The Instigator
fire_wings
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Smoking Ban

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 2 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,372 times Debate No: 81925
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (107)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Pro

Please do not accept if you are the under the ELO of 3000. This debate is about the smoking ban in the world. 10k, 3 days, and select winner.

Full Resolution

Resolved: Smoking/ Tobacco should be banned in the whole world.


Rules

1. No trolling

2. No forfeiting
3. No accepting under 3000 ELO unless you are over 100 wins.
4. If not follow rules, get an automatic loss.
5. Over 2500 to vote.


Structure

1. Acceptance

2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals/ Arguments
4. Rebuttals, Defending Case
5. Conclusion

Definitions

All of these definitions are from the Merriam-Webster.

Smoking: the cloud of black, gray, or white gases and dust that is produced by burning something. (this is tobacco in this debate.)


Ban: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done

This is the end of the acceptance. Please accept if you are over 3000 ELO or over 100 wins.

Thank you. I hope I have a good opponent.


tejretics

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Pro

I thank Tejretics to accept. Quite strange when I said to Emilrose, and also lannan13, however them did not accept.

Framework

Okay, now lets start here. First of all, this debate is about smoking ban worldwide. Smoking is made from tobacco. If my opponent fills the BOP which is shared, he wins, however if I fill the BOP, I win. This debate is about
smoking ban. We cannot debate on the definitions because that is the definitions of our whole debate.

Smoking

What is smoking in this debate? Smoking is from tobacco, in tobacco fields. They sell tobacco, then make it into cigarettes. With cigarettes, the
y smoke, and become to have bad health. Banning smoking is that we should ban tobacco fields, and also cigarettes.

Arguments

Now let's go on to our arguments.

1. Bad health when you smoke.

Okay, my first argument is about if you smoke, you will have bad health.



How tobacco affects the body.


These things will happen if you smoke.

First of all, it is the Brian.

Your brain will be damaged because of smoking. This is because nicotine which makes you feel good when you smoke, later makes bad causes to the brain. Also all the smoke comes to your head developing dizziness, and also many aches. You will be in bad condition if you smoke.

Second of all, tobacco stains your teeth and make it dirty. It is really bad for your health if you have bad teeth.





96a13f952f6071453ae0ff99ea220c8f0b8a738d

This is a picture of your teeth when you smoke. Gross!

Now it is your heart. Your heart is a very important source to you. Without a good heart it is hard to stay healthy. However if you smoke, your heart does not stay healthy. The heart rate goes up and it is harder when you excersize. It is very important for your heart to stay healthy, however when you smoke it does not. Thus, you should not smoke.

Now it goes on to your lungs. Your lungs are very important. They make you breathe. However when you smoke, your lung becomes worse.


A healthy human lung and a lung damaged by smoking.



























This is the difference between the two lungs. There is a big difference compared to these lungs. One lung is healthy and is quite white, when the other one is black and a bit rotten. This is another reason why you should not smoke anywhere or everywhere. Your lungs will become worse will make you harder to breathe.

Okay, now it is your muscles.

Your muscles can make you move and become strong. They need blood to get these things. However if you smoke, less blood will come in which will make it harder to exercise and to play or to just move anywhere around.

These are the reasons why you should not smoke and the effects. There is a ton more reasons like bad breathing. Just not when you smoke, when you breathe smoke, your body will become worse also. There is a lot of reasons why smoking is bad.

Now I will tell you what happens if you do not smoke.

timeline of what happens to your body when you quit smoking

Okay, this is the picture. If you read the picture carefully, if you do not smoke, there is a huge benefit in your health. Thus, we should not smoke because our health gets bad. If you stop smoking, you will have chances to be healthy and have better energy, heart rates, and heart attacks will be slim.

2. Child Labour

Okay, my first argument is about Child Labour.

What is Child Labour?

Okay, first of all, what is child labour? It is a thing for children when people hire them and they work with no or very little money. It is a very dangerous and cruel act for kids. However, tobacco is popular and no one wants to work there, so they bring children to work, which is child labour. It is a very cruel thing to do, and that happens in smoking.

Why tobacco fields are bad.

