smoking center right next to the place, and you pay money? This solution will increase lots of smoking in the environment, making smoking okay, and doing no damage to non-smokers.

4. Dependent

Defintinon of Dependent: needed something else for support.

This argument is about if we ban smoking, some people will be dependent of the government.

Who gets the tobacco? The farms will get tobacco. Who makes cigarettes? Companies do. What happens if we ban smoking? The people who make money by tobacco selling like the farms, have no jobs, the companies have no jobs because of the ban. The people will become dependent on the government. About 5 million people in the US work on the tobacco farms. These 5 million people will have no jobs, and will become dependent on the government.


We should not ban tobacco because it harms the economy. It also bans the people's right of liberty, and to choose what they want to do. I made a solution, and people will become dependent. These are my 4 main arguments. Thanky you.










Thank you. Rebuttals and extra arguments go in the next round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1



Pro will support that something ought to be banned if there is a net detriment to society, as the goal of a government is to better the lives of its people.

Contention 1: Cost
For some reason can't paste images. But I can paste the link to the image. Con's economic "benefits" of smoking are easily outweighed. According to the American Cancer Society, tobacco related healthcare costs and loss of productivity netted 193 billion in the US. Every pack of cigarettes, which is on average 6.36, costs society $35. Tobacco use is bad for society as a whole because non smokers are forced to pay part of the medical bills and nonsmokers also get the disease. Half of people who continue to smoke will die of smoke-related illnesses.

The Federal govenment states that it costs society around 52 billion a year, but even this could be an underestimation, as "Dr. Banzhaf asserted that the Government did not take into account diseases of nonsmokers that could be attributed to smoking by others." Either way, tobacco usage has such a large economically detrimental effect that is should be banned.

Contention 2: For the Users themselves

As Dr. Sullivan said 'Cigarettes are the only legal product that when used as intended cause death,'.
Cigarettes have over 7,000 chemicals according to CDC. Hundreds of those are toxic and 70 are carcinogens. The government ought to ensure the well being of its citizens and ban smoking.
According to Dr Robert N Proctor, Department of History, Stanford University, cigarettes kill 6 million people a year.

"Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring "decoy" or "distraction research",5 but it has also corrupted popular media, insofar as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes.7 The industry has corrupted even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees.8 Tobacco companies have bullied, corrupted or exploited countless other institutions: the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, sports organisations, fire-fighting bodies, Hollywood, the US Congress"even the US presidency and US military. President Lyndon Johnson refused to endorse the 1964 Surgeon General's report, for instance, fearing alienation of the tobacco-friendly South. Cigarette makers managed even to thwart the US Navy's efforts to go smoke-free. In 1986, the Navy had announced a goal of creating a smoke-free Navy by the year 2000; tobacco-friendly congressmen were pressured to thwart that plan, and a law was passed requiring that all ships sell cigarettes and allow smoking. The result: American submarines were not smoke-free until 2011"

The smoking industry infamously proclaimed for years with false research that smoking was safe. This resulted in misinformation and millions of easily preventable deaths. This also nullifies any so called economic benefit of smoking, as most of the studies meant to portray tobacco positively are sponsored by the corporations themselves. They have a monetary incentive to keep the industry alive by killing people and getting them addicted to smoking.
Tobacco is a highly addictive poison because of nicotine, which makes smokers physically reliant on smoking. Most smokers want to quit but cannot, thus nullifying the Con case of liberty and choice: most smokers wish they could quit smoking but they simply cannot because of how tobacco uses nicotine to mess with their minds.
85% of smokers have tried to quit, according to Gallup. According to Center of Disease Control this number is at 68.9 percent. The fact is that most smokers do not even want to smoke but smoking once or doing a dumb mistake forces them to smoke for the rest of their lives, inevitably killing them and harming everyone around them.
Robert Proctor rebuts the freedom argument with "The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers "enjoy" smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare"so rare that the industry used to call them "enjoyers". Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that "If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week".12 American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how "fortunate for us" it was that cigarettes "are a habit they can't break"."

