The Instigator
AHolasek20
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Darkaegis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Smoking Should Be Banned

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 1 vote the winner is...
AHolasek20
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 392 times Debate No: 75268
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

AHolasek20

Pro

I believe that smoking should be banned in the U.S, and apparently everyone else does too, according to a poll on debait.org where a majority of the voters voted that we should ban smoking. I also have two other reasons that I believe we should ban smoking.
My first reason is that cigarettes aren't necessary in the first place. People spend all of their money on cigarettes, when they don't need them at all. Quitting is easier than they all make it seem.
My second reason is that we all know that smoking is extremely bad for you. according to Veritasium, the most radioactive place you can find, is a smoker"s lungs. Yes, that means that a smoker"s lungs are more radioactive than Chernobyl. Do you want lungs more radioactive than Chernobyl? I didn't think so.
Darkaegis

Con

I can see the logic in your statement and I agree that smoking isn't a healthy habit, but I must argue that your viewpoint that a product should be banned based on necessity is moot. To say that cigarettes are unnecessary isn't a far statement from saying that alcohol is unnecessary. Again, I agree that smoking is disastrous to one's health, but to say that a product that has such a secure foothold in the US should be banned reminds me of a familiar story. The story of prohibition is a tale of what happens when you try to take a commodity away from the public that they enjoy and utilize so intimately with their social lives.
My only other remaining point at this time is that Tobacco companies, regardless of heavy taxation, large warning labels, frequent bashing by the media, and limited advertisement options is still around. This essentially states that there are people who still want to imbibe tobacco regardless of adversity. Until people decide to stop buying, it will remain.
Debate Round No. 1
AHolasek20

Pro

I do get your point, that instantly taking away cigarettes may not be a good Idea, but taking them away slowly would work better, (and still eventually banning them.) You could persuade stores (costco, longs, etc.) to stop selling them, and then, once they have been fairly depleted, ban them altogether.
Darkaegis

Con

That is a more balanced stand point on the topic. I believe that over time smoking will die out. Less people are turning to smoking and the trend should be allowed to continue as such. When dealing with something as large as society time is key to changing it. Once the markets don't have a reason to keep cigarettes around, the industry will die out.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nac 1 year ago
Nac
AHolasek20DarkaegisTied
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: Con did not contest the reformulation is Round 2, leading me to believe he assents to the banning of cigarettes, so long as it is performed gradually. Since this is the claim he was supposed to rebut, Pro wins by default.