1. over 3000 ELO to vote, and accept.
2. No FF unless same number
3. No trolling
4. No kritiks, semantics
Smoking: Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes,and cigars.
Ban: A stop to.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope it will be fun.
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.
Argument 1: Liberty
We have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others. This is what the harm principle states. It states that we can do anything unless it does not harm others. Pro might argue that smoking does harm others, but I will adress that so my opponent cannot say that in his counterplan later, that we can smoke designated areas. I will adress this later, and go to the actual argument.
We have moral reasons not to ban smoking. First, we have self-ownership, meaning that we have the right to do what we want. If we do not have self-ownership, which the Pro side must say, that is same that we can do nothing we want, then that is slavery. Slavery is banned, so not self-ownership should be banned.
Why should others care if we drink smoking? It is our own bodies, and we have the right to do anything with it.
This means that we have self-ownership and can do anything we want unless it does not harm others.
Argument 2: Economic Impact
A smoking ban causes economical impact. Think about how much money the government gets by smoking.
"Total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year "
Yes, 300 billion dollars will be for smoking. Many people think that is a waste, but then government gets lots. However, if we ban smoking, then they won't earn these profits. Also, the tobacco workers will have no job, leading to the next argument, dependency.
Argument 3: Dependency
If smoking gets banned, then think about the people who have jobs related to smoking. There is about 800,000 people in a tobacco farm , so there will probably be like 10 million people. If we ban smoking, then what job to they have? They have no job. Then they will be dependent to the government, meaning that they need the government's support because they have no job.
Argument 4: Illegal Tobacco
Tobacco will just become an illegal drug like cocaine. Then a black market will form. Illegally, people will sell tobacco, for 3 times more, and also this strengthens the criminal networks. So if we ban tobacco, it will be bad, strengthens the criminal networks, you are illegally doing this, and also a black market will form.
Counterplan 1: Desingated Areas for Smoking
Pro might say that it does harm others, when we smoke, it causes pollution. This is one of my opponent's arguments, and for him to not say that I am wrong, I will make this counterplan which is Desingarted Areas for Smoking
Did you ever see these things in some places. I agree, there is not much. However, if we use my plan, and make more of these areas, it will be much better, no innocent people dying, and lots of people who like smoking to smoke. If it just takes a bit more space, we will have a good environment.
My arguments were that we have self-ownership, the economy gets a bad impact, people will be dependent to the government, tobacco will be an illegal drug, people will buy it illegally, and my counterplan that we need desingated places to smoke. For all these reasons, vote for Con.
Thank you Fire wings for your opening argument and good luck.
I am arguing in favor of smoking bans and will provide justification for them. My opponent’s burden is to argue against smoking bans. “A smoking ban is a public policy that includes criminal laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in certain public places and workspaces.” (2)
My opponent and I seem to both agree on a vital concept known as the harm principle. That is to say we believe that people ought to be free to do what they desire so long as they do not harm others. It is because of the harm principle that a smoking bans ought to be supported.
Cigarette smoking is responsible for one out of every five deaths in the U.S. annually. Understand that this harm is not only self-inflicted as 41,000 deaths annually are the result of secondhand smoking. Consequently, it has been found that if the current rate continues “5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. (1) Furthermore, it has been found that significant harm is done to those who live, or work, with people who smoke. (2) Accordingly, it has been found that smoking bans lower if not remove the harms of smoking. Perhaps this is why The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health all support smoking bans. (2)
We see at this point that smoking violates the harm principle. This means that when people choose to smoke they harm those around them significantly. Thus, if we accept the harm principle, which both my opponent and I do, it is only just to implement smoking bans.
Fire Wings round is thoroughly confusing. He begins by stating that it was a rule of mine that he accept definitions… I made no such rule and have no idea what he is talking about. Furthermore, consider that first he states that “we have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others.” Clear enough, this is the harm principle, but then he says “we can do anything unless it does not harm others.” At first, I just figured this was an accident as the double negative makes the second sentence mean the exact opposite of the first. However, just a few sentences later, he does it again stating; “we have self-ownership and can do anything we want unless it does not harm others.” This along with phrases like “drink smoking” lead to me being convinced that either con does not know his position, this topic, or did not think to read his round before posting.
This is further compounded as Con’s counterplan is to implement smoking bans. Designated smoking areas are a type of smoking ban. (See definition) Essentially, we have a debate here where both my opponent and I are arguing for smoking bans. The case may be made that my opponent is opting for less stringent smoking bans, but make no mistake, they are smoking bans. This debate is not about a specific type of smoking ban. Thus, I have argued a justification for smoking bans and my opponent presented a plan involving a type of smoking ban.
With my remaining space I will do what I can to make sense of con’s arguments each in turn. First, he presents the idea of liberty and the harm principle. We agree on this point. Clearly he believes smoking to be harmful as his counterplan is an attempt to mitigate the harm smoking causes to others. Argument one is thus in favor of the resolution. His next three arguments miss the mark. As we live in a society that implements many kinds of smoking bans, the economic impact and dependency he brings up are non-issues. This is because if we maintain current bans, there is no change to the status quo on these fronts. This is likewise true about his concern with illegal tobacco.
