Debate Rounds (4)
Round One is acceptance, Round Two is arguements, Round Three is rebuttals, and Round Four is conclusion. I want a nice debate.
Thanks to Tejretics for this debate. I can see he is a formidable opponent with lots of skill, so it'll be a good debate.
I will be casting a short framework that we should help the needs of society, and care for others (harm principle).
Harm Principle- 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 (5)
Smoking is very harmful to society, it harms yourself, and it harms others. Who cares about ones liberty, you are harming someone else for your own needs. You don't really need smoking either, and yet it's killing many. In my arguments I will be showing why we should ban smoking for society.
III: Secondhand Impact
This is, I believe the *most* important impact on why we should ban smoking. I will show some data about people harmed by smoking.
"Secondhand smoke causes nearly 34,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers."
"Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually."
"Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year."
"Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer."
These are some of the important ones. Smoking harms childrens, and infants, but not only them, also adults. There are other sources which can prove this also (1) (2) (3). Just because of the smokers needs, we don't need to be killing others for it. We are killing lives for something useless. Why does smoking really help? Is the impact of wanting to smoke higher than the thousands of lives of others? The short answer, is NO. Smoking also hurts the smoker, but that isn't important, cause they want it, but do we need to kill others for their needs? No. We don't need to smoke if it kills others. The harm principle says basically "... to prevent harm from others" Smokers are harming non-smokers, therefore smoking should be banned.
IV: Smoking bans will most likely reduce smoking
Many researchers show that the best way to reduce smoking is to ban it in public places, etc. In all, banning smoking. Of course, most people will think that it's obvious. But it's not. There's many times where when we banned guns, there was more crime. There is lots of evidence for this. One study for evidence is that in Ireland, France and Germany, places where there are smoking-free policies, there is twice the chance that employees will stop smoking than places without smoking-free policies (4). New York made a law to ban smoking in indoor areas of workplaces, restaurants, etc. they discovered that there was an 8% reduction in hospitals then when there was smoking. As I said in my first argument, many people die, and go to the hospital because of smoking, and if there is a reduction, which the only changing factor is smoking, it is very likely which shows that banning smoking will reduce smoking.
This will be my least important argument, but it is about saving money, and time. Let's assume you use 5$ every single day for buying smoking, and doing whatever related to it. 7 days in a week make 35$, and in a year, it will make over 1800$. In 10 years, it wll be 18250$. Suppose you use 1 hour each day for smoking. Then, it 365 days, you will use 365 hours, and in 10 years, it will be 3650 hours. This is around 60 days of your life. That is a lot; you can learn a new language with that much money and time.
I have shown three main arguments. My first argument is that smoking is harmful, and kills people. My second argument is that smoking bans will reduce smoking, and my last argument is about saving. With these arguments, that smoking should be banned, I affirm. Vote for Pro.
Since PRO is arguing in favor of a smoking ban, they are affirming the resolution "Smoking should be illegal." The resolution, when phrased in that manner, is normative, which means the burdens of persuasion are shared evenly; no side bears a greater burden than the other. PRO's burden is to show that smoking "should" be illegal, while my burden is to show that smoking should NOT be illegal.
PRO lays the standard of the harm principle, as framed by Mill, to view this debate. I agree with the standard, and would like to expand on it. The harm principle is essentially a standard that seeks to maximize individual liberty, when this liberty is balanced by the liberty of other individuals. In other terms, liberty exists insofar as it does not harm any other individual, wherein "harm" is extended to mean a reduction in the probability of net benefit. But the meaning of "harm" here is vague. "Harm" essentially means "a negative mental state," in other words, suffering or pain; harm also means the *prevention* of gaining a positive mental state (e.g. pleasure). The harm principle, thus, creates an obligation on the government to reduce or prevent harm unless the prevention of any harm leads to the creation of greater harm.
The proposal PRO defends is to make a blanket ban on the production and consumption of tobacco. In other words, PRO is advocating a "ban" on "smoking" at the government level -which means a total tobacco ban, similar to what is currently enforced in Bhutan. As CON, I will be defending a counterplan: the prohibition of smoking on all public or government property, with owners of private property deciding for themselves if smoking is allowed in said property. I will argue that my counterplan is vastly more beneficial than PRO's plan, in the rebuttal rounds that follow.
I. Individuals have the right to choose whether to use tobacco in their own property.
PRO concedes the value of liberty as being critical, because liberty is a critical aspect of Mill's harm principle. This means, since PRO concedes to the necessity for individuals to be able to choose, I do not need to defend the notion that, insofar as a certain activity does not harm anyone else whose consent has not been gained, individuals are free to perform said activity. But PRO fails to touch upon one important part of the harm principle: when Mill says "other," he means a specific form of "other": an individual that does not **consent** to the harm that is being done. (1) For instance, if someone is on private property where smoking is allowed, by entering said property he automatically consents to being harmed by any secondhand smoking.
