The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OliveJuice
Con (against)
Winning
6 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 2 votes the winner is...
OliveJuice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,078 times Debate No: 53121
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

9spaceking

Pro

I believe the act of smoking should be banned. Round one is for acceptance only.
I define smoking as the "inhale and exhale the smoke of tobacco or a drug."
OliveJuice

Con

I accept the Con/Against position of this debate.

Best of luck,
(:

The inhalation and exhalation of smoke from tobacco and/or drugs should not be banished by law.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

Reasons why smoking should be banned.

1. It is the most deadly object in the world
Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year and is the #1 cause of preventable death in the U.S., causing over 393,000 deaths per year. That's a bigger number of deaths than those caused by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm-related incidents combined together!
Even if present rates of consumption steadily decline to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century. The cigarette is also a defective product, being incredibly addictive with its nicotine, and having approximately 600 ingredients that when burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals, and people who smoke are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke, even if they smoke only a few times per day. The cancers of the lung, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, stomach, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia are all possible outcomes of smoking. Smoking can also cause heart disease and stroke.

2. It affects other people
Cigarettes can contribute to second-hand smoking, which causes 50,000 deaths each year! Even if the smoker doesn't care about the chemicals in their body, other people care and still get innocently harmed! In the United States, two out of five adults who don't smoke and half of children are exposed to secondhand smoke, and about 3,000 people who never smoked die from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke every year. In addition, lung cancer is more likely to affect someone who has parents or siblings who smoke, as they are exposed to chemical that may cause this disease.

3. Even when not killing, it is harmful
Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and diminishes a person’s overall health. Millions of Americans have health problems caused by smoking. Women in peticular are greatly effected, as the have these possible effects when pregnant:
  • Preterm (early) delivery
  • Stillbirth (death of the baby before birth)
  • Low birth weight
  • Sudden infant death syndrome (known as SIDS or crib death)
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Orofacial clefts in infants
To stress this, the teeth is greatly affected as well, as the health of your teeth and gums are negatively impacted and can cause tooth loss.


4. It harms the economy
Cigarette use also results in financial losses from diminished labor productivity, and in many parts of the world makes the poor even poorer. (Because, you know, dead people can't work!) Futhermore, cigarette industry is a powerful corrupting force in human civilisation. Big tobacco has corrupted science by sponsoring ‘distraction research’. It has also corrupted popular media, as newspapers and magazines dependent on tobacco advertising for revenues have been reluctant to publish critiques of cigarettes. Tobacco corrupts even the information environment of its own workforce, as when Philip Morris paid its insurance provider (CIGNA) to censor the health information sent to corporate employees.

In conclusion, smoking should be banned because of its negative effects. It doesn't have to be, but it should, throughout the world, so these negative effects are lessened. Even if we cannot stop people from smoking in private, we can stop it in major public areas where we can see them.
Onto you, con!

SOURCES
-http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...
-http://www.lung.org...;
-http://www.cdc.gov...;
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
-http://www.cdc.gov...;
OliveJuice

Con

Clarifications and definitions have not been clearly identified and agreed upon. Therefore, I will assume responsibility for doing so and will do the best that I can. All of my definitions will originate from Oxford University"s Dictionary of the English Language.

Opponent"s Clarification of the Debate Topic: ""inhale and exhale the smoke of tobacco or a drug. [Sic]""Note that this is the alternative definition of smoking according to the Oxford Dictionary, although grammatically incorrect in this context.

Tobacco: "A preparation of the nicotine-rich leaves of an American plant, which are cured by a process of drying and fermentation for smoking or chewing."

Drug: "A medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."

Ban: "Officially or legally prohibit."

Now: Refutations

"It is the most deadly object in the world."


Before addressing anything else, let's clarify that just because something kills the most people, does not mean that it is the deadliest substance or object. According to the Oxford University English Dictionary, the definition of the word deadly is as follows: "Causing or able to cause death." In this context, we must draw the distinction between something that is most able to cause death and something that causes the most deaths. There is a huge percentage of the population that smokes, thereby allowing a huge percent of the population to be exposed to various forms of harm, including the risk of death. It would also be reasonable to take into account that there are many smokers that inhale a pack or more of cigarettes a day. These statistics vary greatly from that of any other substance or object that you have included in your argument which supports all evidence that smoking causes the most deaths, rather than being something able to cause the most death among its noxious family. Still, there are more faults in the way that your argument has been constructed.