Tobacco fields are bad because they do not actually do the work but, get money. Most child's work. This is mainly on tobacco and on chocolate farms. However chocolate is at least beneficial for your health when smoking is not. Children will be tired and be very helpless, dangerous. They cannot go to school, and basically cannot do anything because they are stuck in the fields. This is the same a slavery. It should be banned. We should ban this because first of all these children are all in danger and cannot do what they want. They have no free time and only work. If we ban this, no one will work on tobacco fields. This is also why it is unfair to these children. They do all the hard work however, they get a lack of money. We should ban child labour which basically is quitting on tobacco farms.

3. Preventable Deaths.

Of every five deaths in the US, 1 is from smoking. This is because of the health issues of smoking. Without smoking, there will be less deaths. There will be more people alive. Smoking causes cancer. Many people die because of smoking. The two main issues are heart attacks and lung cancer. Smoking does this. This is why even though the citizens can't control this, the government should ban smoking to kill less people. California had said there was 36687 deaths because of smoking. There could be a lot of less deaths if we had banned smoking.

Conclusion

Okay, our side believes that smoking should be banned because of three reasons. If we ban smoking, there will be less deaths and more healthier people around the world.

Sources

1.
http://www.nytimes.com...

2. http://www.livestrong.com...

Thank you.
tejretics

Con

I thank fire_wings for this debate.

What are the burdens in this debate? I argue that the burdens of persuasion are shared; the debate discusses policy, and both sides have burdens to discuss their plans/counterplans. Thus, I agree with Pro that the BOP is shared -- both sides must present offense in favor of their side, and the offense that succeeds best should be voted for by judges.

Pro doesn't discuss their advocacy at all. The case is vague. There's no clear discussion of what the policy is, how it will be implemented, et cetera. I don't understand how the plan will be implemented. Pro is arguing for a plan: the universal ban on smoking. He doesn't discuss the specifics of the plan, how it would be implemented, and how to reduce the impacts. Such a plan seems grossly impractical. How will a ban on tobacco smoking throughout the world be implemented? Pro doesn't address that question at all. He argues on the "why" of the plan, without even mentioning the specifics of the plan. This is a "policy" topic, therefore the policy must be discussed. Such a plan requires immense collaboration of governments to act on a universal smoking ban, and the impacts of cigarette sales are different in various countries. I have a counterplan of my own. Instead of a universal smoking ban, I'd implement a ban on public smoking alone, and legalize illicit drugs as well. Let nicotine stay legal, and legalize other drugs as well (to reduce the harms to Pro's own plan, which exist at smaller levels in the status quo).

There are several compelling harms to the plan, which are discussed below:

(1) The first impact is the formation of cartels. The same thing will happen with tobacco and nicotine as happens with other drugs. An illegal trade in cigarettes will be formed. Cigarettes are addictive, and there are multiple smokers. This implies that cartels will form. Nicotine itself is a drug -- albeit a legal one. Once it's made illegal, it just becomes an additional factor in the drug trade within the black market. Tobacco is already being trafficked at a small rate. Tobacco cartels will rise, and that will play into the global war on drugs. On balance, 5700 American civilians die each year due to the war on drugs. [1] This applies to America alone; multiple more people die from the rest of the world. Prohibition of drugs protects the drug cartel, since it keeps the distribution of drugs within the black market, and it creates the risk that makes smuggling profitable. Similarly, prohibition of tobacco would allow a tobacco cartel to grow. Under my counterplan -- with the legalization of *all* drugs, and with tobacco staying legal -- there won't be any such deaths, since a "war on drugs," and other cartel-related battles, will stop. Thus, vote for the counterplan to save lives.

(2) Banning tobacco will strengthen criminal networks. Recognized terrorist organizations such as the Taliban often trade in products via the black market for revenue. It's known that the Taliban trades in illicit drugs for money. Criminal organizations don't trade in legal products because they would be competed out of business, since nobody would buy illegally when they could buy legally. But once tobacco smoking becomes illegal, criminal networks only profit since they can begin illicit trade. [2] Thus, prefer the counterplan, since it will curtail criminal networks and save lives, by ensuring that tobacco stays legal, and legalizing drugs.