Contention 3: Secondhand Smoke

This contention is enough to win the debate. Voters, pay attention. Seconhand smoke nullifies freedom, as recipients of secondhand smoke do not choose to smoke, they simply breathe and suffer the effects of others selfishly choosing to smoke.
The Surgeon General Report concluded that 2.5 million American citizens died of secondhand smoke since 1964. What more do you need for an all-out ban? Con's counterplan of restricting smoking to private places will not help as smoking in private simply keeps the smoke inside the home and will cause the secondhand smoke to go straight to all the other people inside the home- such as the other family members, especially children.
"It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.""Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States." (This is citing the previous Surgeon General Report)
A study by David M. Homa, PhD1, Linda J. Neff, PhD1, Brian A. King, PhD1, Ralph S. Caraballo, PhD1, Rebecca E. Bunnell, PhD1, Stephen D. Babb, MPH1, Bridgette E. Garrett, PhD1, Connie S. Sosnoff, MA2, Lanqing Wang, PhD found that from 2011-12, 58 million people were exposed to secondhand smoke.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) from burning tobacco products causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, and coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer in adult nonsmokers (1,2). No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists (2). SHS exposure causes more than 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year, and approximately $5.6 billion annually in lost productivity "

I would like to rebut the opponents case here.

1.Economic. I feel this has already been adressed through Contentioin 1.

2.Liberty. Adddressed through addiction. Also through secondhand smoke, how those victims do not have liberty to choose not to smoke or feel the effects.

3. Counterplan. Does not address how people living with the smoker still feel effects of it. Also, smoking in private still harms the smoker, costing society through lost productivity and medical bills. Con does not have evidence this will be effective.

4. Dependency. Does not provide evidence that these people will not find another job. Also, this is a short term effect, compared to the lives lost and is a smaller impact. Jobs are great, but if those jobs are created through the death of others, than those said jobs should not be there. For instance, if a company is creating chemical weapons to kill innocent people, than that company ought to be shut down, Same for tobacco. It is unfortunate for the workers but is necessary morally and for the sake of our country.

I thank the Con for his opening. On to Round 2.


I thank kingkd for his arguments.


BoP is shared, and I need to say why we should not ban smoking, from moral reasons of liberty, and also that my plan which was about we sohlud ban tobacco in public places. This does not harm the resolution which is banning tobacco use. We still use tobacco in the spaces, according to my plan.


Rebuttal 1: Cost

It is not the government's fault that people pay the money for these bills. The other people in the society pay their own money to buy these products. The citizens have the right to buy what they like. If we remove this right, there is absolutely no point of why we should have money. We spend money because we want to, not forced.

Pro also states that the non-smokers need to pay for medical bills. This is all, and will be explained in my counterplan I addressed in round 1. The counterplan is that we should ban smoking in the public. This does not negate the resolution of saying that we should ban tobacco use. We still use tobacco. This counter-plan does not harm to pollution and also to non-smokers. Thus, we don't need to worry about the non-smokers because they will get no harm. Even though the cost for the smokers is same, it is their right to do what they want, which goes to liberty. They have moral reasons of what they want to spend, and in that case, this is tobacco use. They spend their own money. If this right is removed there is clearly no use of money.

Rebuttal 2: For the Users themselves/ addiction

Pro states that the tobacco is addictive, so then liberty is rebutted. However, this argument does nothing about why we should ban smoking. Just because it is addictive does not mean that we should not ban smoking, however liberty explains why we should not ban smoking, because it is unfair to ban things people like to do, and it is the people's choice. This arguments does not support why we should ban smoking.

Also, this argument is wrong. Studies show that nicotine is not addictive, meaning that people can stop smoking when they want, meaning if people don't stop smoking, it is their choice that they actually want to smoke.

