The Instigator
alextp7
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Smoking Cigarretes Should Be Illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,857 times Debate No: 15477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

alextp7

Con

My argument today is whether smoking should be illegalized, which it should not. Smoking should stay legal for several reasons.

Health

Most people think smoking is bad for your health, but many people don't know that smoking can have positive effects on your health too.

Firstly, let's talk about second hand smoke. 2nd hand smoke is one of the main reasons people think cigarettes should be illegal. Well, 2nd hand smoke can only kill you if you are constantly exposed to it. So, if you walk by a smoker at Walmart, you are NOT going to die. Also, smoking causes 'air pollution'. That is hogwash. A single drive causes more pollution than a smoker in a YEAR!!!

Now, to the actual smoker's health. Smoking contains several chemicals in it, but did you know that several carcinogens found in cigarettes are found in carrots, peppers, strawberries, tomatoes, onions, and grapefruit. Nicotine, another component in cigarettes that most people think of as BAD, promises against brain diseases. It lowers Parkinson's disease by 60%.Schizophrenics (which consists of about 4 million Americans) can switch on a brain receptor so that it helps filter information if they smoke enough nicotine. Smoking has positive effects on ulcerative colitis(disorder found mostly in non-smokers;inflammation of the stomach lining), recover better from heart attacks, and their immune system attacks viruses quicker than a non-smoker.

Freedom of Choice

The following messages are warnings shown on cigarettes packs:

  • Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966–1970)
  • Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970–1985)
  • SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985–)
  • SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985–)
  • SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. (1985–)
  • SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. (1985–)
As you can see, smoking companies DO WARN smokers out there. So, the smoker has the ability to say 'no'. Smokers smoke voluntarily, so any harm to themselves falls under their own responsibility.

If Made Illegal...

Prohibition in the United States, also known as The Noble Experiment, was the period from 1920 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned nationally. The results were disastrous. Crime and controversy arose during this period of time. If you ban smoking, the same thing will happen.

Smoking is most of the time started through peer pressure. Making smoking illegal will make smoking more attractive. Also, if smoking becomes illegal, it won't stop smokers from smoking. Same way some people in the United States do crack, and other drugs, smokers will find a way to smoke.

larztheloser

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate, which I am very passionate about. In this opening round I will answer my opponent's analysis about smoking. Under each point I will show why the point is actually a point for me.

Smoker's Health
Smoking is the number one cause of premature mortality in the United States and the world[1]. One or two chemicals which in isolation, or tablet form, might improve brain function when someone has certain mental illnesses are indeed present in cigarettes. But then again, so are sixty-nine cancer-causing chemicals[1]. The fact of the matter is smoking is deadly, not health-beneficial. That's why there are warnings on cigarette packets. People who eat grapefruit regularly are far less likely to be admitted to hospital than those who smoke regularly.

Non-smoker's Health

I think we all know second-hand smoke is harmful only in closed environments. The trouble is that closed environments is where smokers choose to smoke - bars, workplaces, homes and so on. This leads to about 15,000 kids in the United States going to hospital every year for respiratory tract infections alone[1]. It's probably because even according to the tobacco companies, smoke breathed out is more harmful than what a smoker breathes in[2]. If you walk past a smoker at Wal-Mart, you may not immediately drop dead, but a little poison will enter your bloodstream.

Freedom of Choice
I get really annoyed when this argument is run by drug supporters. Smoking is addictive. Therefore smoking removes choice. That's why it is so hard to quit. If we want to maximize freedom of choice, what we should do is ban things that remove people's freedom of choice. Therefore we should ban addictive substances. Therefore we should ban smoking. In the US, none of those smoker's warnings actually tell smokers that what they are doing is addictive. However, freedom of choice is not absolute. We do ban things when there is a significant potential harm to individuals and/or society at large. That's why we ban driving in unsafe cars. It's also why we should ban cigarettes - we don't want people harming their own or each others health.

Prohibition
There is a significant difference between banning alcohol and banning cigarettes. That is simple. It is possible to casually drink alcohol on a regular basis and suffer no ill health effects. That is not possible with cigarettes. Prohibition didn't work because there was no perception of public risk around alcohol. With cigarettes, however, there is a very strong perception of public risk. Even the tobacco companies own research suggests that with a partial (public places) ban "Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average. [2]" In my own country, the drop has in fact not been a mere 15%, but 67%[3]. There is no similar evidence that banning has any effect on alcohol consumption. There is nothing attractive about illegal things. Unless you think murder is attractive.
I do admit that it won't stop all smokers from smoking. It will stop many, but you can't prevent a black market. What it will do is stop potential smokers from starting. Black market smoking would be done secretly, and therefore young children would not be exposed to cigarettes. Most jurisdictions report a 90% compliance rate[2]. That's worth fighting for.