Secondly, you defined smoking as the ingestion of a tobacco product or a drug. This includes any drug, legal or illegal; Marijuana, LSD, Morphine, Aspirin, Advil, Ibuprofen, and Pepto-Bismol would all make this list due to the fact that they are all drugs. If you really felt the need to smoke them, should it seriously be illegal for you to do so?

Also, there was no specification as to where smoking would be made illegal so I have assumed that you meant everywhere. You wish to regulate the way that someone lives their personal lives on their own property? The US Government proposed the banning of cigarettes in particular a few years ago and has since given up the movement after so many people voiced disapproval of their government's actions. Other ideas such as the removal of all unhealthy foods have been discussed and approved by parts of authority. Banning smoking is a slippery slope that can quickly lead from one thing to another, steadily cutting back on the rights in which people are born with.

Finally, what does this have to do with legal matters whatsoever? Eating junk food, driving a vehicle, and flying in a plane are all decisions that are potentially dangerous, yet not illegal. The number of people that participate in these activities does not change the fact that people have the right to continue taking the risk in doing so. Statistics are null and void here because they simply do not matter.

"It affects other people."

This depends on where and what we are talking about; once again, assuming that you mean everywhere, smoking cigarettes does not necessarily harm other people if smokers are careful to not expose others. There are plenty of places in which smoking is not allowed for the sake of non-smokers. Also, since there was no clarification, the smoking of other substances does not always cause harm, especially to non-smokers. Other limits and plans can be activated in order to solve the issue of second-hand cigarette smoke without banning it altogether. If cigarettes were to be banned, a large portion of the population would go into withdrawal, making for an immensely problematic result that would backfire and require another solution. However, banning something does not eliminate it; people that would not go into withdrawal would most likely be purchasing through the black market. This would not only create a longer list of drug-related criminals, but would also deepen the country's financial crisis while current smokers are actually benefiting the economy with their taxed purchases and consumption.

"Even when not killing, it is harmful."

Again, this illustrates the risk placed upon cigarette smokers but does not define how and/or why it should be legally prohibited. While I willingly concede that smoking can be harmful at times, this is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it should be legal. Anyone has the right to do something potentially harmful to himself if they wish to do so.

"It harms the economy."

Morbid or not, more dead people means more job openings for the living. With all due respect, most of this argument is built upon appeals and fallacies. Where is your information coming from? How will the prohibition of smoking prevent the corruption of science or the release of false information? The right to smoke is in the hands of the people, as is the right to sort information or have the freedom of thought and speech. As I mentioned earlier, smoking actually improves the economy.

How does the vision of someone smoking hurt anyone? If Pro's earlier argument regarding the safety of children and non-smokers in the home was sincere, would it not make more sense for smokers to move to a larger, outdoor space such as a park, forest, or even a field? Parks and forests generally have many trees and plants to provide oxygen that helps to eliminate pollution from the air. Open fields may do the same if enough forage is present but are usually in areas where large pollution is already evident from factories and the like, so smoking would not affect the currently unaffected.

Furthermore, since stress is usually linked to smoking, venturing outdoors would help to release the stress causing people to want to smoke and eventually lessen the amount of smokers in the world.

Also, it is very difficult to take any of my opponent"s statistics, facts, or other information seriously because I have found that at least four of the sources listed--notably the ones that would have been the most reliable--are defective.

http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://debatewise.org...
http://musebaby.hubpages.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://heartland.org...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

"There are plenty of places in which smoking is not allowed for the sake of non-smokers." So why not push it even further, and make smoking healthy for everyone? Quitting smoking reduces risk of lung cancer and all the other diseases it causes.

"Statistics are null and void here because they simply do not matter." What do you mean? So you're saying tons of people dying do not matter?! What if your father died from lung cancer from his addiction to smoking? Would that not matter?

"Anyone has the right to do something potentially harmful to himself if they wish to do so." That's true, but the big problem is the addiction to smoking. Without someone to stop them, people smoke on and on. The ban serves as a reminder not to take the harmful product with merely good mental effects.

In addition, your sources only support my argument! Take your first source, http://www.cnn.com..., for example. This shows that we hate tobacco and put a restriction act on it. How does this support your argument in any way?
Oh, and to take it further--we have already banned smoking in many states and areas, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org.... If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level and save everyone from high risk of getting cancer or some other disease.
And, your http://debatewise.org... only helps me. A few good points I will stress are "Evidence suggests that in spite of possible practical difficulties of the smoking ban in pubs and bars, it has been a considerable success: if we are to believe Health dept. figures, 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban being brought in"; and the negative health effects and terrible chemicals a single cigarette has.