The references for nicotine is not addictive.


Okay, that was my sources of the addiction rebuttal. Clearly, that argument makes no relation with why we should ban smoking, and does not rebut my liberty point, and third of all the argument is false, and is wrong, meaning that nicotine is not addictive.

Pro clearly made a bad argument, and also could not rebut my liberty point in his argument. Extend my liberty point.

Rebuttal 3: Secondhand smoke.

Okay, this is Pro's third and final argument. This argument is rebutted through my counterplan. My counterplan was that we ban smoking in public places, and put more spaces where we can smoke, like small rooms in some buildings. This totally rebuts Pro's arguments because Pro's argument is about the non-smoker's health, however, because of my plan, there can be less smoking pollution that harms the non-smokers because of the spaces that smokers can smoke, and ban public use of tobacco. This does not harm the resolution in any way which says that "Tobacco use should be banned in the US. We are not banning the total tobacco use. If my plan works, then the non-smokers will have no problem of the harms from them when people smoke. No non-smokers will possibly go in these places because this harms their health.

All of Pro's arguments were rebutted, when my wern't. I alerady made my defense from my arguments.


Okay, this will be really short because Pro had not clearly rebutted any of my arguments.

1. Economy

Pro does not rebut this argument at all. Pro says he felt he adressed this, however he did not. Pro never rebutted my argument that if we ban smoking, the government will have a big loss of money because of smoking, because smoking does big jobs for the economy in the US.

2. Liberty

This argument is not addressed also. Pro says that this argument is addressed in addiction, but I clearly rebutted that the people have done smoking because they wanted to, no one forced them.

Pro argues that nicotine makes people addicted, and people cannot stop smoking, says that rebuts liberty. However I easily rebutted that nicotine does not make you addictive. This means that Pro's argument is easily rebutted, when my is defended, and still dropped from my opponent.

3. Plan

Okay, my opponent says that my plan is not effective, however it is very effective. With this plan, non-smokers can get no harm from smoking, no pollution from smoking, and also non-smokers do not need to be worried for their health if we have this plan. There is no harm from smoking from people who do not smoke, which does rebut all of Pro's secondhand smoke, and also does not harm for anyone who does not like smoking.

4. Dependent

Pro fails to rebut this also. My defense is also from my plan. For my defense, no non-smokers will get harmed. The only people who might get harmed is the smokers. But as I said in my liberty argument, they want to smoke, no one is forcing them or they are not addicitve. It is a moral reason that we should let these smokers to do what they want. However there is no moral reason why we need to not care of these workers. The workers are just doing their job, the smokers choice. Pro fails to rebut my argument of the consequences of the ban of smoking, then people will have no jobs. This is not morally acceptable, that we should leave these people alone when they are doing their jobs.


1. Corruption

This argument will be very short because of the lack of charecters.

Okay, my argument is that tobacco creates corruption.

Corruption: Dishonest behavior

Smoking Ban will increase corruption. This will be bad because corruption is a bad thing, as said in the defintion at front. Corruption is very bad, however if we ban tobacco, there will be a increase of corruption it says, so we should not ban smoking.

I thank my opponent. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2



The Counterplan

These studies prove secondhand smoke can "from a neighboring apartment can travel through ventilation systems, pipes, walls, open windows and doors, electrical sockets and even tiny cracks in plaster and drywall.". Studies " found smoke residue on surfaces and in the air of both smoking and non-smoking rooms in 30 California hotels where smoking was allowed. ""Volunteers who stayed overnight in the smoking hotels also ended up with sticky nicotine residues on their fingers, whether they stayed in smoking rooms or not.""Cigarette fumes probably become lodged on the hair and clothes of parents as they smoke outside, says Matt. The particles could then be brought back inside the house, where they would hang in the air or settle in dust. Family members may then inhale them directly or unwittingly transfer them from hand to mouth.