Model
So as the affirmative team, this is my proposition. I would ban all tobacco production, sale and possession in the same way that marijuana is presently restricted, by 2025. That would give smokers some time to quit. Production would be illegal earlier, by 2020, to make sure that large surplus stocks are not left lying around for the mafia to steal (this was one of the major problems with prohibition). This would of course be accompanied by large-scale advertising campaigns on the dangers of smoking.
So why do this? We, as a society, have a moral obligation to each other. That's why we ban suicide. It is the government's role to create disincentives for socially undesirable behavior. Is a health-care system that can barely cope socially desirable? No! Is the ready sale of trillions of sticks consisting largely of rat poison for public consumption socially desirable? No! Is it socially desirable that ordinary citizens are slaves to globs of nicotine-infused tar? No! It is time that our politicians took a stand. It is time that we recognised the tobacco industry for what it is. It is time that we banned smoking.
In 1993, the United States Supreme Court ruled that second-hand smoke was a cruel and unusual punishment, and thus in violation of the eighth amendment[2]. They made the right choice. Won't you?


Sources

1 - http://www.smoking-facts.net...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
alextp7

Con

Smokers Health
Smoking is responsible for 30% of all cancer deaths.[1] The other 70% is composed of non-smokers. How did they get cancer? Who knows! (Maybe from eating too much grapefruits.) I hate the fact that when you see a person whose smoking, you immediatley think they're going to get cancer and die. I know I used to think of it, but with these statistics I see that the bads of smoking cigarettes are exagerrated. However, I do confess that smoking increases your risks to get cancer (especially lung cancer).

My opponent states that smoking is deadly, not health beneficial. However, smoking alone does not cause certain diseases[2]. For example, "smoking alone cannot cause Buerger’s disease, you need to be 30 years old and above and a male to have it. Smoking alone cannot cause Raynaud’s disease, you need to be 40 years old and above and female to have it." The list of diseases goes on and on. Overall, what I'm trying to say is "smoking is a pre-requisite to a disease but not merely the root cause of such disease." [2] My second source also lists 18 benefits that are all health related. Some include the following:
-Hypertension (high blood pressure) is less common among smokers
-postpartum hemorrhage are lower in smokers
-RBCs [red blood cells] from cigarette smokers contain more glutathione and catalase and protect lung endothelial cells against O2 [dioxide] metabolites better than RBCs from nonsmokers
-for more benefits go to source #2

Non-smokers Health

Nowadays, smokers can only smoke in designated areas, which are usually outside. Unless you are in a restaurant where there is a designated area, a non-smoker will have to choose to sit in that area, which then will become the non-smoker's fault. Now, for parents who smoke near their kids, I believe that if your kid has to go to the hospital becausse of you, you desrve to pay every single penny. There are 2 alternatives for parents who smoke:
1) quit smoking
2) don't smoke near your kids

Freedom of Choice

Freedom means exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.. By taking away smoking, you contradict the definition of freedom. It would be more like you can do this or that but either way it would go my way.

"If we want to maximize freedom of choice, what we should do is ban things that remove people's freedom of choice."

I don't need to contradict this statement because it contradicts itself.

Prohibition

"Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash about every 50 minutes in the U.S. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2010)"[3] Drinking does have an effect on people. Several people die because of a drunk driver. But, this argument is not about drinkin but of smoking. I would like to ask you: What does public risk?

Every country has different results when it comes to statistics. Just because it's a starteling 65 in your country doesn't mean that it's going to have the same results in my country.

I agree there is nothing attractive about illegal things. However, some illegal things do seem attractive to the youth. For example, teenagers nowadays think drinking is cool so they will pressure you to do it. Same with crack and other drugs. So, smoking will reach the youth.

There is a law in the United States that states that people under 21 cannot buy cigarettes. Yet, teenagers are allowed to smoke. So, if a teenager finds someone who will buy a them cigarettes they will be exposed to cigarettes. There is nothing we can do to stop teenagers from smoking, or drinking(which the law states nobody under 21 can drink).