"... if smokers are careful to not expose others" which is why smoking should be banned. It is because it cannot really be enforced in private spaces that in those specific areas they can still be allowed. By "banning worldwide" I really mean "in the public", as police cannot station cameras in houses. :P
I have to go to sleep and I'm tired so onto you con!
OliveJuice

Con

"'There are plenty of places in which smoking is not allowed for the sake of non-smokers.' So why not push it even further, and make smoking healthy for everyone? Quitting smoking reduces risk of lung cancer and all the other diseases it causes."

How would the ban make smoking healthy? Both of us have already addressed that it is not. Just because quitting smoking is beneficial to human health, does not mean that a law against it will be. Banning cigarettes would simply make it illegal, not healthy or even non-existent. Pushing this further, again, could easily turn into many other controlling laws such as the banning of unhealthy foods and drinks which would have a plethora of negative effects on the economy and government control. Privately owned places in which smoking is not allowed have the prohibition in place because the owners chose to put it in place. Publicly owned places belong to smokers just as much as they belong to non-smokers. The point is that smokers have just as many rights as non-smokers; it is their personal decision and right to smoke.

"'Statistics are null and void here because they simply do not matter.' What do you mean? So you're saying tons of people dying do not matter?! What if your father died from lung cancer from his addiction to smoking? Would that not matter?"

First of all, that was so much of a pointless appeal that I do not even consider it a valid argument. Would my father then become a statistic, rather than a person? Either way, I did not intend to portray that the death of many people does not matter, but simply that the numbers do not have any impact on the logic. Hence why the sentence before the one you quoted says, "The number of people that participate in these activities does not change the fact that people have the right to continue taking the risk in doing so." For example, if one person died after drinking too much milk by choice, should milk be outlawed? What if it was ten people that fatally overdosed on milk? It was still their decision to drink too much milk and its prohibition would even be greatly unfair to those that drink smaller amounts of milk when they choose to do so.

"'Anyone has the right to do something potentially harmful to himself if they wish to do so.' That's true, but the big problem is the addiction to smoking. Without someone to stop them, people smoke on and on. The ban serves as a reminder not to take the harmful product with merely good mental effects."

You agreed that this intentional risk-taking is a personal right, therefore a person's addiction would be none of your business at all. You are implying that people do not have the ability to stop smoking on their own which is clearly false. A prohibition is not a reminder; informed campaigns to eliminate smoking are reminders. As made public by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, banning smoking would make an activity in which over 42 million people in the United States alone participate in, illegal. That is definitely more of a control act than a reminder.

In addition, your sources only support my argument! Take your first source, http://www.cnn.com......, for example. This shows that we hate tobacco and put a restriction act on it. How does this support your argument in any way?

The title reads, "FDA Changes Course on Graphic Warning Labels for Cigarettes." If you read the article, you would be aware that it is written in regards to the FDA trying to prevent cigarette sales in the past and quitting so that the industry can remain legal. If the warning label idea failed, obviously people do not want this type of control placed upon them so how on earth is a worldwide ban going to be passed? How does it not support my argument?

Oh, and to take it further--we have already banned smoking in many states and areas, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org....... If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level and save everyone from high risk of getting cancer or some other disease.

Correction: Smoking has been banned in select areas and places, not entire states or countries. For example, a contradictory quote as taken directly from your source: "No state bans smoking in all public outdoor areas." Also, something that works now may not work well in the future and may inflict long-term damage on the economy, the government, etc. Again, in the United States, freedom of choice is a highly valued aspect of the interaction between government and society. Where in the constitution does it say anything about the government being required to keep citizens healthy?

"And, your http://debatewise.org...... only helps me. A few good points I will stress are 'Evidence suggests that in spite of possible practical difficulties of the smoking ban in pubs and bars, it has been a considerable success: if we are to believe Health dept. figures, 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban being brought in'; and the negative health effects and terrible chemicals a single cigarette has."

Since it is another debate website, the source simply presents ideas and opinions from both sides without formally and necessarily helping either side. I chose this source because it is, for the most part, neutral in that it brings forth both sides of the argument. Whatever quote(s) you found from random people is unreliable and informal.