Infants are particularly at risk as they spend most of their time indoors and often put objects into their mouths, says Matt. Contaminated dust can settle on toys, carpets and bedding and may remain there for months, he adds."

Tobacco use is never safe, really. Con's counterplan is flawed because he never provides any evidence of smoking in specific rooms to reduce the risk of secondhand smoke, which is proven to travel everywhere still.
Con says "This counter-plan does not harm to pollution and also to non-smokers." Smoke is a gas and will disperse and travel, thus proving his counterplan is faulty. Do you expect smoke to just stay in one place? Right here you can vote Pro, as his counterplan is shown to be worse. This means the secondhand smoke argument from my case is inevitably extended,as secondhand smoke is proven to still be a problem.

Con also tries to refute my case through saying that nicotine is not addictive. His first site says "Cigarettes, as usually used, are addictive. That 90 percent of those who stopped smoking did so on their own should be put in the context not just of the 40 million who have stopped, but of the 50 million who are still smoking. Surveys indicate that more than 70 percent of smokers want to quit. Indeed, every year, one American smoker in three tries to quit, but 90 percent fail by year's end. Even for those who have abstained for a year, one-third relapse."
But more importantly HIS OWN SOURCE states "The tobacco companies torture these and other numbers in a desperate attempt to avoid facing the medical reality: smoking is addictive and can cause serious illness." By his own reference, Con says that tobacco is addictive. Con just conceded the argument.

His second site is funded by smokeless tobacco companies, meaning they probably have an agenda. The website itself attempts to say that tobacco use is safe and is complete bs.

I couldn't reach his third source for some reason. His fourth source says that nicotine ALONE does not cause addiction; the study poiints to pyrazine. Fine. So it's not JUST nicotine, pyrazine also causes addiction. This still means that tobacco causes addiction. Again, con admits tobacco is addictive, through pyrazines. His fifth source says "People simply are obviously addicted to something else in the cigarette smoke than nicotine alone. " and admits that cigarette smoking is addictive, but points to things other than nicotine. I reitarate: So what? Tobacco has many addictives, nicotine being one of them, pyrazines also. I point back to my statistics that show that 85% of smoker tryied to quit but cannot.

"Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance. " From this definition we see that tobacco is most definitely addictive as it creates a reliance on smoking to function and makes users crave tobacco and be unable to leave. So yes, tobacco is addictive.


"Pro never rebutted my argument that if we ban smoking, the government will have a big loss of money because of smoking, because smoking does big jobs for the economy in the US."

Actually, I did. Remember when I said that "if a company is creating chemical weapons to kill innocent people, than that company ought to be shut down, Same for tobacco. It is unfortunate for the workers but is necessary morally and for the sake of our country." Obviously, if there is a company that is causinig death to millions of people, the company and said product should be banned. Short term job loss does not equal millions of lives. I believe it is CON that never refuted this.
Extend my other studies proving 100- 193 billion loss. A pack of cigarettes, which brings a 6.36 stimulus, will end up costing $35 to society in the long run. Long run over short term.
This 193 billion dollar cost is footed by society because non smokers pay taxes, and this money goes to medicare, which is government paying for medical bills. Since most smokers are poor, they receive Medicare aid. Therefore, nonsmokers foot the bill for smokers.

This argument has already been addressed three ways. First, by the framework: a government's duty is to provide for the well being of its citizens, that is why a government exists. There is a reason we try to prevent people from committing suicide, even though it is techinically "their choice". Under Con logic we shouldn't help people attempting or about to attempt suicide because it is their freedom. Pro believes that sometimes choice should be secondary to the common good. Second, by addiction: It is true that some smokers may want to smoke, but 85% of smokers have tried to quit but can't. Smoking at this point is not a choice; they are forced to by nicotine and pyrazine. Third,secondhand smoke. Con never proved why his counterplan would work through evidence, while I proved it would not work because smoke travels. Remember my evidence that says smoke can move throughout buildings or stay on the smoker. LIberty has been refuted.


