Smoking Should Be Banned
Debate Rounds (2)
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nac 1 year 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:||3||0|
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.
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.