The Instigator
alden9590
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
megannnn
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Should smoking be allowed in public?

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 4 votes the winner is...
megannnn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,866 times Debate No: 27342
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

alden9590

Con

Smoking should not be allowed in public places because there may be people enjoying their lives and don't want to breathe cigarette smoke. Children outside waiting to cross the road with their parents, breathe the smoke from a careless person standing beside them. People are now taking the risk of them getting lung cancer and now putting others under that risk also.
megannnn

Pro

"Those that prefer safety over freedom deserve neither." It is because I firmly agree with Benjamin Franklin that I affirm the resolution, which states Resolved: Smoking should be allowed in public. I support my point with two main contentions.

Contention One: Freedom is more important than safety.

The freedom to liberty is crucial; without it, there is no reason to live. This freedom reaches to any action that does not directly contest the actions of another. Because freedom is so fundamental in the lives of not only American citizens but people in general, it is crucial that we affirm the resolution because of my

Contention Two: Banning public smoking jeopardizes freedom.

If we negate the resolution today, we are suggesting that our freedom can be infringed just for the supposed benefit of another's welfare. The freedom to smoke falls squarely under the liberty category, and is something we cannot take away just for the sake of a possible decrease in exacerbated pre-existing conditions.

Because our freedom is so important in our day to day lives, I urge a strong affirmative vote in today's debate.
Debate Round No. 1
alden9590

Con

Thank you for joining megannnn.
I will start off with this question. Is freedom really more important than safety? The reason that the United States of America isn't completely free is because safety comes first. If the government didn't try to outlaw dangerous things like drugs, alcohol, etc., the people of this country would be out of control and filled with crime. Now, in a smaller matter, smoking, yeah a lot of people could care less about smoking in public and people smoking around them in public till they are sitting in a hospital bed wondering how they got cancer. Especially little children who have yet to have the right to smoke legally are being influenced badly by people all around. Wanting to ban smoking in public places isn't about taking away a smoker's rights. You will still have the right to smoke in your own space. The right to slowly and deliberately harm others was never yours to begin with. Thank you for participating.
megannnn

Pro

I'll answer my opponent's question with one of my own: what is there to live for if one is not free? Because I feel that a life without freedom is not one worth living, I affirm the resolution.

My opponent talks about how people subjected to smoke can have health problems. The issue with this revolves back to the core of my case, which is one that simply cannot be refuted; freedom does trump safety. Since banning public smoking does not only put at risk the right to smoke outside of the home but also fundamental human rights in general, I affirm the resolution.

I would like to sum up my argument with an interesting perspective to a direct quote from him: "The right to slowly and deliberately hurt others was never yours to begin with." At risk of sounding like a jerk, this is inaccurate. We do have the freedoms to make our own choices that could hurt others. We have the freedom to drive cars although we could hit someone. We have the freedom to break up with our girlfriend of two years over text message. Why, then, should this be any different? The answer is that it shouldn't be. Because there is no reason to live if our freedoms are slowly but surely being taken away, I urge a strong affirmative vote on today's resolution, Resolved: Smoking should be allowed in public. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by trippleoreo 4 years ago
trippleoreo
smoking in a public place is legal but it depends on what you smoke (of course) but not all places are legal to smoking. I understand that some people may have medical problems that disables them to be around the smoke, but seriously they are smart enough not to be around it. just don't hang out where someone maybe smoking. In some restaurants they allow smoking and they give you the choice of to sit in the smoking or non smoking section. hopefully people are smart enough to choose the non smoking section if they have a problem with it.
Posted by Champion123 4 years ago
Champion123
Great! Waiting.... For round 2
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Milliarde 4 years ago
Milliarde
alden9590megannnnTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Tied for conduct and sources (none). Pro was easier to read, thus points for S&G. However, I agree with Con's round 2 arguments and don't find Pro's "feeling" that life is not worth living without freedom convincing, since it's so vague. We are not 100% free to do as we want, yet Pro still seems to want to live.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
alden9590megannnnTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter votebomb the known smoker annanicole.
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
alden9590megannnnTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Megannnn's position was greatly aided by the fact that she is on the correct side of the issue.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
alden9590megannnnTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: All I had to do was look at Pro's first statement. One of the best quotes in history! "It is always better to be free rather than unfree." -Murray Rothbard