Thus, individuals that do not consent to the harm caused by smoking are not affected by it in any manner, because if they do not consent, then by default they do not enter private property wherein smoking is allowed. This is more than sufficient to uphold the harm principle while avoiding the risks of non-consensual passive smoking by children, and so forth, considering that smoking will be prohibited in government property (but not "banned" by the government). Considering this fact, smoking should not be entirely prohibited because that infringes on individual liberty when the exercise of said liberty causes no harm to individuals that do not consent to said harm.
II. Total tobacco bans encourage the creating and strengthening of violent criminal activity, and criminal networks
If a market is no longer controlled or allowed by rule of law, the market does not vanish. It stays on, but it stays on in a manner of unregulated competition, which often moves into dangerous situations and violence, because participants use violence to resolve disputes.
For instance, the illegal drug trade has resulted in high levels of dangerous conflict, and alcohol prohibition in the United States led to the same problems. The Council on Foreign Relations explains that prohibition of substances such as alcohol and drugs do not change the level of usage; instead, they move into the black market, and myriad threats arise associated with it, including violent crime. (2) Drug-based gang violence has resulted in 2,000 homicides per **year** in the United States. (3) Experts predict that a total tobacco ban will fuel tobacco-based illegal cartels, and further fund already existent drug cartels. Legal markets are able to compete with black markets and prevent violence, but under PRO's plan, no such guarantee exists.
In conclusion, the resolution harms individual liberty, and causes violent crime to increase. As such, I urge a CON ballot. Thank you.
1. John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty," p. 15. 1978 edition. Hackett Publishing.
2. Brianna Lee, "Mexico's Drug War." March 8, 2012. Council on Foreign Relations, Web. Accessed November 11, 2016. http://on.cfr.org...
3. National Gang Center. "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis." Web. Accessed November 11, 2016. http://bit.ly...
Big thanks to Tejretics for posting his round, now I'll go on the rebuttals. I'll be short on this round.
I: Con is mistaken
Con is really mistaken here. First of all, I brought no plan. I didn't do it. At all. But Con says "Pro's Plan" Unless he thinks of banning smoking as a plan, he is mistaken here, because I did not bring any plan in my arguments. The Harm Principle shouldn't be the main point of the debate; I was just using it to just more structure to my arguments. Con is basically showing that it is the MAIN point of the debate, when it is actually not. He gives one source on this, and first it's a book source. It's rather hard for someone to get that book, read it in 3 days. So the source doesn't really count. The government must reduce and prevent harm unless the prevention makes greater harm. Yes, I know that. But there are no harms after a smoking ban, I even showed that there is a reduce of smoking, so that point just helps me.
II: Individuals have the right to choose whether to use tobacco in their own property
I'll right going on to the main point here. Of course individuals won't smoke in their own property. It's dangerous for them, and can harm their children, etc. Next, smoke is a gas. Remeber science? Gas can move, and flow. It will probably move out of someone's property, and go to someone else's, which will still make second-hand smoking, or non-smokers dying. And the main point, think about the chances that someone will smoke *only* in their property. They'll likely also smoke at public, which would cause secondhand smoking. Argument refuted.
III: Total tobacco bans encourage the creating and strengthening of violent criminal activity, and criminal networks
Remove criminal activity and networks here. Con doesn't say *anything* about those two things. He says about the black market, so let's go onto that. And second, I don't really get this argument. IF smoking is banned, then the companies will be banned too. CON is totally not saying anything about this, because he knows that his argument will be refuted. If the companies are banned and stopped, that means that there will be no cigarettes remaining. Then most people would just use what they had left. There are no cigarettes left, so that means none will go in the market. And the government can just pay using money, and get the market rid of. It's much better than making the border fence, or launching on more space shuttle, and it'll be close, or it'll be cheaper. Argument refuted.
In conclusion, I have successfully refuted Con's plan and his arguments, and show how Con is mistaken. Vote Pro.
