The Instigator
legodude123
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
whatledge
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should we end smoking?

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 3 votes the winner is...
whatledge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 43445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

legodude123

Pro

It needs to stop but you go first
whatledge

Con

My argument is quite simple. I believe people have authority over their own bodies, and if they so choose to, they have the right to smoke whatever they wish, granted that they don't blow the smoke intentionally in other people's faces to harm them. Otherwise, it is not Pro's place or mine to dictate what one should or should not do to their own bodies. We do not have such authority, and indeed, even the government should not be able to prohibit behaviors that does not harm anyone but the consenting individual upon his own body, given that the said individual is fully aware and responsible adult that can think and act for himself.

I look forward to Pro's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
legodude123

Pro

People have the authority over their own body
Its the same as saying that a person should commit a crime because they have the authority and its there body.

They have the rights to smoke
Giving rights to someone justlike smoking which makes no sense. Smoking is very popular now and people do not have the rights to smoke in buildings schools or other placesyou said they should do it where ever.

It is not pros choice to dicate what one should or should not do in their own bodies
Just like again saying that people should be able to kill someonebecause its their own mind


Argument
Smoking is very popular in the U.S and I see how many people do not care about what happens to their body in any way when they smoke. Smoking is a real life situation not only that it effects adults but it effects children. How would you like it to be a baby in your moms stomach and your mom kept smoking and then later on you were formed wrong and you died over time and yes smoking is taking a life away and it is murder and it follows the act of the seven deadly sins if (anybody was religios). I can already tell you being a child having a heart disease because your mom or dad kept smoking. Smoking also waste time and money. Ciggerretes are from the cost average of 10.00 t o12.00. Mainly some people are very addicted and buy up to more then three packs of cigars. What can 36.00 or up buy you? Lets see... you could save up and buy many things then smoke a cigar and buy up to more then 3 packs just a waste of your time and money.
http://www.cancer.gov...

Cigars cause our cancer. Now before you say its their body they can get all the cancer they want cancer is a serious thing in the U.S. Cancer is a very major thing and human population goes down and drops. I have also found that cigars cause pollution. Like I said smoking does not only eff the person doing it. Smoking causes pollution.
++Side eff of pollution

-acid rain
-global warming
- earth animals could die
- Changes of weather
So we should allow smoking to do this like do you allow smoking and do you want cigars to change the world. I thought so.

Conclusion
I strongly agree smoking shouldnt be in this world it has to stop and its changing the world as we all know.

Citing
http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com...
http://www.cancer.gov...
http://www.ask.com...

whatledge

Con

People have the authority over their own body
Its the same as saying that a person should commit a crime because they have the authority and its there body.

Crime is defined by law, not morality. It is illegal to smoke weed, but that doesn"t mean smoking weed is inherently evil. And this is an obvious strawman besides. My argument isn"t that people have a right to commit crimes, eg murder or steal. My argument is that people have a right to do what they want with their OWN body, so as long as they are not harming others in the process (which I clearly stated I round 1). To prohibit someone"s smoking habit on the virtue of it being "unhealthy" is the same thing as prohibiting candy and fast food for the same reason, which is ridiculous.

They have the rights to smoke
Giving rights to someone justlike smoking which makes no sense. Smoking is very popular now and people do not have the rights to smoke in buildings schools or other placesyou said they should do it where ever.

It isn"t my right to give someone else the right to smoke. They have that right to begin with, so as long as they aren"t making ME smoke or blowing smoke into my face intentionally. And I also never said that people can smoke "where ever," read my arguments in round 1 and see if you can even find the word "where." This is another strawman argument, as the debate is not about where people should be allowed to smoke, but if they have the right to smoke at all.

Argument
Smoking is very popular in the U.S and I see how many people do not care about what happens to their body in any way when they smoke.

People have a right to not care about their own health. It isn"t your health to dictate. Smokers aren"t making YOU smoke. And I don"t see how popularity has to do with anything.

