As my first real debate, I'd like to discuss why I am for the smoking ban.
As I am PRO, I am in favor of a smoking ban, while CON will be against a smoking ban.
If CON wants any definitions I will be happy to give one, however I believe all terms used thus far are self explanatory.
I would like to thank anyone who accepts this challenge. Considering I am a complete noob at debating forgive me if I make mistakes.
Burden of proof is shared.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments (no refutations or rebuttals by PRO or CON)
Round 3: Refutations/rebuttals (no new arguments by PRO or CON)
Maybe I'll learn something new from this debate! :)
Thanks in advance to whomever will accept.
PLEASE DO NOT FORFEIT.
I also urge CON to read all sources. In return, I will do the same.
PLEASE ONLY ACCEPT IF YOU AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS AND AGREEMENTS. THANK YOU.
But please set the parameters or scope in this debate.
Meaning of smoking: the act of smoking a cigarette, cigar, etc.and the meaning of ban: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done. (Credit for meaning of words goes to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Thanks Juris, for accepting this debate. I am honored to have my first debate with someone as highly qualified as you. I really look forward to it. As this is my first debate, my apologies if I misinterpret anything. Without further ado:
My main arguments will revolve around the idea that putting a ban on smoking will better air quality, the health of the smokers, the health of those around the smokers, and will simply be overall beneficial to society in virtually every way possible. I will try to shorten my arguments as much as possible since I have a tendency to babble. ;)
Argument #1: The Health of the Smoker:
Some may say that smokers should be able to make stupid decisions on their own. Despite me initially agreeing with this claim, I think it would be more reasonable to take away a stupid decision so it doesn't have to be made in the first place. Yes, we are supposed to be able to make our own decisions at our own risk. However, smoking does nothing but give the smoker countless lung and heart problems. Most people know this is stupid, but they do it (smoking) anyway either out of peer pressure or using it as a stress relieving technique (though it eventually starts giving more stress than there was to begin with). What does smoking accomplish? Nothing. Nothing at all. For example, we don't allow adolescents to have shotguns in their school lockers. Why? Because nothing positive will be accomplished. It has a high chance of ending the child's life (or those around them) as well as many other problems. Does this sound familiar? It does to me. It sounds like smoking. It (smoking) can also harm things such as your vision, breathing, blood vessels, your liver, so on and so forth.
Some health effects and diseases caused by smoking include:
Heart attacks: one of the leading causes of death in the United States
Lung cancer (death rate within five years: 83%)
Throat cancer (death rate within five years: 83%)
Strokes: another leading causes of death in the United States
Pancreas cancer (death rate within five years: 94%)
Stomach cancer (death rate within five years: 72%:)
Liver cancer (death rate within five years: 84%)
Many respiratory diseases: again one of the leading causes of death in the United States
Cancer in general: one of the leading causes of death in the United States
Many, many more.
Smoking causes 1 in 5 deaths in the United States each year. Doesn't sound very beneficial at all, does it?
Smoking causes more deaths than HIV, Illegal Drug Use, alcohol use, motor vehicle accidents, and firearm-related incidents COMBINED.
Smoking is the worst drug of all. I believe that this should suffice my first argument.
Footnote: Generally when I think about topics such as this, I think: “It does more harm than good.” While in this case, I have to say that it does all harm and no good.
Argument #2: Secondhand Smoking:
Up until this point, plenty of people are probably still thinking, "Let them choose. I'm not a smoker. If they want to smoke and get all those health problems, so be it."
Although secondhand smoking is generally and understandably associated with children, also take into account that other adults are affected by smokers poor choices as well.
Secondhand smoke, as for the smoker, does nothing but harmful things. An example for this argument will be the fact that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and 22,700 to 69,600 deaths from heart disease each year. Bear with me is that this is killing people who don't even smoke. Some aren't even around smokers often.
A: How it effects children: Other facts to keep into consideration: A child exposed to secondhand smoke can be at risk of getting the following:
More frequent and severe asthma attacks
Respiratory harm (shortness of breath and coughing, for example)
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)
Bronchitis and Pneumonia (150,000-300,000 cases per year for pneumonia alone)
7,500-15,000 annual hospital visits, the root cause being secondhand smoke
At this point I ask you: is your right to choose more important than your child(ren)'s life/lives?
B: How it effects adults:
All of these figures are true for the United States only.
“Treat others how you want to be treated.”
Argument #3: Smoking is the Leading Preventable Cause of Death:
Title says it all. I have to admit I don't have to say much for this one. “Let others choose to make stupid decisions!” they say. We have the right to make our own decisions unless it harms or infringes on others.
