The Instigator
edawg3650
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Smoking cigarettes should become illegal in the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 92702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

edawg3650

Pro

Rules

Round 1: Rules, position clarification, and definitions if needed.
Round 2: Opening statements (Limited to outlining facts)
Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals.
Round 5: Closing statementss (Limited to restating and summarizing evidence from rounds 3 and 4. You can also reiterate your opening statement.)


I will be arguing that smoking cigarettes should become illegal in the United States. Best of luck to my opponent!
Wylted

Con

I accept, and would ask that judges deduct conduct points from pro when voting, as he is a socialist, and socialist support redistributionism.
Debate Round No. 1
edawg3650

Pro

Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to address the claims con made regarding my conduct. First off, my views on socialism are completely irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, I can identify myself as a socialist even though this topic somewhat conflicts with socialist beliefs. Conduct also refers to behavior, and I don't see how I have misbehaved in any fashion. If anything, the opponent has shown lack of conduct for contributing an irrelevant argument to this debate in hopes of giving me an unfair disadvantage. However, I still wish my opponent good luck and hopefully the rest of the debate will contain interesting and relevant information!

Opening Statement

Cigarette smoking should become illegal in the United States because it poses threats to the smoker's health, as well as the environment. Second-hand smoke also poses a variety of health threats to bystanders, especially children, who might have little control over their proximity to smokers. Smoking only serves of the purpose of pleasure and relaxation, which cannot justify the amount of lives this practice has destroyed.
Wylted

Con

I guess round 2 is just to give a general outline of our arguments. So here is an outline.

C1- According to the philosophy of negative rights the function of government is to protect negative rights and cigarrettes banning violates that role,

C2- utilitarian argument that justifies legalizing them based on tax revenue.

C3- Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Cigarrettes kill them off sooner, meaning the amount of crime they commit is minimized more than it otherwise would be.

C4- Not government's job to legislate morality

I look forward to my opponent's elaboration on his arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
edawg3650

Pro

edawg3650 forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

I guess we'll have one less round for evidence/rebuttals
Debate Round No. 3
edawg3650

Pro

edawg3650 forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

If my opponent comes back we can make this a 2 round debate
Debate Round No. 4
edawg3650

Pro

edawg3650 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Just saw this one... I would have voted it a tie.

Had pro not forfeited, I'd agree with a conduct deduction from con for his R1 jerkery. It was a tactic to give him an advantage in arguments, and it clearly worked as evidenced by pro wasting more characters rebutting that off topic attack, than on his actual case.

Arguments never got beyond the unsupported opening assertions. I firmly believe had things continued con would have dominated this area, but they did not. ... One interesting tactic he used, was his third contention on smoking killing black people. If we agree or disagree with it, his arguments could have won within the scope of the debate; further idiots likely would have piled on votebombs against him forgetting the entire rest of the debate, which would have been swiftly deleted, but not before advertising the debate for him.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Not many people do provide a challenge, but I just finished a debate with Subutai, and am currently in one with Danielle. They are certainly tough opponents. I have also debated at least half of the people on the leaderboard, and atleast 3 people on the leader board have refused to debate me
Posted by edawg3650 1 year ago
edawg3650
I like how Wylted usually accepts challenges from opponents he sees that will provide no challenge, and also makes ridiculous claims against my ideology to attempt a quick and cheap win. Clearly somebody who plays for the ranking, not the learning experience.
Posted by edawg3650 1 year ago
edawg3650
I thank Thinkbig and parkerwil for backing me up on this.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
It is called a kritik
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
I'm almost tempted to deduct the conduct point from Con for calling out something that is entirely irrelevant to the debate and attacking Pro's ideology.
Posted by parkerwil 1 year ago
parkerwil
I am confused on Con's comments in Round 1. Why should we deduct points because of his ideology? We are judging his debate performance, not something that is stated on his profile.
No votes have been placed for this debate.