Smoking is a real life situation not only that it effects adults but it effects children. How would you like it to be a baby in your moms stomach and your mom kept smoking and then later on you were formed wrong and you died over time and yes smoking is taking a life away and it is murder and it follows the act of the seven deadly sins if (anybody was religios). I can already tell you being a child having a heart disease because your mom or dad kept smoking.

If a pregnant mother smokes, she is violating the premise of my argument, which is that she has a right over her OWN body, not the child"s. A child in the womb is another individual, and a pregnant woman should not smoke" which is common sense and there is a general surgeon warning on every cigarette pack in that regard. This does not mean that people that are not pregnant should not be able to smoke" Again, this argument is irrelevant, as the debate isn"t whether pregnant woman should smoke.

Smoking also waste time and money. Ciggerretes are from the cost average of 10.00 t o12.00. Mainly some people are very addicted and buy up to more then three packs of cigars. What can 36.00 or up buy you? Lets see... you could save up and buy many things then smoke a cigar and buy up to more then 3 packs just a waste of your time and money.

It is not YOUR time or money to dictate how it should be spent. This argument is irrelevant to say the least. People work hard for their money, and if they want to enjoy a cigarette and exercise their freedom to do so, it is not Pro"s place to deny them their right.

Cigars cause our cancer. Now before you say its their body they can get all the cancer they want cancer is a serious thing in the U.S. Cancer is a very major thing and human population goes down and drops. I have also found that cigars cause pollution. Like I said smoking does not only eff the person doing it. Smoking causes pollution.

So do driving cars and a number of other things, which are infinitely more harmful to the environment than cigarettes ever will be. The amount that cigarettes pollute the earth is miniscule in comparison. Should everyone stop driving? Not everyone drives, so it seems unfair to pollute the earth for the people that ride horses. If you are going to make an argument, it has to go both ways. There countless other environmental concerns (US and China pollute the earth more than anyone else, and believe me, it isn"t from cigarettes) and cigarettes polluting the air is not one of them. Your cancer argument also doesn"t hold any weight. People know that cigarettes can cause cancer (what doesn"t these days?), that doesn"t mean we have to babysit them and tell them how to live their lives. It isn"t your place. Adults have a right to smoke if they wish, they have a right to make unhealthy choices about their own bodies. They can eat fast food ever day if they want, drink diet coke, stuff themselves with candy. It isn"t Pro"s body to dictate.

"-acid rain
-global warming
- earth animals could die
- Changes of weather"

I am now suspecting that Pro is trolling. Cigarettes are not the cause of weather change, acid rain, or global warming.

I believe I have sufficiently dismantled Pro"s arguments. And rest my case, as I have no further arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
legodude123

Pro

Crime is defied by law not moratlaty
I never went off topic I am just saying its just like saying this. Your making it seem like I made a statement about people and how the crime rate increases I am saying that guns cause crime and stuf when I am refuting


Just like what I am gonna say your saying that saying not to smoke in enviorments is like prohibitting candy. You said I am goign off topic look at you going to talk about candy


I never said that you said they can smoke where ever I said they have no rights to smoke in buildings or schools or other places. Popularity means so common so I am stating thatt it is very common and lots of people do it so I can put it in this debate


I was stating examples and you can do that in debate you really dont know much about how a debate works you see I am giving a senerio about a pregnant women. And in other debates I have seen people giive real life examples and senerios and end up showing a good argument


You dont know what trolling means a troll is someone who puts offensive comments on the internet I placed no offensive note so it makes no sense to say I was trolling


Look again you say I am off topic look what your putting and you said I cant say anything that does not relate to cigars.

You talk about cars. I am talking about cigars and I clearly never stated it causes most I said it does if you read my argument. Like what does China have to do with this whole debate so your not making any sense. And I researched it and it has showed cigars is part of pollution and I also looked up pollution is also the problem we have with global warming and many teachers have thought me that pollution causes global warming you can not say I am trolling in any such atleast I provided clear details facts and senerios to back up my case that we need to put an end and this debate is not focused on your argument its focused on the topic and yo keep refering like the whole thing is about your argument. The only thing that responds to an argument is rebuttal your changing the whole topic saying that 'what does it have to do with having your own body' when its about we should put a end to it thats the topic
whatledge

Con

I never went off topic I am just saying its just like saying this. Your making it seem like I made a statement about people and how the crime rate increases I am saying that guns cause crime and stuf when I am refuting

I fail to understand what Pro is attempting to say. I said nothing about crime rates, I merely replied to his strawman argument that “People having the authority over their own body” somehow equates to the claims that “Its the same as saying that a person should commit a crime because they have the authority and its there body.” These are your words, not mine.