"'... if smokers are careful to not expose others' which is why smoking should be banned. It is because it cannot really be enforced in private spaces that in those specific areas they can still be allowed. By 'banning worldwide' I really mean 'in the public', as police cannot station cameras in houses."

Once again, if people are only allowed to smoke in their homes, this puts their families and visitors in danger. Smoke is also trapped in a building easier than it is outside, providing a more noxious environment than it would be if smoking were allowed outdoors.

I genuinely wish that you would actually address and refute my arguments rather than simply twisting them to fit your claim.

My argument stands.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Final round. Okay, so, to support my "unreliable and informal" source, here's a credible source: http://news.bbc.co.uk.... "A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban.", and "Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital." As can be seen, banning of smoking truly has a positive affect.

Your argument about milk: You cannot compare milk to cigarettes. While milk has some negative effects, it has more positive effects. In contrast, cigarettes just make you "Feel good" and have terrible disatrous consequences on the human body. The benefit of smoking is overwhelmed by the negative health effects it gives out.

"Where in the constitution does it say anything about the government being required to keep citizens healthy?" It doesn't, but the government nevertheless has tried hard, with the FDA program as well as many other medicine programs, such as health care. If the government didn't try, citizens would be angered and possibly revolt against the bad government. So to answer your question, yes, the government is required to keep citizens healthy for its own state and being. And because smoking is so difficult to quit, the government needs to put a mandatory law upon it. It's similar to a parent stopping a child from doing something bad. You need to "Ground" the child in order to stop him/her from doing the bad thing you don't want it to do.

"the numbers do not have any impact on the logic". You are wrong here. Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit more, okay? Let us say, instead of 6 million people dying each year, half of the population on the face of the earth died last year. That would be incredibly impacting to the world, destroying governments around the world, societies, and the rest of the people would struggle to live on. Cigarettes are being introduced by ads, and teenagers are curious to a taste of cigarette. If smoking was spread across the globe, and many many became addicted to it, unable to quit, then my situation would happen--half of the population would die within a year. Had smoking been banned, the number would have been much more controlled and low. Yes, they can buy from the black-market, just like when the alcohol was banned, but the number is very small so as to keep the government from noticing. The ban of smoking will cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking.
In conclusion smoking should be banned. Although it cannot be really firmly enforced, it would definitely have a positive effect on the health of the general population. Vote pro.

OliveJuice

Con

"...As can be seen, banning of smoking truly has a positive affect."

You are only highlighting the effects of the ban in that one area. Since personal health and choices are not governmental concerns, all other effects of the ban would be strikes against the government, society, and economy. What about the effects I mentioned earlier that you have ignored entirely? Again, a sufficient example would be the fiscal matters of smoking cigarettes as presented by August Vollmer, founder of the University of California's School of Criminology as well as former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, "Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims. Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence." The banning of any addictive drug will backfire financially due to the high demand in the black market created by its prohibition. Regardless of the health effects, the ban would blur the fine line between public and private which would cause more problems in an already damaged system. Yet again, I stress that just because a way of life is healthier than another does not mean that it should be imposed upon everyone. There are more than just black and white solutions to the problem; the black and white represent smoking as illegal and as legal. There is a gray matter in-between the two sides and that space is where all the other creative and constructive thoughts and possibilities lie. If so many believe that smoking is a problem, why not try to find other helpful ways (more on this later) to solve the issue that benefit people in positions all over the grid? Intelligently and respectfully working out one's problems is much more effective and mature than requiring laws to be changed in order to support one side of the argument or needing a government trusted to look after your personal health.

"Your argument about milk: [sic] You cannot compare milk to cigarettes. While milk has some negative effects, it has more positive effects. In contrast, cigarettes just make you "Feel good" and have terrible disatrous [sic] consequences on the human body. The benefit of smoking is overwhelmed by the negative health effects it gives out."

Of course I can; I can compare whatever I would like to with a reasonable link between the two. The analogy provided several connections including the fact that people may freely purchase and consume both and that if either were prohibited it would be insulting to civil rights. Still, the idea, once again, was that the numbers do not impact the logic.

"It doesn't, but the government nevertheless has tried hard, with the FDA program as well as many other medicine programs, such as health care. If the government didn't try, citizens would be angered and possibly revolt against the bad government. So to answer your question, yes, the government is required to keep citizens healthy for its own state and being. And because smoking is so difficult to quit, the government needs to put a mandatory law upon it. It's similar to a parent stopping a child from doing something bad. You need to "Ground" the child in order to stop him/her from doing the bad thing you don't want it to do."