(3) The third harm regards the economy. A smoking ban would pose significant harm to the economy, due to the existence of "sin taxes" that gain immense tax revenue from smoking. In 2012 alone, the United States gained $17.6 million out of tobacco tax revenue. The same number stood for 2011. There's a pattern: the number keeps increasing. The US keeps gaining more revenue due to "sin tax" collection from tobacco. [3] There's a 38% sin tax on cigarette retail price in India, which equals $10 per 1,000 cigarettes. I propose a counterplan: increase the sin tax on cigarettes to 78% of retail price, equaling $56 per 1000 cigarettes. Under this counterplan, subtracting those deterred from cigarette use by raised tax (i.e. 18.9 million people), $3.9 billion will be generated in revenue annually. [4] This is a compelling reason not to ban cigarettes in India. The same applies to multiple other countries.

(4) The fourth impact is corruption. A smoking ban would increase corruption, and payment by tobacco cartels. The same has been observed by drug cartels. The majority of human rights organizations agree that drug, alcohol, and tobacco prohibition increases corruption significantly.

There are moral reasons to not ban tobacco. People have self-ownership -- they own themselves, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy. They are free to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm unwilling others. If a person wants to harm themselves, that's their choice, as long as the act doesn't regard an unwilling other. This position is articulated best by John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." It makes a distinction between "self-regarding acts" and "other-regarding acts," the former dealing with acts that are relevant only to the actor, and the latter dealing with acts that extend beyond the actor and influence others. The ability to perform the former shouldn't be limited by the government, since the inherent "state of nature" holds self-ownership. Accept this because the state of Nature is the only thing that gives governments authority. The government's interference is only legitimate when harm comes to unwilling citizens; there's no other warrant for government legitimacy. If you accept the harm principle, smoking should be legal. If you don't accept the harm principle, then the government isn't legitimate, so you reject the plan and reject *any* government action, so you still vote Pro down on anarchy.

--

Now, onto the rebuttals. Pro's arguments are extremely weak. He has so many insufficiently explained points, and points that don't even relate to the resolution. Let me answer each of them individually. First, Pro argues that smoking causes poor health. I don't see how that links to the resolution. The resolution doesn't say "smoking is bad for health." It says smoking should be *banned.* How does this establish that smoking is bad for health? Many things that are bad for health are legal, such as alcohol. I don't see why this is a compelling reason to ban cigarettes, since there's no link whatsoever. I don't see why anything that's bad for health should be banned. The only impact from this is raised as a separate point -- people die because of smoking. Weigh this against the people who would die from a smoking ban, due to tobacco cartels, et cetera. And even if people die because of smoking, the government isn't obligated to protect people who *consent* to die, or wish to die, since they own their own bodies, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy.

Now, onto the child labor point. Child labor is already illegal. Instead of banning smoking, I propose an *investigation* into organizations with suspected child labor. There are tobacco companies that don't practice child labor (and, in fact, it's possible that no tobacco company practices child labor). They can remain. There should just be investigation conducted to enforce what's already the law. Further, Pro doesn't provide any evidence for the child labor point, so presume Con on this. Pro argues that "we should ban child labor." It's already banned. Enforce the law without banning smoking.

Even if you don't buy my rebuttals and buy Pro's arguments, negate off the criminal networks and lives lost arguments, since lives that are lost in such huge numbers outweigh smaller numbers of lives lost, especially when the latter is consensual. For these reasons, vote Con.


Sources:

1. http://narcosphere.narconews.com...

2. http://www.cfdp.ca...

3. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

4. http://global.tobaccofreekids.org...
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Pro

I thank Tejretics for his arguments. I will put my rebuttals and extra arguments.

Framework

Okay, Con has made his rebuttals, when he is not supposed to. He is just supposed to type his arguments because this is 5 rounds and there is also no reason to rebut three rounds. Just to say, the health argument was about that it is not beneficial for your health meaning before doing more damage, we should ban smoking.

Rebuttals

1. Okay, my first rebuttal is the formation of cartels.


Con's first statement is that cigarettes are addictive. Then that means that we should ban them to make them stopped. It is solved. Con says that 5700 people die. However, there is a lot more about 36687 people in California in 4 years. California is just one state. There will surely we over 5700 smokers every year in the US. This shows that people will die. Con states that if we legalize all drugs, there will be no deaths. However, this is wrong. These drugs are harmful. Even though it stops on the war of drugs, there is still some bad things in the drugs. Even though the war of drugs end, does not mean that drugs will become healthier and the drugs or smoking will not kill anyone.

