The Instigator
Hothead9294
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ladymind11
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should the smoking age be raised to 21.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Hothead9294
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,565 times Debate No: 46692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Hothead9294

Pro

I am fully for raising the smoking age to 21. I believe more and more teens today are smoking to relieve stress but don't quite understand the harm they are doing to their bodies. By raising the smoking age to 21 we can help the younger crowd refrain from the harmful chemicals and addiction that cigarettes cause on the human body.
ladymind11

Con

I'm totally against it. In the country 18 year old are consider adults and they are old enough to make their own decisions. They shouldn't raise the age because either way teens who aren't 18 & older do it illegally. If they raise the age more teens are going to be influenced to do it illegally..
Debate Round No. 1
Hothead9294

Pro

It is very true what you say about teens and how their going to find a way to do it illegally. However if we enforce laws against these teens and show them what the consequences are from purchasing these cigarettes many would refrain. This is a start towards building for a healthier tomorrow as many teens today are destroying their bodies with the deadly toxins that cigarettes contain.
ladymind11

Con

Its true what you say, but teens these days don't care about laws and they would rebel against any law that is brought up to them. Cigarettes are very dangerous but raising the age won't stop the causes that it has towards a human body.
Debate Round No. 2
Hothead9294

Pro

We must start somewhere in trying to better the health of the youth and what better way then to raise the smoking age to 21. If we don't start here then where can we start this could be used as a steeping stone until better solutions are created and implemented.
ladymind11

Con

Its a good start but I don't think raising the age would make them stop smoking
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cookie_muenster 2 years ago
cookie_muenster
If a teen is not allowed to purchase a cigarette and abuse it because of stress knowing that it's bad for their health, what difference will it make if a stressed adult abused the use of cigarettes. Then wouldn't you propose to enforce a stress management course to put an end to it.
Posted by mdoll 2 years ago
mdoll
I agree but lets be honest, if they rise it up to the age of 21 do you really think that this will stop teens from smoking? I don't think so, no matter what age they are, if they want to smoke they're going to smoke. Its not legal for 17 and 16 year old teens to smoke but they still do and thats because they have access to it from much more older people, either way if they do legalize it or not it wont change a thing and thats just my opinion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Hothead9294ladymind11Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As a liberal, I'm going to try to view this as removed from my personal bias as much as possible. Pro basically argued that the deadliness of the toxins is too much for them to handle, and that teenagers do not understand the consequences. Con countered by saying that teens would rebel and do it illegally anyway. However, Con, in her last argument, concedes that "it's a good start", and then argues why it wouldn't be ideal. I think that because Con agreed, by saying that Pro's ideas were a good start, Pro wins arguments.