Take into consideration that all these deaths are distributed into both the smoker's and secondhand smoking. Makes you rethink the common free choice rebut, doesn't it? Pro-choice is great 99% of the time, but this is an exception. The terror of smoking is, in fact, an exception to many things.
Argument #4: Air Quality
Another baffling statistic that shows smoking is 100% harmful and does zero good for anything is the fact that smoking is worse than exhaust for air pollution.
Jacked up air quality, like smoking, does nothing but bad things for the environment and for the health of people around the air.
Cigarette smoke produces 10 times more air pollution than diesel car exhaust!
This proves my point to a great extent considering all the flack that car pollution and its dangers have been getting lately.
Smoking is worse than air pollution from cars. We don't endorse air pollution from cars “so people can make their own decisions.”
I feel it appropriate to kill off that potential rebuttal before CON has the chance to say it. Hopefully that doesn't contradict my rule that rebuttals are in Round 3. (I intend rebuttals in round 3 to be only of arguments said by me or you).
Source(s) for Argument #4: http://www.webmd.com...
Before I come to a complete stop think about this:
Argument #5 The Cost of Money:
Think of the cost! I haven't even covered the cost of smoking, not only to the smoker and his/her family, but also to everyone else! Smoking gives unneeded insurance to the taxpayers! Think of all the smokers who have no insurance! Taxpayers (such as my parents and grandparents) get stuck with their completely preventable medical expenses.
To simplify the debate: Pro wants to ban all forms of smoking in no specific place. This means that the idea alone of smoking must be banned.
With your first point which concerns the health of all the smokers, I would say that that is fact. No one can say that smoking is healthy, because clearly it is not. But the questions are: Is total ban the solution to this social problem? Can total ban really be effective? Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible?
Questions above will be answered later.
I personally believe that smoking is dangerous to health.
I hate smokers because they destroy their lives, the lives of others, the environment, and many others. But the solution of total ban is a wrong move.
All the arguments that you presented in this debate are useless. We are not debating whether smoking is healthy or dangerous. It’s a fact that smoking is dangerous. So, do not expect me or anyone to debate that smoking is good to your health. I rather would debate the idea of a total ban that you proposed.
The idea of total ban is that the manufacturing, selling, and consuming of cigarettes in all forms and whether public or private must be prohibited, otherwise face imprisonment. This sounds not a good idea.
The total ban of cigarettes is not good for many reasons. First, it would have a severe negative economic impact. Those people who work in that industry would lose their jobs. Also, the government can no longer collect tax revenues from legitimate tobacco manufacturers. Instead, black markets of cigarettes will occur that the government would not be able to tax. Having said that, the economy will suffer.
Second, countless people would go to jail because they cannot stop their addiction. Smoking is addiction. Many people tried to stop smoking but they failed. Banning smoking would not stop that addiction, but it would only made them find a way to acquire cigarettes in a black market. They will continue to smoke because it has been their way of life. Hiding in a place that they will not be caught by police is what they will do. A life of a drug addict or criminal afraid of police is what they will acquire. With that, many of them would be imprisoned which would also result to an overcrowded jails.
What we need to do to help smokers get away with their addiction is to increase tobacco tax and encourage and promote healthy life, not your proposed total ban which is very hard to implement and would have grave personal and economic impact.
“To simplify the debate: Pro wants to ban all forms of smoking in no specific place. This means that the idea alone of smoking must be banned.”
Correct. I will try to make my standpoint and resolution more simple and obvious next time I debate. Thank you for the clarification.
“With your first point which concerns the health of all the smokers, I would say that that is fact. No one can say that smoking is healthy, because clearly it is not. But the questions are: Is total ban the solution to this social problem? Can total ban really be effective? Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible?”
A. Is total ban the situation to this social problem? I believe it will help. Right now if people see a young person smoking they might think something along the lines of: What a stupid decision. If a person sees a young person doing illegal drugs, it's a different story.