My opponent argues in favor of smoking bans when he is supposed to argue against them. The harm principle supports the concept of smoking bans as do The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health. When we observe the burdens in this debate, we see that ample justification and reasoning has been giving to fill con’s burden.
There is absolutely no reasonable way to vote con in this debate. I invite you to vote pro!
I thank my opponent for making his arguments. I will make my arguments, and my defense in this debate.
My opponent says that we both agree with the harm principle. That was just one example of my argument, I don't really agree with it. My opponent says that all the deaths show that there is harm, and we should ban smoking. The harm principle can work in another way in this. The non-smokers harming the smokers by banning smoking, it will harm smokers physically, and mentally, when it will only harm people physically. Therefore, as the harm principle, it is not actually only the non-smokers, also the smokers, and smokers are harmed mentally too, so we shouldn't ban smoking.
My opponent says there is a lot of secondhand smoking. I don't know why my opponent made this argument, when it is already refuted by my counterplan. Therefore, vote Con.
Yeah, I C&Ped it, sorry. And, it does make sense, saying that we have the liberty of choice, self-ownership, and the right to do anything we want, maybe I worded it wrong, but you'll get it. My opponent doesn't refute that actual liberty arugment, only pointing a grammar mistake, and that does not make it refuted.
Pro says that designated smoking areas are a type of smoking ban. It says Smoking Ban, not smoking bans. Therefore, because it is one, obviously, we are talking about a whole smoking ban. One place smoking ban does not qualify. Therefore, my opponent's rebuttal is false.
Pro agrees with liberty. Then of course, he has to vote Con, as we have the liberty of choice!!! Pro says that there will be no economic impact, or dependency, but doesn't make some proof, when I do, therefore you need to vote Con for that argument. Pro concedes illegal tobacco, so you have to vote Con for that too.
Pro simply drops to much. He drops my liberty of choice, only attacking a grammar error, standing nonetheless, economic impact and dependency saying it won't work, but gives no proof, therefore not rebutted, and concedes illegal tobacco. All my arguments are unrefuted. However, I refuted Pro's arugments about secondhand impact, and about the harm principle.
- Liberty, unrefuted by Pro
-Economy/ Dependency, unrefuted by Pro, only saying it won't happen
- illegal tobacco, unrefuted, conceded
- counterplan, unrefuted, and makes a major impact to Pro's arguments, and rebuts few of them
-Harm principle, refuted, by my backwards arugment
- Secondhand impact, refuted, by my counterplan
As I refuted all, when my opponent failed to refute any, the reason stands clear. Vote Con!!!!
Con claims in regard to the harm principle that he doesn’t “really agree with it.” This is problematic for him as he used it for the basis of his original argument. Likewise, he uses it as an attempt to turn my argument. Clearly, this debate is intended to be weighed by the harm principle. For clarity, the harm principle as con stated in his opening round states “We have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others.” I demonstrated that smoking harms others. In fact, so much so that 40,000 deaths per year in the USA are the result of second hand smoking. Con attempts to argue that banning smoking would harm smokers as it could harm them physically or mentally. This is easily refuted, considering 1 in 5 in the USA die due to smoking per year. Also consider the following benifits listed.
(For some reason it would not let me post the pic, I saved it in my DDO photo's)
Clearly the benefits to smokers to quit outweighs any “harms” to quitting. That aside, it is not necessary for me to argue a specific type of smoking ban. Con’s counter plan is a smoking ban. Remember a smoking ban in this debate has been defined as “a public policy that includes criminal laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in certain public places and workspaces.” I am under no burden to argue for a type of ban that con randomly decides late in the debate. The resolution simply says “smoking ban.” If con wanted to argue a certain type of ban, he should have worded the resolution differently. For example, see this debate. (1) Clearly outlined in that debate is the type of ban being argued for. In this debate no such specifications were given. Thus I just have to affirm any smoking ban. This becomes especially easy as con’s counterplan is a smoking ban. Thus, either you buy con’s argument which is a smoking ban, or you don’t buy his argument and he still loses. Either way, I win this debate.
Con presented a liberty/harm principle argument. I did not have to refute this argument as I have shown it to affirm the resolution. Thus it is turned in my favor. As far as con’s other three “arguments” if you could call them that, I have shown that his proposed smoking ban is already the status quo and thus that smoking ban will not impact those 3 things positively or negatively, so those arguments have zero impact on this debate. All we have from con then is a proposed smoking ban.
The harm principle supports the concept of smoking bans as do The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health. When we observe the burdens in this debate, we see that ample justification and reasoning has been giving to fill pro’s burden.
There is absolutely no reasonable way to vote con in this debate.
I win! Thanks for reading and voting.