Model

Your model sounds good. However, there are some flaws. The same way some people make joints, people are going to start making homemade cigarettes. They have already made electronic cigarettes, yet people stay with the regular nicotine filled cigar. Why? The aren't addicted to it. They just think of it as a placebo. They think it increases concentration or that it educes stress, but in reality it's all a placebo. Not the best one, but it has a different effect depending on what they expect to get.
Sources:
1 http://www.cancer.org...
2 http://www.ljdiaz.com...
3 http://www.centurycouncil.org...
larztheloser

Pro

Smoker's Health
My opponent continues to take facts out of context. 50% of smokers die from smoking. In every one of these cases the death was preventable. Many of the others quit before it's too late. Smoking alone may not cause certain diseases, but the Cyanide, Arsenic, Ammonia, Cadmium, Carbon Monoxide and Benzene (among others) in the smoke will. To say that 70% of cancer deaths aren't from smoking is simply to say that most people aren't smokers - only 14% of non-smokers die from cancer[1]. 90% of lung cancer patients smoke[2]. Smokers are sick 25% more than non-smokers[2]. Tobacco is known to cause at least five million deaths per year[3]. These are the facts. Smokers are much more likely to die young. We need to do something about it. Sure, certain diseases are less common in smokers. But that's because many of them are in hospitals battling other diseases.

Non-smoker's Health
Since when did smokers care about the health of non-smokers? Well, sure, there are a few who are polite, don't smoke around their kids, and so on. But the parents of 300,000 kids who got bronchitis and pneumonia from their parent's addiction didn't[3]. It's not just about kids, though. If my flatmate smokes I am exposed to the same risk. If my workmate smokes (just assume that my work didn't have a "no smoking indoors" policy) then again, I take on that risk. That's why it is so important for the government to step in. People are dying from second hand smoke - 3,400 annually in the United States die from lung cancer as a result of second-hand smoke exposure.

Freedom of Choice
My opponent claims that I contradict myself by saying we should stop people taking away their freedom of choice, because then we are removing their freedom to choose not to have freedom of choice. In many ways, this is a sneaky way for my opponent to ignore my other argument, that freedom of choice is not absolute. I'd like a response to that. Second, we do not allow people to forfeit their own freedoms. For instance, you cannot sell yourself into slavery. Well, unless you buy cigarettes of course! Therefore there is no inconsistency with the principle of freedom of choice to prevent people from forfeiting their freedom of choice.

Prohibition
I agree that this argument is not about drinking, which is why it is strange you brought prohibition up. Drinking has a known effect on people (getting drunk) but is not generally percieved as being dangerous in and of itself. It is the driving afterwards that makes it dangerous. Smoking can kill you even if you engage in no other risky activity. With alcohol, the perception is not as strong.
I further agree that my statistics are just indications, but they are the best we have.
And finally, I also agree that alcohol and cocaine seem cool among many youth. But that's not because they're illegal. That's because the kids enjoy the high of taking these drugs. Smoking will reach the youth perhaps, but smoking rates will steadily decrease just as smoking rates among youth decreased when smoking at public schools was banned. 90% compliance, even in the United States (where the figure comes from if you read my source), can extend even to the schoolyard.

Model
Sorry, it seems to me that your attack on my model is the same as your prohibition point. If not, please clarify.

Sources
1 - http://dying.about.com...
2 - http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
3 - http://www.cdc.gov...
4 - http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
alextp7

Con

Smoker's Health
I will first like to know how my facts are out of context. Secondly, most deaths are preventable. For example, people who die in car crashes, they shouldn't have driven cars maybe they would have survived. People who overdose shouldn't have taken that many drugs. But, are we going to make everything that can kill us illegal? No! We all take a risk. So we are responsible for our actions.

Those chemicals (Cyanide, Arsenic, Ammonia, Cadmium, Carbon Monoxide and Benzene) may cause some diseases, but for most diseases it requires more than that. Go to my first source to the 4th paragraph for examples of what I mean.(1)

Your first source does not specify whether those people were smokers or non-smokers. So, we can't really take those statistics.

A smoker's immune system can actually react against viruses faster than a non-smoker's immune system. The only thing is that the immune system is not as strong resulting in those sick-days.

Every day in the United States 151,650 people die[2], out of those deaths only 1,215 are smokers[3]. That comes out to be 0.8% of all deaths. So you can't blame smoking as the main reason why people die.

Nobody really knows when you are going to die. I could die tomorrow who knows. Some die really young, while others die old. So we cannot rely on those facts that smoking will shorten your life because you don't even know if the smoker would have lived longer if they didn't smoke.