There's no evidence for this. Prove it.


Fits under economic. Short term or long term? True some jobs would be lost but remember that a government's moral duty is to protect the well being of its citizens. Lives outweigh jobs. Besides, a company producing toxic poisons that kills millions a year should not exist, no matter how many jobs they have.

Alright, since Con added corruption, I will add something also: Environmental.
" In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U.S. environment.2 Cigarette butts are the most common toxic waste found in cleanups and the number one item found on California highways.3 4 And contrary to popular belief, they do not decompose completely.5"
Cigarettes have toxic chemicals in them that threaten aquatic ecosystems when they leak out, according to( Slaughter, E., Gersberg, R., Watanabe, K., Rudolph, J., Novotny, T.E., "Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components to Marine and Freshwater Fish, Atherinops affinis and Pimephales promelas,").

"cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 38% of worldwide debris". These numbers are from Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups
A ban would be effective, as "Smokefree beach laws help reduce butts on beaches by 45% according to the Audubon Society". Banning will reduce the vast litter amount.
"Globally, approximately 4.3 trillioncigarette butts are littered every year. Smokers in the USA account for over 250 billion cigarette butts, in the UK 200 tons of butts are discarded, and Australian smokers litter over 7 billion cigarette butts annually. In most Western countries cigarette butt litter accounts for around 50% of all litter.

Every littered cigarette butt can take anywhere from two to twenty-five years to biodegrade.

Dropped cigarette butts have been the cause of house and apartment fires, as well as some of the largest and most destructive forest fires. Fires caused by cigarette butts claim the lives of about 1,000 people and injure about 3,000 people each year."

"When people congregate in an airport baggage area or enter a smoking lounge where many brands are smoked, the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg (see Reference 3). Although 14 mg may not seem like a lot of mass emitted, each cigarette weighs only about 0.9 grams total, making it an extremely potent source of air pollution for its weight.

As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this booklet, the 14 mg of particles emitted by each cigarette is really a large amount of particulate matter mass, causing extremely high indoor air pollutant concentrations when a cigarette is smoked at home or in a car. The chapter "Where does the smoke go?" presents calculations that you can do yourself to illustrate that a single cigarette smoked indoors is a potent source of exposure to toxic pollutants, causing concentrations indoors that are often higher than the federal air quality standards designed to protect public health in ambient air outdoors."

Cigarettes cause air pollution, which will happen even if smoked inside, as ventilation ensures it flows outside. Cigarettes are a major source of litter pollution, which costs millions to clean up. Litter costs around 11 billion to clean. If we use the cigarette litter estimate of 38%, this is 4.18 billion a year.


Tobacco use is a terrible thing, one that causes pain, addiction, and death, even to those who do not use it. It wreck the environment and costs society. Remember how Con's own evidence proved tobacco was addictive; this turn should be weighted in this round.

Vote Pro!


fire_wings forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend Vote Pro


I told Pro to tie this debate. He might accept, or not. I wish he does. Everyone needed a holiday in Thanksgiving. Sorry. Please make this a tie.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by airmax1227 10 months ago
>Reported vote: whiteflame// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: It was apparently not agreed to call this a tie, and thus I'm voting. The forfeit constitutes a rule violation, and would therefore be sufficient on its own. However, even if I just treat that as a conduct violation (and I do), Pro's dominating this debate, particularly on addiction, second hand smoke, and general health harms. Con's attempts at rebuttal all get summarily dealt with, as Pro shows that his sources on nicotine either agree with him or aren't reliable, does a deeper dive into the effects of Con's counter plan that showcases its lack of solvency, and examines how health harms affect beyond the users directly. Con's arguments don't come out nearly as strong, as Liberty has little to no weight and economic losses are outweighed by health costs. Sources to Pro as well for dominating the source debate and thoroughly supporting much of his winning points (though perhaps a little too much - paraphrase more instead of posting long quotes).