PRO says the harm principle isn't the "main point" of this debate. I literally have no clue what that even means, or what that's supposed to mean. It's completely incoherent. The harm principle is PRO's standard, so PRO's arguments have to accord to that standard; it is also my standard, as CON, so my arguments also have to accord to the standard. It's that simple. There's nothing beyond that to it. Then, PRO says "the source doesn't really count..." I don't even understand why PRO has to contest my source, because he **agrees** with me on the harm principle. If he doesn't, he should make that very explicitly clear. But the fact that Mill means "other" as an individual that doesn't consent to the harm is not only well known and objectively true, it is obvious. But PRO says my source is difficult to access, and he'll need to "read it in three days." First off, it's only a single page.... this is just awkward. Secondly, if PRO were to merely google the book, he'd find it online. For PRO's benefit, here it is (see page 18: http://bit.ly...).
For purpose of "rebuttal" I will both defend my own arguments and respond to PRO's arguments, since both qualify as "rebuttal."
On the issue of individual liberty, PRO says it is dangerous for the individuals that smoke. So what? That doesn't matter... by PRO's own (and my) standard, only individuals that do not consent to the harm being done are "others" and the harm should be prevented only to those individuals by the government. Then, PRO brings up a decent point, on children... the response to that: make it illegal to smoke in front of children. There are laws like that in many states of the U.S. But the point I'm trying to make is that NONE of those harms can't be prevented in the CON world; so there's literally no *unique* harm prevented by a smoking ban.
Then PRO says there is no chance they'll smoke only in private property. PRO does nothing at all to prove this, so this is a bare assertion. But more importantly, how will PRO's own plan be enforced, if this is the case? PRO offers no answer. But there is actually evidence that a public smoking ban with specific "smoking zones" to smoke actually works. In other words, people reduce, or even altogether stop, smoking in public spaces, or wherever the prohibition applies. (4)
On criminal activity, both of PRO's responses fall short. The first response is that the argument has nothing to do with criminal activity or criminal networks. It seems PRO hasn't even **read** the arguments. The "black market" is the "criminal market" and trading in the black market is a form of criminal activity, if that's where the confusion arises. I also talked about killing a lot of people and forming drug cartels... if that's not what criminal activity or networks are, I don't know what else fits the term. The second response -that there will be no tobacco left- is also objectively wrong since tobacco can be produced without a LEGAL market. (Block letters are used for emphasis.) How does PRO think people smoke marijuana in places where it's illegal? The answer: illegal production.
Now, let's move on to PRO's arguments. PRO's first argument is about secondhand smoke, but the ban on public smoking entirely solves this harm, and the negligible amount of secondhand smoke that exists has impacts that are FAR outweighed by the negative impacts in the form of violent crime. Regarding PRO's second argument on reduced smoking, I have two responses. One, public smoking bans prevent any harm to "others" and reduce such smoking. Two, smoking in private is fine, and it doesn't matter if it reduces because there is no harm to a non consensual OTHER. Harming oneself is fine as per PRO's own framework of the harm principle. The third argument, about saving money, fails because people have the right to do what *they* want with the money they possess. You can't tell them to learn a new language, because that's up to them... it's up to them whether they want to waste money smoking.
The prevention of crime, and liberty, are important, so vote CON.
(4) Two references are used here. The first reference is a study from the American Economics Review, cited as follows: Evans; et al. 1999. "Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking?". The American Economics Review, volume 89, pp. 728-247. The second reference is from ABC News [see article: http://abcnews.go.com...]. I would urge readers to note that in these contexts, the term "smoking ban" is different from what PRO is proposing, and don't refer to absolute bans.
My argument will be short due to the lack of time.
I already have another *round* for defense, so Con must understand that we should not put defense in this round, because there is already a round for it. He doesn't get the main point. Because he'll have one more round, voters must consider this at voting, because first, it is unfair.
I: The Harm Principle
I have no idea what Con is saying. It's no standard. I just used it to support my arguments. Forget I even said that, and book sources are bad. We all know that because there are some books which are not in Google. This isn't a source war, and the source isn't even that important. So, this remain neutral, and Con really misunderstood this.
II: My arguments
Con says we can just ban public smoking. We should just stop the whole of smoking, because then there will be no cigarettes sold, but cigarettes will still be sold if *only* a public smoking ban, and people might not follow the rules, and the rules will get old, and in the end it will be the same. Also, as I said in my arguments before, smoking, smoke in general is a gas. Gas can be in many different places, and flow. The smoke will travel in one person's property, to the public, and anothers. Anyways it won't block secondhand smoking, so this rebuttal is wrong. I already showed that public smoking will still harm. And, that is basically a concession, because it is still a ban. Con concedes that from the ban, there will be a reduce in smoking. I never told what to do, I just showed what they can do with that money, and it's the "better" choice.
