Smoking Ban is a necessary law.
Debate Rounds (4)
The government has a duty to look after its people's well being. And I believe that banning smoking is best for the population and the world.
I accept this debate. Arguments in the next round.
I thank my opponent for waiting before I posted.
I accept your debate. I will argue in the first round, and waive the last round.
I had a lot of debate topics like this one, one was with tejretics of a debate of smoking ban. I was Pro on this topic, so in this debate, I get a new chance to debate on the other side of the topic. This is not that good for me, because I do not know this side well, but much good of an experience for me because I get to know more about smoking ban.
Next of all, I had a taxation of cigarettes increasing debate. I was Con on this debate also. I wish my opponent good luck, and let'shave a nice debate.
As I said, I never tried this side before, so please do not be sad or mad if I screw up. I will be talking about if we should ban the use of tobacco. BOP is equally shared, Pro has to prove why tobacco should be banned in the US, when I say they should not ban tobaccouse, or the tobacco in the US. If I fill the BOP, I win. If my opponent does, he wins.
What is tobacco?
I know that it was a rule of Pro's that I accept the definitions, however I know that most of our definitions will be similar.
Okay, what is tobacco?
Tobacco: a preparation of the nicotine-rich leaves of an American plant, which are cured by a process of drying and fermentation for smoking or chewing.
Okay, so the main argue of this debate is if we should ban tobacco, which is a plant which is not healthy, and you smoke. I will be arguing we should have tobacco, when my opponent will argue we should ban tobacco.
Okay, here comes to my first argument.
My first argument will be about the economy. The economy will become low if we ban smoking.
Smoking makes a lot of money if smoking. There are many tobacco farms. They get more than a million dollars a hour, and about 28 million dollars a day. That is a lot of money just for smoking. However, what happens if we ban this?
Okay, this is the chart. As you can see, if you ban smoking, the economy turns in that state. This is because the US earns a lot of money because of tobacco, in tobacco farms, and also everywhere else. They use this tobacco make cigarettes, people buy them, and the government earns the money. However, the bad thing is that if we ban smoking, there will be no money for smoking, no one buys it, and the government earns less money because of this. If we ban smoking, the economy will be at risk, and turns bad, so that is why we should not ban tobacco.
Okay, this argument is about the right to choose, liberty.
Why the smokers are smoking? Because they want to. The government does not 'force' the citizens to smoke, it is the citizen's or person's choice. They can just quit smoking, however they aren't. They want to smoke because of some reasons. Why do we ban smoking to people who want to smoke? It is their decision, and we need to have the right to choose what we want to do. The people who smoke, all have the right to do this, because it is harming no one. Pro might say that there is a problem, so I will explain that in the next argument. Our point is that the smokers want to smoke, they are not forced. They need the right to choose what they want to do, and not always get controlled by other's decisions, or the government's decisions. This shows that we need liberty, and do what we want sometimes, and not always be int he government's hands. We can't ban anything that is not that good sometimes. We should not ban tobacco in the US.
3. My solution
This is not really, an argument, just my solution to fix this why we should not ban tobacco.
Solution: Pro might argue that smoking is bad for your health, and other's health in the environment. So there is a solution. Ban smoking in public places, however make more spaces for yes smoking. This does not approve the resolution in any way. The resolution says, "Tobacco use should be banned in the US." We do not ban tobacco use. We ban it in public places, so that there is no bad pollution in the environment from smoking. Another way is that make more private places or spaces to allow smoking. If we used this solution, why would anyone smoke outside if there is a smoking center right next to the place, and you pay money? This solution will increase lots of smoking in the environment, making smoking okay, and doing no damage to non-smokers.
Defintinon of Dependent: needed something else for support.
This argument is about if we ban smoking, some people will be dependent of the government.
Who gets the tobacco? The farms will get tobacco. Who makes cigarettes? Companies do. What happens if we ban smoking? The people who make money by tobacco selling like the farms, have no jobs, the companies have no jobs because of the ban. The people will become dependent on the government. About 5 million people in the US work on the tobacco farms. These 5 million people will have no jobs, and will become dependent on the government.
We should not ban tobacco because it harms the economy. It also bans the people's right of liberty, and to choose what they want to do. I made a solution, and people will become dependent. These are my 4 main arguments. Thanky you.
I apologise for any grammatical or spelling mistakes.
As you can see in the below link , the cons of tobacco use clearly outweigh the pros.
1. As for the economy , I agree that a quite a lot percentage is made up by the tobacco industry. That is precisely why it must be stopped . Perhaps they ( they govt. or any other company) could find a non harmful way smoking cigarettes, maybe replacing the tobacco with something else. As you have taken my position before, I hope you understand. I agree that if smoking is banned, then the economy may go into recession, therefore I suggest a gradual decrease in use and manufacture of tobacco/ cigarettes. This can only be done if a fitting replacement is provided.
2 and 3. I agree with this point also. A person is allowed to make his own decision. But not if it adversely affects him and more importantly, others. Con has suggested banning smoking in public spaces. I agree. But then you are permitting them to smoke in their homes and houses, which contain other family members, which affects them too. WHen you pay money to get into a 'smoking zone' , one kind of loses the charm of getaway from stress and tension. Then these become another zones which have reduced police surveillance .. therefore it leads to increase in betting or any other illegal casino like activities.