2. Again if the solution is that we legalize the drugs, it will not be beneficial for the health and people will be in cancer or die. Even if we make smoking illegal, and they sell it, that should be illegal also because it is illegal to sell illegal things. There is a second way. Don't make them get profit by not buying these cigarettes. I think they should get destroyed. Please tell me if there is any benefit of smoking so we should not ban it.

3. Con's argument is that it regards the economy. The economy will be bad and get lower, Con says. However, even though we have smoking, there will be some bad economy problems also. Otherwise of that, it is okay, because the people's health and the lives makes more money which is a better economy. Also, India causes child labour which means they should not legalize smoking.

Arguments

1.
Okay now I will go on my first argument in the third round. It is about smoking has a high cost which is the expensive cost of smoking.

Usual places have about 7$ for one smoking pack. If you smoke like this, you will approximately use about 3000 dollars a year. That is a lot of money used for smoking. This is because it is nothing compared to its cost. It is useless. These people just paid their money on useless things. This means that because of the high cost of smoking and nothing good about it, we should ban smoking.

2. Weak bones

This is particularly on weak bones. Smoking should be banned because it causes harm to people. It makes weak bones. Weak bones are very bad and also they have a higher percentage of a hip fracture than a non-smoker.

3.

How Smoking Causes Pollution


Smoking causes pollution.

What is pollution?

Pollution is bad stuff in the air we breathe in. With higher pollution, we will have worse lungs and the air we breathe in is very dirty and disgusting. This is mainly caused by cars and factories by the gas. However, this comes out in smoking too.

Smoking has the air that comes because of the fire. That smoke pollutes the air and causes damage to it. Basically, we breathe in the gas that a car gives away? Smoking is that bad. Because smoking harms the environment, thus we should ban smoking.

Thank you. Defending my case and extra rebuttals go in my next round.

Sources

tejretics

Con

Theory

(A) The structure says Rd. 2 is for "arguments." A rebuttal *is* an argument; that's why, for instance, saying "no new arguments in the final round" includes new rebuttals. This isn't a violation of structure.


(B) Pro *drops* their entire case, drops all my responses, and fails to explain the link between their health arguments and the resolution.

(C) Pro fails to explain the case, dropping the impracticality of implementing such a plan. Pro briefly says that if he just announces that "smoking is illegal," it'll become illegal. But that only works in a single country. Not in the *whole world,* as the resolution holds. There are 206 countries in the world. It's impractical to get all 206 to collaborate and ban smoking. And Pro doesn't address enforcement of the law, and fails to answer what criminal punishment would follow. Thus, I hold that the implementation and criminal punishment related to the plan is vague.

(D) Pro asks me to show "if there is any benefit to smoking . . . so we should not ban it." There doesn't need to be a benefit to the act itself for you to have it legal -- if there are harms to banning smoking, it provides compelling offense in favor of my side.

--

First, the cartels impact. It's because cigarettes are addictive that the ban will not stop people from smoking cigarettes; it'll merely move into the black market, expanding the drug war and taking the lives of multiple civilians and soldiers. Then, Pro tries to weigh this argument against the negative impacts of drugs and cigarettes. For this, extend the argument from liberty: the deaths caused by smoking/drgs is *consensual.* When people smoke or do drugs, they know the consequences; they just still do it. In the Mexican Drug War *alone,* 106,000 people have been killed and 1.6 million people have been displaced. [1] The moment smoking goes to cartels, it'll take up government revenue, and force the creation of war. Prevent war, and the deaths and displacement of multiple people, by allowing the legal, highly taxed sale of cigarettes.

Next, criminal networks. This is dropped. Extend this argument. The banning of smoking will encourage formation of stronger criminal networks, and cause terrorism.


The economy rebuttal fails. Pro doesn't give any compelling argument in favor of his turn. What are the economic harms to smoking being legal? He briefly addresses that more deaths is a weaker economy, but the deaths are equaled by drug war and smoking-related deaths; further, that doesn't come close to the huge revenue generated by the counterplan (which is more than billions of dollars in revenue).

Pro drops corruption.

Pro drops morality, and it ultimately dooms Pro. Liberty is the only means by which we can justify the existence of the government. If you don't accept this point, anarchy entails, and the lack of government means there isn't a smoking ban, so you vote Con. If you accept this point, the existence of liberty that doesn't harm others and self-ownership entails the freedom to smoke in private, so you vote Con. Either way, you vote Con.