III: Con's arguments
1. Individual liberty
I just made a little point for that. I made a much bigger and the main point which was about other people, which Con had conceded, or not talked about. The government's job is to protect people, so it IS still the governments job to protect them from smoking by banning it. The children law is really bad. Basically, there is at least a child everywhere, and this won't happen. A man just smoked in front of us while we were at the restaurant, eating dinner. It won't work, and that isn't a sufficient rebuttal.
2. Private Property
We don't need to give a source in everything. Such as common sense. 1+1=2, do we need a source for that? Or that dogs are domesticated animals? No!!! That is common sense. Even this is common sense, and I did prove it with logic, who would smoke *only* in their private property? Smoking zones may work, but it solves nothing for secondhand impact, because smoke is a gas. The only thing we can do is to stop smoking. Con concedes my gas point, therefore this argument is refuted.
3. Black Market
We can easily have the black market as the title. And the people in the black market are only criminals. My opponent concedes my argument about we should ban the black market, even though it will cost effort, and money. Con gives no proof of how tobacco can be produced, so it is a bare assertion. It seems Con didn't read MY rebuttals. Citizens won't smoke because they won't involve in illegal activity, which will reduce smoking, but better, we can just stop the black market.
I have shown all the reasons why smoking is bad, and should be banned. Therefore, vote for PRO. Thanks for the debate, and thanks to the judges who will decide the winner.
The motion today is about a smoking ban. PRO and CON both agreed on the framework of the harm principle--that individuals can do whatever they want insofar as there is no harm to any individuals that don't consent to said harm; thus, the debate must be evaluated with regard to which side better fulfills the harm principle, by weighing "harms" against each other. PRO dropped my definition that "harm" also encompasses "lack of benefit"--so the fundamental framework here is a cost/benefit analysis. If I win the impact analysis in this debate, the ballot should go to CON.
PRO has three impacts that they have defended through this debate: (1) the deaths and injuries caused to the individual that smokes; (2) the deaths caused by secondhand smoke in which non-consensual actors are affected; and (3) the loss of money and time of the individual that smokes. Both the first and third impacts are *entirely* useless in advancing PRO's burden since they contradict with the standard of the harm principle, as I consistently pointed out in the debate--simply because the individual CONSENTS to the loss of money, and to the injury. PRO's response: "Don't make this debate about the harm principle." That's a bad response because PRO literally *explicitly* stated that their standard was the harm principle; the *standard* defines the burden of the debate, and PRO has to advance that burden, else they lose. I *thoroughly* refuted the second argument by demonstrating that a ban on smoking in public property eliminates the impact to a substantially smaller or even non-existent extent. PRO's response is that the impact isn't *entirely* eliminated because people will violate the law anyway--with *no proof* whatsoever. Offering no proper warrants to any points, PRO's case entirely fails to fall under the standard of the harm principle.
The offensive argument in my case as extension of the harm principle directly succeeds since PRO's case has been refuted, because insofar as there is no demonstrable tangible harm from legalized but regulated smoking, I automatically win the debate under PRO's *own* framework. Vote them down right there. But also vote them down because, as CON, I made an argument with a substantial impact that far outweighs any argument of PRO's--so even if you buy the secondhand impact argument, you can vote them down on the clash with regard to my case.
My case comprised of the argument that a ban on smoking would instead perpetuate black market sale of cigarettes, creating dangerous and violent scenarios, increasing violent crime and strengthening gangs and criminal networks. PRO's response to that is nothing short of hilarious: "we should ban the black market." But the black market is *already* illegal--by definition. If you ban something, that doesn't guarantee that it stops. It continues illegally without sufficient enforcement because some laws are IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. I used the analogy of banned drugs to demonstrate that however much you enforce a smoking ban, tobacco functions in the black market. PRO's main response outside of the prior one is that there is no means for the black market to produce tobacco, but this is objectively wrong for reasons already mentioned, namely that people demonstrably DO illegally produce tobacco by growing tobacco plants, etc. PRO has no justification for this response either, so I urge you to disregard it.
Fundamentally, this debate--due to the accepted burden of fulfilling the harm principle--comes down to two key questions:
(1) Which side better advanced the value of liberty?
(2) Which side better prevented harm?
It is objectively clear that I advanced liberty substantially more by allowing people to smoke without harming others (i.e. in their own private property without any passive effects). It is similarly objectively clear that the CON side is the one that prevents greater harm by preventing thousands of deaths from violent crime, cartels, and gang conflict, while the PRO side only prevents the negligible or entirely nonexistent (since PRO lacks any justification for this) harm from illegal passive smoking. Thus, I hold that this is an overwhelmingly clear victory for my side, and beseech all judges to vote CON.
Thank you, both to PRO for the debate and to all those that read and votes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 weeks 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: Given in comments.
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.