4. As I have written in the 1st point, a fitting replacement such as nicotine patch or an unharmful combination of nicotine patch and cigarette must be provided. Whose manufacturing can be taken up by the previously cigarette manufacturing companies. So no jobs will be lost. And if the non harmful replacement is used, then no need to make 'smoking zones'. Just the ban of tobacco needs to take place.
Even if a govt. makes a smoking ban law, people will find a way to get around it, they will find loops in the law, which will make them impervious to the police. The main goal here is to reduce the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes. The messages before, during and after movies and films, isn't enough. By banning tobacco/ cigarettes, the smokers who think of themselves as lawful people will stop smoking and might opt for a patch.
Therefore smoking/tobacco/cigarettes/cigars must be banned worldwide.
I thank my opponent for coming this far into the debate.
Pro clearly drops my arguments totally, and concedes them. I will be putting my defense, and rebuttals. Remember, BoP is shared to both of us. Pro says that Con's arguments outweigh Pro's, which is a concession, and he also agrees to all of my points made in the debate.
Okay, my defense will be really short because Pro has agreed to all my points.
Pro does not explain about what happens if we ban smoking, says that he agrees to my point that if smoking is banned, the economy will turn worse. Pro fails to explain to rebut how the consequences will be when there is the smoking ban, of the economy getting worser, destructs the whole country.
2. Liberty, Solution
Pro also concedes to this point also. He says that a person is allowed to make his own descicion. That was what my whole liberty point was about, and he concedes it. I will tell about the solution. My solution is that we ban smoking in public places, and home is not a public place. We also make smoking zones where smoking is allowed. Pro says this loses money. However, if we ban smoking, it loses more money that this. Therefore, making a smoking zone is much more helpful, and costs less money.
Pro does not explain this in his first point. Pro says just the ban of smoking should happen. Pro fails to explain the connsequences of the jobs lost in this act like all the tobacco farms. This is a dropped argument. Extend my arguments, vote for Con.
Okay, I will go into my rebuttals.
1. Smoking kills you
Okay, Pro's first argument is that smoking kills you. He explains that Smoking is dangerous when inhaled, and gives stress. However, there is a easy way to rebut this argument. Don't people have the right of choice? People want t smoke, that is why they are doing it. We cannot take the liberty for people if they do not harm any others. This is the harm principle, that we can do things that does not harm others. Secondhand impact gets rebutted by my solution, so then there is no harm, making there no reason for the government to take our choices.
I thank my opponent for the fun debate. Onto the next round!
1. I thought I did mention my solution to the economy. Anyhow, I will explain now. Your argument was that the economy will take a turn for the worse. And it will. Only if there are no other replacements for the cigarette. We have advanced to a great extent in science and technology. I am sure there must be some artificial and non harmful replacement. And I as I have said already, the companies previously manufacturing cigarettes can manufacture the replacements. Therefore there is no loss of jobs and the previous smokers, will see the light, and opt for the replacement. Therefore not leading to recession. And as for the economy, it can be rebuilt, a person's health cannot.
2. I am not sure if Con has read my argument completely but I did explain the dependency in my first point of my previous argument. And in the first point of this argument.
3. Liberty means the right of a person to be allowed to make his own decision. But how many times haven't we waived that right? When people become old, when they are mentally disturbed? Similarly here the person is mentally biased over the fact that he needs cigarettes/tobacco. Therefore he has lost most of the capacity to take a firm decision, especially even after his friends, family and colleagues advice him/her against smoking.
The BOP is not much on my side as there is not much precedence. Smoking has rarely been banned, and the only argument I have is one of health. After all that is the main reason for this debate.
4. Con's rebuttal for the health risk is liberty. Liberty does not outweigh posing a health risk to one's self.
5. As Con said, home is not a public place, therefore the person is allowed to smoke there, therefore putting his family and neighbors in risk of getting various health risks.
Con's solution:- Smoking zones aren't going to hep if they are in open spaces, therefore they would have to be in some building. That means that the whole building cannot serve any other purpose even a few years after the zone has been decommissioned or whatever one might like to call it. Another problem is that eventually the smoke is going to have to be disposed of. As we know a lot of companies are doing an amazing job of disposing residue or harmful chemicals!! Smoking zones might bring about a communal feeling between the zones like the feeling between members of a single gang and members of different gangs. Which might lead to an increased crime rate.
Con does not rebut my legal argument.
Let us ASSUME you are right, then why do people keep complaining about children smoking, about the excessive smoking taking place? The economy is doing well, people's rights are intact , its wonderland! Then why is there complaining?
Let children , adults, elderly people go into smoking zones and smoke to their heart's content.
Why do these NGOs and governments show these advertisements that "Smoking Kills"? They can just say "Go smoke in smoking zones, not in public places." There is no way we can confine smoking to particular 'zones'. Sometime or the other the zones will be taken advantage of.
My opponent has plagiarized from
This is in round 1. Vote for Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Google document. PM me with any questions/concerns. Link follows: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10MtS1uMgaRC6_nHGB8MFViQE_1V6RVZ1wKQKN5We4o8/edit?usp=sharing
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.