As for health, Pro doesn't prove that if X harms health, it should be banned. There's no reason to believe this. Till Pro justifies that link, presume Conn on this point.

Now, the costs of cigarettes. It shouldn't be the business of government if a person wants to spend a lot of money on something. How would it affect the state? The person owns the money, and has the right to spend it as he wants. If that right is removed, the point of the money system is useless. Pro doesn't show how if someone spends a lot of money on something they subjectively consider "useless," it should be banned. People treasure the experience of smoking and drugs; they gain immense pleasure out of doing it. Apply util: since they get immense pleasure, which outweighs the suffering (since they continue to smoke), turn this and let smoking be legal.

On the weak bones impact, Pro says that "[s]moking should be banned because it . . . harm[s] . . . people." This is a bare assertion. There's no warrant given. Until this critical link is addressed, there's absolutely no reason to buy that this has any form of relevance to the resolution, or gives any compelling reason to follow the plan.

Pro argues that smoking causes pollution. The pollution is prevented by my counterplan. My counterplan bans public smoking. Only public smoking causes pollution. The counterplan allows specified closed spaces for smoking, so that it doesn't harm the environment. This impact doesn't make you favor the plan over the counterplan; it only fights the status quo.

Pro frequently claims that there is "nothing good about . . . smoking." If so, why do people smoke? People gain pleasure out of smoking. If you advocate for utilitarianism, then we must weigh pleasure against pain. People enjoy smoking. Many people love smoking and drugs. They thoroughly relish the experience. We shouldn't stop them from doing that.

Vote Con on liberty, since it outweighs all of Pro's impacts. And none of Pro's responses are compelling.


Sources:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Pro

Thank Tejretics for rebuttals. I accept his rebuttals, however I don't accept the structure. He said I dropped his rebuttals, however that was because that was 3rd round was not for that.

Defending Case

Okay, this will be short because I have to go somewhere for my holiday. I will make the 5th round in depth instead. Sorry. Only have 20 minutes.


1. Con says that smoking is not good for your health does not come in the resolution. However, it does. This is because smoking is bad, it can harm us humans, so we need to ban smoking to get fresh air, and get better health. This is not just because of the smokers, it is because of the environment. If this is bad for their health, the government must ban smoking. The government must protect these citizens because one of the government's jobs is to help the citizens. Some of these citizens are in danger. They need help of health from banning smoking.

2. Okay, in most places it is banned, it is true. However some places they do this illegally. For an example India. They have children doing all the work at tobacco farms. There is no consequence. The tobacco workers do things illegally because they do not want to work in those places. This means that to decrease illegal things, smoking needs to be banned.

3. Con does not rebut about the preventable deaths, which was my third argument, meaning one argument dropped.


3. Preventable Deaths.

Of every five deaths in the US, 1 is from smoking. This is because of the health issues of smoking. Without smoking, there will be less deaths. There will be more people alive. Smoking causes cancer. Many people die because of smoking. The two main issues are heart attacks and lung cancer. Smoking does this. This is why even though the citizens can't control this, the government should ban smoking to kill less people. California had said there was 36687 deaths because of smoking. There could be a lot of less deaths if we had banned smoking.

Conclusion

Because Con did not rebut the third argument, it is dropped meaning to vote for Pro. Con does not rebut my third argument, and also Pro tells the reason why smoking is unhealthy relates to the resolution, saying that we need to ban smoking because it is unhealthy for all the citizens. We think that the Status Quo of smoking is wrong, and we need to stop it.

Vote for Pro. Thank you. Sorry for not making it in depth. There is no time.
tejretics

Con

== Overview ==

Pro drops my whole case. Extend it. Don't allow Pro to address the arguments he dropped -- that is, corruption, criminal networks, and liberty (my strongest impact) -- as it would be a new argument. Debating convention dictates that there cannot be any new arguments in the final round, and judges shouldn't consider such arguments. Thus, any dropped arguments are dropped arguments.

First, health. All Pro says is that smoking harms humans, and that it's the government's job to protect its citizens. But this is an is/ought fallacy. Smoking *is* legal, and the government knows it harms its citizens. A government doesn't need to protect citizens from themselves. Pro doesn't give us a compelling reason for the government to infringe upon a person's liberty to harm oneself. Extend the moral argument; if the government is to exist, smoking shouldn't be banned. This has impact here since the government shouldn't infringe on self-ownership. Instead, implement a sin tax, and significantly discourage smoking.