B. Can total ban really be effective? To a great extent, I believe so. Opinions of a common person will not change anytime soon, however many years after it's banning it will be seen as something more than a stupid decision, which I believe it should for reasons stated above. Air pollution and secondhand smoke would then be limited, thus saving many lives
“All the arguments that you presented in this debate are useless. We are not debating whether smoking is healthy or dangerous. It’s a fact that smoking is dangerous. So, do not expect me or anyone to debate that smoking is good to your health. I rather would debate the idea of a total ban that you proposed.” Please save refutations and attacks for Round 3. That is debatable in itself. I believe it was actually quite useful for my arguments. Yes, it is a known fact that smoking is dangerous, however most do not realize the magnitude of how bad it is. Most people have a simplistic view that is is only bad for the smoker and possibly for the people close to them. Not many are even really aware of how bad it effects the air quality, for example. I was simply stating to the readers and yourself that it effects people who aren't even around smokers very often. Most are not aware of how many die by the hand of secondhand smoke, either. Thousands of people die per year from secondhand smoke. They don't even smoke! People do not have the right to kill me because of their poor life choices. Most are not aware that smoking in general kills more people than alcohol use, illegal drug use, HIV, motor vehicle accidents, and firearm-related incidents combined. I was simply explaining how much worse smoking is than what most people realize. In my opinion the leading cause of preventable death should be prevented. It was my argument. I'm sorry if you wouldn't use those arguments personally, but that's not my problem. And no, I didn't expect you to say that smoking was healthy, I have no idea where you got that accusation. I expected you to agree it is unhealthy. I simply started this debate to see what someone against a smoking ban would think overpowers all of what I have said. I'm also sorry I had to repeat some of what I said in Round 2, however I felt it was necessary.
“The total ban of cigarettes is not good for many reasons. First, it would have a severe negative economic impact. Those people who work in that industry would lose their jobs. Also, the government can no longer collect tax revenues from legitimate tobacco manufacturers. Instead, black markets of cigarettes will occur that the government would not be able to tax. Having said that, the economy will suffer.”
And more jobs would be opened with all the smoking rehabilitation centers that would be started. Think of all the jobs that are for helping people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Think how spread across the country that would be, think of all the jobs that would open up. Stacked on top of that, I don't believe that people who work for a lung -and -heart killing company overpower the lives of those tens to hundreds of thousands who die from secondhand smoke. Or the lives of all those who got lung cancer, heart disease, or developed a respiratory illness simply because of the smoke of cigarettes. I also don't think it overpowers something that is ten times worse for the air than car diesel exhaust.
“Second, countless people would go to jail because they cannot stop their addiction. Smoking is addiction. Many people tried to stop smoking but they failed. Banning smoking would not stop that addiction, but it would only made them find a way to acquire cigarettes in a black market. They will continue to smoke because it has been their way of life. Hiding in a place that they will not be caught by police is what they will do. A life of a drug addict or criminal afraid of police is what they will acquire. With that, many of them would be imprisoned which would also result to an overcrowded jails.”
If rules were made for the illegalization of cigarettes piece-by-piece over the years, then by the time cigarettes are considered an illegal drug, all/most of the people who worked for the cigarette companies would have died or retired.
People quit just to quit all the time. (All the time is an exaggeration of course, but you get the point). Rehab centers would help others. Law abiding citizens wouldn't have to worry. Cigarettes are addicting, yes, however plenty of people would stop because of its illegalization, especially if the law were made to get stricter as time went on. Keep in mind there will always be those who buy and do illegal things from the black market, however the average person would not risk the consequences that would follow if they were somehow caught by authority. Most people are law-abiding. Most would also be relieved. Have you not noticed all those people who are trying to quit? Making it so they can't get the cigarettes without breaking the law would help most normal people. There are also substitutes that help, like E-cigarettes. Just the pleads from friends and family not to break the law should be enough for the majority of people, I'm assuming.
“What we need to do to help smokers get away with their addiction is to increase tobacco tax and encourage and promote healthy life, not your proposed total ban which is very hard to implement and would have grave personal and economic impact.”
If you think making it illegal won't help their addiction, then how would increasing the tax?
As a society we already encourage and promote good health, however most people still start smoking. How often do you listen to commercials simply because their encouraging and promoting their product? People dismiss these claims. Plenty of adolescents start smoking to be 'cool' and naïve adults start is for different reasons, but they certainly dismiss that we, as a society, “promote and encourage a healthy life.”
Thank you for debating me, Juris. I will learn from a few of the mistakes I have made here for future debates. I would also like to thank to any of those who read all of this.
I would like to clear this again: we are not debating whether cigarettes are healthy, but whether total ban is the solution to smoking problems.
Okay. Given that you believe that total ban on cigarettes is the solution to smoking problems, but I tell it is not so. It would just create more problems as history had taught us especially during the Prohibition period in the United States where there was a ban on selling and consumption of alcohol.
Like Volstead law (ban on alcohol), your proposal of total ban on cigarettes would just create disrespect for the law. As Abraham Lincoln said, “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.”
Another, it would just create black market and organized syndicates selling unregulated cigarettes. This is very dangerous to the people. Remember: where there is demand, there will be supply.
It would also overburdened police, courts, and the penal system.
Total ban on cigar, like in the Volstead law, would also harm people financially, emotionally, and morally.
Lastly, like ban on alcohol, total ban on cigarettes would prevent from seeking help those people are suffering from disease caused by smoking.
Reasons why you failed in this debate:
|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:||3||4|