The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Smoking ban.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 55477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This is about smoking, whether it should be banned or not. It also includes 2nd and 3rd hand smoke.

Rough out line:

1st round, acceptance

2nd, arguments

3rd, rebuttals

It should follow just a rough outline. Basically, as long it is organized and not all over the place (ex. A main argument in the last round.)

Happy debating.


I accept, however I'm confused on which side you are on. I will be putting for arguments AGAINST a smoking ban.
Debate Round No. 1


My points:

1. Smoking causes a danger to both the smoker and bystanders

2. It is an unnecessary habit. No one needs to smoke, it is a very destructive habit.

1st hand smoke:
Smoking causes a danger to the smoker. "Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances.When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700"C at the tip and around 60"C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins."[1]

With at least 400 toxic substances/chemicals, this is basically death in a cigarette. This alone would give you a greater risk of lung cancer and other serious diseases. It also affects the person's physical performance. A smoker may have trouble running at a descent pace, walking up stairs, and other basic activities.

Cigarettes also contain tar, a cancer causing substance as well as nicotine which can cause high blood pressure, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. This decreases life expectancy and may have the person raking up medical expenses.

2nd hand smoke:

Second hand smoke poses the same health risks as smoking directly from a cigarette. This puts your loved ones at risk, as well as other people in the general area. As with first hand smoke, second hand smoke can cause lung cancer, heart disease, and atherosclerosis. It also decreases life expectancy.

Here is a link showing peoples stories on how smoking negatively affected their life:

Pretty serious health complications by any standard.

3rd hand smoke:

Third hand smoke has the same severe health risks as second or first hand smoke. All may lead to severe health complications which may lead to hospitalization. [3]




Second argument:

Smoking is a unnecessary habit, just like smoking weed. Both have health compilations( weed does, I am learning about them currently in my health class) that not just affect you, but other people.

Are there any legitimate reasons to smoke?

Back to you.


I would first like to point out that yes, smoking is an unnecessary and harmful habit- for the smoker. A few things are wrong though with anti-second/third hand smoking. To start, and probably the most important, is that affects from second hand smoke are non-existent [1]. "The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as 'borderline statistical significance.'" Another point is that if we DO complain about passive smoke, (which does not exist, keep in mind), we may as well also complain about barbeques and cars, or anything toxic [2]. And yes, smoking is unnecessary, but-
A. It is their right to do so.
B. There are a number of unnecessary things that people d nowadays.

Debate Round No. 2


With regards to second hand smoke, look at Nathan's story. [1]

That right there is a pretty serious case from second hand smoke. In a way, it refutes the source you stated that it takes 30 plus years to get side affects which is clearly not the case.

Here is another case in which second hand smoke changed a person's life for the worse.[2]

From your source:

"The study doesn"t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else"s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease."

Asthma is pretty serious. And as shown before, it can leave you in a serious condition.

" we may as well also complain about barbeques and cars"

Cars emit nasty pollution which is not good for you. Also breathing in barbecue smoke is not either. They have their side affects which are known.

On how a smoking ban removes freedom of choice, it is because it endangers the lives of others. As with Nathan, you can clearly see what it does, and he never smoked.

So if it removes freedom of choice, would it be acceptable to release VX (nerve agent) in a public place? After all, it is your choice.



In short, 2nd hand smoke does affect a person's life for the worse. Good debate.


Vinny12345 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SamStevens 2 years ago
My opponent forfeited, vote Pro.
Posted by SamStevens 3 years ago
I am on the pro side, for the ban. You are against the ban, or at least that is your opinion on the big issues.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Impact94 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources and conduct, but where the BOP was to prove that secondhand smoke is dangerous, pro used only anecdotal evidences (the same used by many proponents of alien abductions); on the other hand, con refuted pro's claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous, which Pro did not rebut convicingly, yet did not use sources as reputable as pros and forfeited the debate in the end showing bad conduct.