Second, child labor. Then enforce the law. Send investigative forces and remove child labor from the tobacco industry entirely. The reason child labor is often present in tobacco farms is the lack of enforcement. [1]

Third, preventable deaths. I did not drop this; I addressed this under "health." I quote myself from Rd. 2, "The only impact from this is raised as a separate point -- people die because of smoking. Weigh this against the people who would die from a smoking ban, due to tobacco cartels, et cetera. And even if people die because of smoking, the government isn't obligated to protect people who *consent* to die, or wish to die, since they own their own bodies, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy." Thus, this wasn't ever dropped.

Further, "it is dropped . . . [hence] vote . . . Pro" is false, because a single dropped argument doesn't mean you vote Pro. Even though I didn't drop the argument, even if I *did,* it doesn't link at all to the resolution. "Smoking is unhealthy" does not entail "smoking should be banned." My *entire case* is dropped. Vote Con right there. Also vote Con because Pro's case is refuted, and because liberty outweighs all of Pro's arguments.

1. https://www.hrw.org...
Debate Round No. 4
fire_wings

Pro

Framework

Okay, first of all, there was nothing about liberty. The only arguments were
formation of cartels, criminal networks, economy, and corruption.

Why Con is wrong, I am right

There was nothing about liberty in this debate. When I checked through, it was not there. Clearly, it is not there, meaning that there is no reason I can rebut it. I did not drop corruption. Con still does not make a rebuttal to my third argument, which was the high cost, however, he is too late. Thus, you should vote Pro.

There are other reasons why you have to vote for me.

When Cons says smoking is not beneficial for your health is not upon the debate topic, it is because, the health problems are very serious, we need to ban smoking to reduce the deaths of cancer. This will do extreme benefit to the world.

Con clearly drops my whole case of spending money. Also his case for my bad for health is weak also. He just asks a question, however gets easily rebutted, and not saying other stuff about that. He drops the case of spending money, and also smoking is bad for your health. Also, in round 3, Con drops my argument about pollution which was that smoking makes the air bad, making the environment worse. To stop this we need to ban smoking.

Because there was no liberty in his arguments, there is no reason I can rebut that, however Con drops spending money and also pollution, giving me the win, however not my opponent.

Conclusion

Because Con has dropped my 2 arguments, when I only dropped one, I win this debate because I filled the BOP.

Thank you.
tejretics

Con

(1) Harm principle

There was an argument on liberty. Just because the word "liberty" isn't there in the argument doesn't mean the argument isn't there. I'm quoting myself from Rd. 2, "There are moral reasons to not ban tobacco. People have self-ownership -- they own themselves, and ought to have complete bodily autonomy. They are free to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm unwilling others. If a person wants to harm themselves, that's their choice, as long as the act doesn't regard an unwilling other. This position is articulated best by John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." It makes a distinction between "self-regarding acts" and "other-regarding acts," the former dealing with acts that are relevant only to the actor, and the latter dealing with acts that extend beyond the actor and influence others. The ability to perform the former shouldn't be limited by the government, since the inherent "state of nature" holds self-ownership. Accept this because the state of Nature is the only thing that gives governments authority. The government's interference is only legitimate when harm comes to unwilling citizens; there's no other warrant for government legitimacy. If you accept the harm principle, smoking should be legal. If you don't accept the harm principle, then the government isn't legitimate, so you reject the plan and reject *any* government action, so you still vote Pro down on anarchy." This basically represents the state of nature, the sole justification for a government's existence. Vote Con right there. Pro drops this, and claims this doesn't even exist. That's why you should vote Con -- either there's anarchy, where you negate by default, or there's self-ownership, where you still negate. Vote Con because of that.

(2) Health

Pro says "we need to ban smoking to reduce . . . deaths." He fails to justify that we should ban anything that increases deaths. Why should we care about deaths? Pro doesn't give us any reason. We own our own lives, and have the choice to end our lives as we see fit. Even under a utilitarian calculation, smoking brings people pleasure, so people weigh its pleasure against the suffering caused by smoking, and choose to smoke. This isn't very convincing.