Non-Smoker's Health

Are you saying that all smokers except a selected few don't care about non-smokers? That is not necessarily true. Maybe they are fed up of people saying "Smoking will kill you." Don't you think they've heard about all those warnings about smoking. After all, they have people constantly telling them and several campaigns out there.

Your third article says nothing about kids wit bronchitis or pneumonia so I cannot believe the amount of children. However, for those children with bronchitis and pneumonia I believe it is the parent's fault. So, they should suffer the consequences for their actions.

You have a freedom of speech, so complain to the owner of the business to put a designated smoking area. I'm pretty sure he will listen. If he doesn't and it bothers you that much, quit your job and look for another job with a designated smoking area. It's your choice to leave.

How do they know they got lung cancer from 2nd hand-smoke? They could get lung cancer from the following:
  • Exposure to radon gas
  • Exposure to certain chemicals
  • Air pollution
  • Previous lung disease
  • A family history of lung cancer
  • Past cancer treatment
  • Previous smoking related cancers
  • Lowered immunity
(Found in source 4)

Freedom of Choice

I didn't mean to ignore that other argument and I apologize for that. You are stating that freedom of choice has restrains or limits. You can only take so much before controversy begins.

Secondly, I will like to know the connection between slavery and cigarettes?

Finally, people have the freedom to accept or deny certain rights. So, let us follow my opponents example of slavery, if a person wants to put themselves in slavery, hey must accept the responsibilities and take the consequences of what you have done. It reminds me of a quote by Bo Bennett,"Think before you act...".

Prohibition

As I stated before, we can't make everything that can kill us(like driving, and alcohol) illegal. Or else we have to make everything illegal.

Youth and Cigarettes

The youth sees everything that you do bad a cool. (I would know I still have more years to go). So, when they see somebody their age smoking or drinking, they want to do it too. No matter how dangerous it may be.

That law has no effect in public schools. I walked around and saw a group of teenagers smoking out in the parking lot. Some TV shows(like Degrassi) even show a group of teenagers doing crack out in the parking lot. So, wouldn't you think teenagers will do the same when it comes to smoking?

Model

It has nothing to do with prohibition. I'm stating how some smokers see smoking as a way to relax or reduce stress, when in reality it is a placebo(a substance having no pharmacological effect but given merely to satisfy a patient who supposes it to be a medicine.).

I also stated that if we ban smoking, smokers will find a way to make a replica cigarette. They have already made 2 that I know of.

Sources
1 http://www.ljdiaz.com......
2 http://www.shanesworld.ca...
3 http://www.livestrong.com...
4 http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk...


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. -Alex

larztheloser

Pro

Smoker's Health
OK, let's get one thing straight. You take cyanide, you die. The chemicals I listed last round don't cause diseases at all, which is why my opponent's source is so eloquently able to claim that smoking rarely is the sole cause of a disease. Rather they are poisons. That is, by the way, a prime example of your sources taking facts way out of context - cigarettes are more deadly than just disease-causing.

I'm not saying smoking causes people to die more frequently. Smoking makes you die younger. Cigarettes wear down your immune system until your body collapses. Sure, my opponent is right to say that we don't know how old some smoker would have become if they did not smoke. But we can almost guarantee that they'll be healthier, and not have dozens of carcinogens waltzing around their bloodstream.

Finally, my statistic is correct - 14% of people die from cancer, and 30% of cancer patients are smokers. So we can logically conclude that smokers are way over-represented in cancer statistics. My source makes the first fact clear enough, and yours covers the second.You make the same error a second time - the reason why the number of smoker's deaths is low is because there aren't that many smokers.

Non-smoker's Health
First, I'm sorry that I cited my third source. I should have cited my fourth. The numbers are on there.

My opponent says that the parents should suffer the consequences for their actions. But what about the children who did not choose to smoke? Who are the ones who will suffer these ill effects for the rest of their lives, all because of a choice they did not make? If my opponent concedes that this is a significant social harm to these children, he should admit that we should prevent parents from smoking. But it's not just parents. I should not be forced by my employer to expose myself to a toxic mix 6000 harmful chemicals. Not everyone can leave their job. There might just not be enough work to go around.

Finally, I know that *they* died from second-hand smoke exposure because that's what the statisticians said. They could be wrong, perhaps. All of the studies that show harmful benefits of smoking could be wrong in theory. But the chances of any individual study being wrong is fairly slim. That's what the process of peer review is out to ensure.