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD sufficiently explains each point allocation. The report indicated that sources weren't explained sufficiently, but the voter explains that Pro's main sources were effectively addressed by Con, and indicates that Con's sources were supportive of his case, providing the means by which many of his arguments were successful.
Posted by Midnight1131 10 months ago
After all of this, Con forfeits the remaining rounds. The winner of the debate is pretty clear, it's Pro. Pro had solid arguments that countered much of what Con said, in economics, liberty, and effects to public health. Con was unable to refute almost all of this. He ignored Pro's rebuttals about healthcare costs and tried a half -hearted attempt to prove that nicotine wasn't addictive. The rest of Pro's arguments were left untouched. I give the win to Pro, however I feel like Con would've stood a better chance had he not forfeited the latter part of the debate. For these reasons, I give conduct to Pro [FF], and arguments to Pro as well.
Posted by Midnight1131 10 months ago
In the 2nd round. Con opens by defending his economy sub-bracket. He states that citizens have the right to spend money on tobacco. They then state that they would ban smoking in public, and this would equate to non smokers not having to pay for medical bills. However Con misunderstands this part. Pro was referring to the fact that everyone funds the healthcare system through taxes, and that the huge cost of smoking is also covered by taxes from non smokers. Con ignores this key point. Con then tries to defend their liberty argument by showing that nicotine isn't addictive. He cites studies for this. To refute the second-hand smoking contention, Con refers to his counterplan, which would ban smoking in public places. Con also makes a very short statement, saying that banning smoking will increase corruption. In his response, Pro shows through studies that second-hand smoke can travel through a great number of things, and people can unknowingly inhale it. He also discredits Con's source, which itself stated that smoking is addictive. Thus refuting Con's claim that nicotine isn't addictive.
Posted by Midnight1131 10 months ago
Con's opening arguments consisted of the following 3 categories. Economy, liberty, and their solution. Pro's opening arguments addressed most of Con's. They showed in their "costs" subcategory, that the costs of tobacco/cigarette related health issues is much greater than the amount of money that would be lost if we banned it. They discredited the "liberty" argument by showing how tobacco companies have a history of lying and misleading the public, and also that since nicotine is addictive, it takes the entire notion of choice out of the equation. Since a person cannot choose to suddenly "un-addict" themselves. They also addressed second-hand smoke, which they showed to have quite a big impact on the health of the public. This is an important point because it's not the fault or choice of the bystanders that they're exposed to second-hand smoke. Also, in their opening round, Pro refutes Con's dependency contention, saying that there is no evidence those people won't find another job. He also states that it's a very small impact compared to the fact that the jobs are dependent on causing death and diseases.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
So, what's going on here, guys? Should I be voting or not?
Posted by fire_wings 10 months ago
Ahem... Because it is thanksgiving, I cannot post my argument...
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
... Only 7 hours left.
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
should have used tinyURL...
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
Only had 800 characters left. Could not put one more argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 10 months ago
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: This is a vote for the Voter's Union. RFD IN COMMENTS - If either side has any issues with this vote, feel free to let message me.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 10 months ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: It was apparently not agreed to call this a tie, and thus I'm voting. The forfeit constitutes a rule violation, and would therefore be sufficient on its own. However, even if I just treat that as a conduct violation (and I do), Pro's dominating this debate, particularly on addiction, second hand smoke, and general health harms. Con's attempts at rebuttal all get summarily dealt with, as Pro shows that his sources on nicotine either agree with him or aren't reliable, does a deeper dive into the effects of Con's counter plan that showcases its lack of solvency, and examines how health harms affect beyond the users directly. Con's arguments don't come out nearly as strong, as Liberty has little to no weight and economic losses are outweighed by health costs. Sources to Pro as well for dominating the source debate and thoroughly supporting much of his winning points (though perhaps a little too much - paraphrase more instead of posting long quotes).