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

Should smoking be banned in public places?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,102 times Debate No: 66240
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Welcome to this debate dear opponent. We'll be discussing whether smoking should be banned in public areas. As you see, I am the contender meaning that I am for smoking being banned in public areas. The BoP is shared in this debate.

Okay, this is how I want you to organize your content:

Round 1: Acceptance/Opening statement
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals/counterarguments
Round 4: Closing statements/conclusion.


I accept this challenge. I believe that smoking mustn't be banned in public areas.
Debate Round No. 1


Smoking causes health issues. Many people already know that smoking can cause lung cancer, but that is not the only health problem smoking can cause. According to a website called netdoctor, cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances. When you inhale through the cigarette, it burns at 700 degrees Celsius on the tip and around 60 degrees Celsius in the core. With this amount of heat, cigarette is able to make various toxins. Tar, a substance that causes cancer, nicotine, a substance which may result you in high blood pressure and heart disease, and finally carbon monoxide which reduces the amount of oxygen in the body, are great examples of harmful substances which a cigarette is consisted of.

Through these toxins, disease are caused. Cerebral thrombosis, which is a disease which makes the blood vessels in the brain get blocked, can easily kill you. Coronary thrombosis, a disease which makes a blood clot in the arteries, later resulting in heart attacks. These horrible disease are all caused through smoking.

When a person is smoking, he/she is not the only one who is being affected by the smoke from the cigarette. It also affects other people just walking past you or people just standing around you. The smoke contains all the harmful toxins I mentioned above, and harms even people who do not smoke.


People smoke by their own choice. If you don't like that just ignore the smoker. Public places can save up money so they can have a special place for non smoker people. In the Bill of Rights the second amendment says that you have right to bear arms, and from some point cigarette are like guns. If people ban smoking in public spaces then it can even be harmful to the people who doesn't smoke. They are making their health a problem to themselves, not others. People in public places are harmed by many other things that are not banned, like cars produce air pollution, fires, and many other things like that. So why ban smoking, why not all the things that are harmful to people. You are smoking just for you not for others and if people do really care about it then they can just ignore the smokers and walk away.
Debate Round No. 2


Junha2k forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments. Vote con!!
Debate Round No. 3


I am sorry about accidentally forfeiting the previous round.

You have said that smokers smoke with their own choice, and that non-smokers can just ignore the people who smoke in public places. Well, of course, if we could just ignore them, we would have done that a long time ago. However, when the smokers smoke, it is not just them who is being harmed. You probably noticed the thick smoke coming out of smokers' mouth when they smoke. And you probably have breathed in the smoke when a smoker near you were smoking. Breathing in the smoke indirectly has the same effect as smoking the cigarette. It actually has more effect than the actual smoker. As you can see, non-smokers cannot just ignore the smokers.

You have also said "People in public places are harmed by many other things that are not banned, like cars produce air pollution, fires, and many other things like that." The reason the cars are not banned even though it causes some pollution is because it is elemental and crucial in our life. Also, brilliant people have already com up with cars which do not use fuel which cause pollution but that which use electricity and hydrogen. However, there are no solutions like these for cigarettes. They have come up with e-cigarettes which is supposed to be not harmful, but still is.

As you can see, smoking in public places harms not just the smoker, but the innocent non-smokers. In this reasons, I believe that smoking in public places should be banned. If that is not possible, I strongly believe there should be a solution to solve this problem.


Like you said in round 3," Breathing in the smoke indirectly has the same effect as smoking the cigarette. It actually has more effect than the actual smoker. As you can see, non-smokers cannot just ignore the smokers “and by looking forwarding to this problem people have found many solutions to prevent the non-smoker from getting the effects of smoking. They did it by creating a special room in public places that is only for smoking, so people can go and smoke there. You probably have seen in a restaurant or in airports, there is a room that is only used for smoking, so there is no need to ignore the smokers anymore as people have created more rooms in public places so the non-smoker can't be harmed from it. As you said in the last round that smoking in public harms not just the smoker but also the non-smokers. We can solve this problem and we won't even need to ban smoking in public places by creating more special rooms like that on many other places so it won't harm the non-smokers. People smoke by themselves, even if they know the consequences of it.

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BrookieDebate 2 years ago
U guys are the best can I have your email and skype we can talk some day :D!!!
Posted by Samuel60 2 years ago
I would've accepted this debate; these opponents aren't worth debating.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited a round. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pros presented a compelling case, and I think the strongest argument was the cause that 2nd hand smoke can cause. That initially defeated Con's arguments for ignoring those smokers since you can't technically ignore 2nd hand smoke. However, Con came back in the final round and showed how there are special smoking areas in public places now, and that if you want to avoid smoke you should just avoid those locations. I feel like if Pro didn't forfeit a round this would have come up sooner and pro could have rebutted it. As it stands though, that overcome the only challenge Pro presented, and it was Pro that needed to be the one overcoming Con, not the other way around. Therefore, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.