You're correct in that the constitution says nothing in regards to a country's authority caring for its citizens which strengthens my point. Just because the government (and even certain people such as yourself) want to place a ban over the heads of any and all American smokers does not mean that it is acceptable or beneficial. This is one of the main reasons that I have a problem with the smoking ban; the government is not my parent. If we are all individual citizens, we should be able to make our own decisions in life without being controlled by authority. Furthermore, there is a major difference between a family independently raising a child until it is mature/eighteen, and a government controlling an adult's actions and choices for his whole life. Also, you said, "...in order to stop him/her from doing the bad thing you don't want it to do." Why should the government be allowed to decide what is bad, good, and what they do not want other people to do? This is not kindergarten; it is the real world. It is a well-known fact that smoking is detrimental to one's health, but people choose do it anyway. If you do not smoke there is no way to fully understand this logic and it would be unfair to intentionally disregard smokers' want's and need's since they are equal to you in that they are fellow humans and citizens.

"Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit more, okay? Let us say, instead of 6 million people dying each year, half of the population on the face of the earth died last year. That would be incredibly impacting to the world, destroying governments around the world, societies, and the rest of the people would struggle to live on. Cigarettes are being introduced by ads, and teenagers are curious to a taste of cigarette. If smoking was spread across the globe, and many many became addicted to it, unable to quit, then my situation would happen--half of the population would die within a year. Had smoking been banned, the number would have been much more controlled and low. Yes, they can buy from the black-market, just like when the alcohol was banned, but the number is very small so as to keep the government from noticing. The ban of smoking will cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting [sic] the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking."

If you stretch the statistics on motorcycle deaths in order to theoretically kill off half the planet, it would have just as much impact. There are many causes of death including other substances, vehicle accidents, airplane incidents, cancer, starvation, and suicide. Why are we not banning anything that leads to these forms of death? Curiosity is not a bad thing; I know from experience that some teenagers will hate their first taste of a cigarette and never touch one again, so that is just as weak of an argument as the financial one presented above. No one would earn money from the smoking ban but drug dealers. Writer Milton Friedman stated, "...if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true." On the contrary, if tobacco were to remain legal and sellers were licensed, tobacco taxes would raise money for the country, additional jobs would be available, and the amount of cigarettes sold to minors would decrease substantially.

A quote in regards to the smoking ban by the well-known author Christopher Hitchens: "Is it really true that people do not mind having the cigarette snatched from their hands, everywhere from the boozer to the night-club to the billiard hall? Are they aware how soon the other shoe will drop, and that people will be told (as they already are being told in some parts of America) that they may not smoke if they live in public housing or use public parks or public beaches? I say it at the risk of embarrassment, but if people have become this accustomed to being told what to do, then I think we have lost something else that cannot quite be quantified."
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OliveJuice 2 years ago
OliveJuice
Note to Voters:

Please keep in mind that in-text citations ARE still citations/sources. Please read what you are voting on before actually voting.

Much appreciated,
(:
Posted by BasicLogic 2 years ago
BasicLogic
Create* no period

Damn this autocorrect
Posted by BasicLogic 2 years ago
BasicLogic
Banning it would be nice, but it would. Relate a massive underground market for it. It would be prohibition all over again. And we know how that turned out.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
I don't like your definition, which is why I'm not accepting.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
9spacekingOliveJuiceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro's arguments were all refuted extremely effectively by Con. Con's arguments were all well structured, well thought out, and extremely intelligent. Con provided excellent evidence that directly contradicted Pro's points and the validity of Pro's original claim. After this debate I am convinced of Con's position.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
9spacekingOliveJuiceTied
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 started out strong but then fizzled out as the debate went on. Con had a response for everyone of Pro's objections as Pro's arguments got shorter and less involved with each passing round. Pro did not satisfy the BoP as Con managed to knock down all of Pro's points as to why smoking should be banned. Then Con countered with arguments of their own involving freedom to choose what you do as well as pointing out some absurd holes in Pro's argument. Con showed how banning the smoking of all drugs i.e. making a law saying that you can't smoke you vitamins would be absurd as well as showing that banning smoking everywhere isn't really viable. Pro didn't offer any good counterclaims to Con's rebuttals and therefore lost the debate. If he had continued with the same gusto as their first round they could have put up a better fight.