The Instigator
Rjupudi18
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Juliegirl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol be increased (Pro) or reduced (Con)?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 216 times Debate No: 96769
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Rjupudi18

Pro

First round is acceptance only. No swearing and be respectful.
Juliegirl

Con

I accept your argument, good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
Rjupudi18

Pro

Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol should be increased to discourage people from buying it. Tobacco and alcohol are bad for health and this is the only way the government can influence better health. Of course, an all-out ban on tobacco and alcohol is not possible. I think increased taxes is the best way to ensure our people don't waste their money and lives by smoking and drinking.
Juliegirl

Con

People should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. You are your responsibility, not the government's. Raising the "sin" taxes would not only be exsessive government, but it also holds on to this idea that you aren't responsible enough to take care of yourself and that it's now the government's job to try and take care of you be trying to deter poeple from doing what they do not want.
Debate Round No. 2
Rjupudi18

Pro

People do have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. However, most people are not responsible enough to take care of themselves and need external help. By raising sin taxes, the government is not taking away your rights to smoke and drink. It's simply discouraging you from smoking and drinking. You still can buy cigarettes and alcohol, you'll just end up paying a higher price.

Smoking is not a private thing. When people smoke, those around them also get affected. People smoke in public places like bus stops, restaurants, etc. Why should I suffer when some moron next to me decided to waste his life by smoking? Since an all-out smoke ban is not likely, I support the increasing of sin taxes for the better of individuals and society.
Juliegirl

Con

Most people, in fact, are responsible enough to take care of themselves. The government is not, nor was it ever meant, to try to take care of you. You are your own person and it should be your own responsibility to take care of yourself. If you cannot take care of yourselef, then you have a problem and you need to take care of it. Until then, the government is not going to be your mom. People have always been capable of taking care of themselves and they always will be. Trying to influence people's decisions are the basics of an overreaching government.
Debate Round No. 3
Rjupudi18

Pro

Actually, many people are not responsible enough to take care of themselves. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are an estimated 40 million smokers in America. That's 1 in every 8 people who smoke. This isn't just about them. Think of all the people around them who take in that smoke such as children and senior citizens. Why should other people suffer from someone's mistake? And if someone is truly responsible enough to not smoke, the sin tax shouldn't affect them because they wouldn't buy cigarettes. The sin tax doesn't prevent people from buying. It only discourages them from buying it for their personal and social safety.
Juliegirl

Con

People are, in fact, responsible enough to take care of themselves. If they're not, then they need serious help and probably shouldn't have the responsibilities to drive a car or have kids for they cannot seem to get their act together and grow up. It is not and will never be the governent's job to take care of them. Drinking for recreational use is completly innocent and should not be taken as a "sin". You, nor anybody else, has the right to judge poeple because of what they're choosing to do with their own bodies regarding drinking. If I want to smoke in my own backyard, in a rural town I'll add, then not you nor anybody else should try to influence through "sin" taxes what I do or what I do not do. I agree with you on the part where poeple shouldn't smoke in public as it effects other poeple, however, I do not think that raising the prices would solve anything. Also, if I want to drink in my own home or at a bar, then who are you to tell me that what I am doing is a sin? And suppose that your opinion of mw was right for a minute. The definition of sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. If it's okay to ban the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Alegience at school, then what in the world would make you think that it is okay to tax me more on what I want to buy? Your religion? Well pardon me, but If you're allowed to enforce your religion on me then maybe I should share a bit of my religion on you. Abortion. Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the uterus. Most poeple do it because they got knocked up and do not want to deal with the concequences. I feel that in no circumstance you should be able to abort your baby because it's "convienent" for you. So what's the difference of this and secondhand smoke? This is legal while you think that smoking should be banned. After all, it's your body right? So women can diliberatley hurt their babies while you say that smoking should be banned because it could hurt children? What's the difference? As long as abortion id legal, then taxes on tings like alcohol and cigarretes should not have excessive and ludicrous taxes on them. After all, that is one of the reasons why America broke off from Britain, they imposed too many taxes.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by EXOPrimal 2 weeks ago
EXOPrimal
It is generally frowned on to try to add more arguments inside the comments
Posted by Rjupudi18 2 weeks ago
Rjupudi18
@Juliegirl You contradict yourself. You say people are responsible enough to not smoke then argue that people have the right to smoke. How are people who smoke next to children responsible in your eyes? And "sin" in this context is not referring to religious sin but anything that harms your body like smoking. As for your abortion statement, I absolutely agree with you. There is no difference between abortion and second hand smoking. The only difference is one kills instantly and the other slow poisons. I'm against abortion.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 weeks ago
PowerPikachu21
Rjupudi18, I suggest you visit my profile. There is a debate that's between you and me. I do not know if you're aware, however. You don't have much time remaining for the debate. Unless you have an explanation regarding your acceptance and inability to post, let me know. I've already had a situation like this. The 'amnesiac' excuse has already been taken by CalebMclean.
Posted by Rjupudi18 3 weeks ago
Rjupudi18
Please post your argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.