Just like what I am gonna say your saying that saying not to smoke in enviorments is like prohibitting candy. You said I am goign off topic look at you going to talk about candy

Because the logic is the same. If you are saying that cigarettes should be banned because they are “unhealthy” then by the same logic, candy/fastfood should be banned. Also your grammar is atrocious; I can hardly understand what you are trying to say. In future debates, please at least attempt to have proper punctuations and spelling… this is a matter of conduct as well.

I never said that you said they can smoke where ever I said they have no rights to smoke in buildings or schools or other places. Popularity means so common so I am stating thatt it is very common and lots of people do it so I can put it in this debate

“you said they should do it where ever.” This is a direct quote from Round 2 in your argument… words that you placed in my mouth. Popularity has nothing to do with this debate, because you in no way establish that because it is popular it should be banned. Soccer is a popular sport. Should it be banned because it is popular?


I was stating examples and you can do that in debate you really dont know much about how a debate works you see I am giving a senerio about a pregnant women. And in other debates I have seen people giive real life examples and senerios and end up showing a good argument

Yes, but not all smokers are pregnant, which is why your argument or “senerio” (scenario) is irrelevant.

You dont know what trolling means a troll is someone who puts offensive comments on the internet I placed no offensive note so it makes no sense to say I was trolling

No, but your argument was so absurd, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.


Look again you say I am off topic look what your putting and you said I cant say anything that does not relate to cigars.

When did I ever say such a thing? Please, quote me…


You talk about cars. I am talking about cigars and I clearly never stated it causes most I said it does if you read my argument.

Yes, because you are arguing that cigarettes pollute the earth and therefore should be banned. Cars pollute the earth MUCH more, so based on your reasoning it should also be banned because it pollutes the earth. I am trying to point out your bias and double standard.

Like what does China have to do with this whole debate so your not making any sense.

Because China, being the greatest polluters of the earth, does not pollute the earth by smoking cigarettes. Did you even read my argument?

And I researched it and it has showed cigars is part of pollution and I also looked up pollution is also the problem we have with global warming and many teachers have thought me

You should ask those teachers if cigarettes pollute the earth more than cars, coal mine factories, and ask what really destroyed our ozone layer in the early 1900s.

I really have nothing more to add, and I leave it up to the voters. I did not mean to accuse you of being a troll with any intention to insult you or cause offense, I genuinely thought you were making a poor attempt at humor when you said that cigarettes causes acid rains, global warming, and weather changes. Cigarettes alone do not cause enough pollution to change the weather. I just hope you can understand that much.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I'm completely against smoking, yet I could argue this if you want someone to play devils advocate...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
legodude123whatledgeTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Con without a doubt. Pro can't spell cigarettes and instigated a debate on smoking. He failed to even quote Con's arguments with proper spellings. That should say enough. However, Pro gets points for sources. No doubt about that either. I've awarded arguments to Con because Pro's indications that smoking contributes to global warming and acid rain were serious deal breakers. Pro misquoted Con (smoking "wherever"). Pro also failed to adequately counter some of Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
legodude123whatledgeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Found no arguments pursaiding but con went off topic for sure
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
legodude123whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a persuasive argument for not ending smoking in Round 2. Pro failed to adequately reply. Con questioned Pro asking if he was trolling but he retracted his statement. I liked how Con did that retraction but still Con was making other condescending statements throughout the debate. Conduct goes to Pro. Spelling and grammar goes to Con since Pro had spelling errors and grammar issues. Source point to Pro for providing links. Good luck to you both in future debates.