Freedom of Choice
First, my opponent agrees that freedom of choice has limits. Perhaps they are controversial. But controversy is not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean we should just say yes. There is controversy around euthanasia, for instance, but it is (in most jurisdictions) outlawed anyway.

Second, slave=person without freedom of choice, cigarette=thing that creates people without freedom of choice (because of its addictive nature).

And third, no you cannot sell yourself into slavery. It's outlawed internationally. Even if you've really thought about it for a very long time.

Prohibition
"we can't make everything that can kill us illegal" but we can do so when there is a significant social harm. Like in the case of marijuana.

Youth and Cigarettes
Here my opponent appeals to authority over the common youth statement - bad stuff is good. I do not find that persuasive for reasons I have outlined earlier. But even if it were true that youth adore murderers and pedophiles, I want to prevent people being seen smoking at their age. At the very least, if it is underground, it is out of sight (to keep away from the prying cops).

Again, I am sure 100% compliance is impossible. Many will keep doing it. But the purpose of my model is not to eradicate smoking but to relieve pressure on our public health system by reducing smoking among youth. Which is why crack is far more rarely seen in school parking lots than cigarettes. It is there, no doubt. But it is rare.

Model
OK, so cigarettes are sometimes a placebo, and ... what? If it is a relaxant for them, then great. That's no reason not to ban it. I'm sorry, I just don't comprehend this point.

Maybe they'll make replica cigarettes. OK, again, that's cool. I don't mind. If there is no social harm, then don't ban it. If there is a significant social harm, then ban it. This isn't a weakness in my model at all.

Summary
This debate is about whether we should ban people from destroying themselves, their family, their coworkers, and even random people whom they don't know. I for one am proud to say that I am against cigarettes. Let's stand up for society! Let's liberate a people oppressed! Too long have we been in the dark abyss of smoker's rights. Smoker's rights is nothing more than millions of death certificates, not only of smokers, but of the innocent also. This is no prohibition. This is an affirmation of freedom of choice. Smoking cigarettes should be illegal.

Please vote PRO

...and make it happen!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by youthrights 5 years ago
youthrights
This is a bloody interesting debate! I cannot agree however that smoking should be illegalized.
I say this for two reasons.
The first and foremost is money.
Cigarette taxes bring an IMMENSE amount of money to the government.
Cigarettes are taxed well over 100% and the money made from this pays for childrens health care in America.
The US government makes billions anually off the taxes.
Secondly, it is a basic right of freedom of choice. If you are of age of majority, and you wish to do something that kills you..go ahead, it is not congress' place to stop you unless you are causing damage to other people which is why larztheloser's comment is ludicrous. Murdering hurts others.
As long as cigarette smoking is kept to the home/car/smoking section, then the only one it hurts is the person who made the decision to smoke.
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
The fact that only 30% of people who die of cancer is caused by smoking is because alot more people don't smoke than do.
Posted by Extremely-Far-Right 6 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
Here is what I think....

Don't illegalize smoking, just illegalize what is smoked, such as cigarettes.

Keep the good stuff like Pipes around.
Posted by wolfhaines 6 years ago
wolfhaines
Very good debate here, good tone to it too. Both convincing for different reasons: Pro Illegal because of health reasons, Con illegal for liberty of choice.
Personally, I hate smoking, it smells nasty, causes bad breath, costs a lot of money that is better spent elsewhere, takes up needless time (and productivity in workers) and has health risks to it. I also don't drunk much for almost the same reasons. A good debate would be: Alcohol or Tobacco- which is worse for society?
Keep it up.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
And what if murder brings some people joy? Should that be legal for them too?
Posted by Adamant1 6 years ago
Adamant1
Quoting South Park here "Smoking brings a lot of people just a little bit of joy, and you get to take that away from them, I wanna be just like you" -Cartman.

Don't be a jerk. Keep it legal.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
alextp7larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO showed enough harm, especially the people around the smokers.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
alextp7larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Moral obligation
Vote Placed by JustinChains 6 years ago
JustinChains
alextp7larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It's not much of an intelligent debate in my opinion... Smoking kills you. It should be as illegal as anything else believed to kill you. By the way, I am a smoker. So my vote is credible.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
alextp7larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con handled the objections from Pro and was better sourced.
Vote Placed by Adamant1 6 years ago
Adamant1
alextp7larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Freedom of choice is the only argument necessary.
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
alextp7larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con, however he let his weakest point be the focus of the debate, and that is that cigarettes' health risks are overblown. That is the weakest argument in favor of the legality of cigarettes.