(3) Spending money

Pro says I dropped this argument. But I *clearly* addressed it. Let me quote myself from Rd. 3, "Now, the costs of cigarettes. It shouldn't be the business of government if a person wants to spend a lot of money on something. How would it affect the state? The person owns the money, and has the right to spend it as he wants. If that right is removed, the point of the money system is useless. Pro doesn't show how if someone spends a lot of money on something they subjectively consider "useless," it should be banned. People treasure the experience of smoking and drugs; they gain immense pleasure out of doing it. Apply util: since they get immense pleasure, which outweighs the suffering (since they continue to smoke), turn this and let smoking be legal." This isn't a drop; I clearly addressed this argument. This isn't a compelling reason to ban smoking.

(4) Environmental effects

I didn't drop this. I addressed this as well. Let my quote myself from Rd. 3, "Pro argues that smoking causes pollution. The pollution is prevented by my counterplan. My counterplan bans public smoking. Only public smoking causes pollution. The counterplan allows specified closed spaces for smoking, so that it doesn't harm the environment. This impact doesn't make you favor the plan over the counterplan; it only fights the status quo." And from Rd. 2, where I established a public smoking ban as part of the counterplan, "I have a counterplan of my own. Instead of a universal smoking ban, I'd implement a ban on public smoking alone, and legalize illicit drugs as well. Let nicotine stay legal, and legalize other drugs as well (to reduce the harms to Pro's own plan, which exist at smaller levels in the status quo)." Therefore, this isn't a compelling reason to ban smoking.

== Conclusion ==

I didn't drop *any* of Pro's arguments. Pro still drops liberty (harm principle), corruption, economy, criminal networks, and cartels, all of which result in huge impacts: lives lost, anarchy, and huge economic harms. The main basis to vote Pro is the harm principle point. If the government doesn't work via the harm principle, then anarchy is the only justifiable state since it represents a "state of nature," and anarchy would result in voting Con. The alternative to the anarchy point is to still vote Con, because then the government has some warrant for its existence by allowing liberties based on Mill's harm principle. For these reasons, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
And that's why raisor's among the best judges on this site :)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Raisor// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con wins moral FW, government should only enact laws preventing "other regarding" harms. On this ground deaths from cartels/black market outweighs the inherent health risks of smoking.

Pro's best point was child labor, Con's argument that governments should just investigate doesn't address Pro's point that child labor isn't illegal in all countries. Still the impact isn't well developed, so I guess comparing child labor to the rise of criminal organization and 100,000 deaths that latter is worse.

Vote Con/

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly addresses what he perceives as the major arguments made in the debate by both sides, weighs them, and addresses how he views the framework. Perfect example of how this can be done in less than 1000 characters, guys. Learn from this.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@famousdebater

I have a few notes on your RFD, and would appreciate a response. (I didn't quite have the time to read the RFD until now.)

On sourcing - I didn't assume the audience understands things, I just didn't source them. No source =/= no warrant. I *warranted* everything; I gave a reason to think war is bad (re: civilian deaths) and I showed that the government should care about civilian deaths via the harm principle (my framework proves that the govt. should care about civilian deaths). So I justified everything. I avoided bringing up sources too much, as sources tend to direct the debate outside of rhetoric and argumentation.

A source isn't a warrant. I followed claim-warrant-impact; I didn't make any bare assertion. Once more, unsourced assertion =/= lack of link between impact and resolution.

Also, I don't really see how I won the child labor point. I mean, my argument that it's illegal in most countries and governments don't enforce the law doesn't touch upon Pro's argument that, in some countries, child labor is legal.

I appreciate the feedback, anyway, FD.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Thanks for the vote, raisor.
Posted by Raisor 1 year ago
Raisor
Con wins moral FW, government should only enact laws preventing "other regarding" harms. On this ground deaths from cartels/black market outweighs the inherent health risks of smoking.

Pro's best point was child labor, Con's argument that governments should just investigate doesn't address Pro's point that child labor isn't illegal in all countries. Still the impact isn't well developed, so I guess comparing child labor to the rise of criminal organization and 100,000 deaths that latter is worse.

Vote Con/
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
More votes...
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
100+ posts.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Post 100.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Post 99.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Post 98.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 1 year ago
Raisor
fire_wingstejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
fire_wingstejretics
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.