The Instigator
virender.singh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ilma
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should smoking be banned?

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 1 vote the winner is...
ilma
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 43688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

virender.singh

Con

I believe smoking should not be illegal because

01. Making smoking illegal violated the democratic principle of freedom of choice. I believe that in a democratic society, the state should not interfere with any individual's personal choices as long as it does not compromises the rights of at least one other individual.

By making smoking illegal, the state will violate the above mentioned principle.

02. It is important that in a civil society, individuals are given the leeway to take responsibility for their behavior and if the state banned smoking, it will make people less likely to hold themselves responsible in the sense that the people who will stop smoking after the ban will stop not because of their choice and understanding but because of the fear of the law.
ilma

Pro

1) IT EFFECTS OUR ENVIRONMENT
Cigarette smoking damages the body gradually in a number of different ways. There are thousands of chemicals in the average puff of cigarette smoke. Despite all that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or CDC, 26% of American adults continue to smoke, with heart-rending outcomes. Each year smoking is blamable for 430,000 deaths (one every five). Smoking is not just a habit as many people thought for many years. Some groups like Pro-Tobacco Group often claim that cigarette smokers have the right to abuse their body if they choose. They believed that all the health dangers of cigarettes will fade in a puff of smoke; when they quit, assuming that smoking from, say, age 16 to age 28 will have no long-term effects, smokers often fall back on an "I can always quit tomorrow" (next month or next year) philosophy. Recent studies show that the quitting success rate among teenagers is very low; less than 16% of the 633 teen smokers in the study were able to quit. Cigarette smoking needs to be banned because it affects the health of the smoker, the health of non-smoker (secondhand smoke) and, the environment.

2)The harmful effects of secondhand smoke have been documented. The primary issue, in my opinion, is that smoking in public not only has an effect on the smoker, but on all of those around him/her. The negative effects of secondhand smoke are very well documented. The smoke is absolutely horrendous. The smell is sickening, and there is no escaping it. Those who are proclaiming a smoking ban to be a violation of their "rights," should realize that it is in fact non-smokers' rights that are being violated in situations like those described above. You want to kill yourself, fine. Have at it. Don't take us with you. Smoking should be banned in ALL public places. And by all, I mean anywhere the general public has a right to be.

3)It causes cancer; therefore death. Smoking is one of the leading killers around the world. It makes you smelly, unhealthy and poor. It causes lung cancer which can cause you to die, or develop other cancer and diseases that kill you. Smoking is one of the most terrible and disgusting habits to develop, and is a global killer.

4)It's a clear choice, yes. Smoking is just a pollution to everyone including those who do not smoke. Walking around town, having to breath in peoples exhaled carcinogens. Smoking causes cancer, causes emphysema, gum disease, this list can go on. Bottom line, death. Seniors regret their choice to smoke as they have a breathing tube to support them. Feel bad for them? Don't. Learn from them. Speak on their behalf how terrible this industry is. Banning smoking would open up a few possibilities as well. Tobacco companies make incredible amounts of money on people who smoke. It is a reoccuring hobby. at 5-8 dollars a pack, couple packs a week, 4 a month? That is constant income for Tobacco companies. What do they do with it? Provide mundane anti smoking ads that interest no one. They give out free packs of cigarettes to try so new consumers could try and get addicted. It's a ban across a plague that we are in.

Yes Overall, I think that the world would be a much better place without cigarettes. I suggest the government to take action immediately and stop that puff of smoke from coming out of a person"s mouth and make them happy and invincible from smoke! Everyone will be smoke-sick-free from the banning of smoke!
Debate Round No. 1
virender.singh

Con

virender.singh forfeited this round.
ilma

Pro

ilma forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
virender.singh

Con

virender.singh forfeited this round.
ilma

Pro

ilma forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by suridon1016 2 years ago
suridon1016
ilma u better use some references in your arguments
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Complicated_Mind 2 years ago
Complicated_Mind
virender.singhilmaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied as they both forfeited every round after the initial one; S&G was slightly better on Con's part, however the difference was minuscule; Pro made more convincing arguments and there were more of them, so arguments go to Pro; Neither used sources, so that is tied.