The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Smoking is inherently violent/child abuse

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
E630209 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 350 times Debate No: 97516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Smoking cigarettes is inherently violent especially in the company of children who have no other options or the legal ability to move out. I'm not going to bother providing sources because it's just common knowledge that it causes all sorts of health issues even before the child is born.

If you poison someone's drink, that's murder. If you hit someone, shoot, someone that's violence. And so is slowly destroying someone's pulmonary functions. against their will.

A surgeon general report has found that a single whiff of cigarette smoke damages the lining of the blood vessels. There is an immediate health hazard.


I shall take up your challenge for this debate. I do believe that smoking is harmful and I am against the use of drugs however, I do not believe that smoking is in fact violence or child abuse. First off I would like to refute your arguments directly; taking part in the act of taking someone's life is very different than smoking around someone else. Smoking is not violent and to prove this I would like to cite the definition of violent: "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.(". I do not think that the act of smoking would fall under this definition. As for child abuse what if the parent or guardian who you are accusing of child abuse is in the process of trying to quit. Also what if there is no child involved when someone smokes. Is it still considered violent? Also your last paragraph cites a surgeon general report. Could we please get a link or some actual evidence?
Debate Round No. 1


I'll give you violence on technicality. It was poor choice of words. It is inherently harmful and does harm everyone in the company of it. Although not technically violent due to force, it is having blatant disregard for human life. Under this definition poisoning someone's drink to kill them wouldn't be considered violent either, as their is no physical force.

53.800 die every year from second hand smoke exposure.

They did not die of natural causes. It can't be both ways. They were killed by Smokers. Rather you want it to call violence or murder or not, they were still poisoned by the smoking populace so they are responsible for these deaths.

Saying they are trying to quit an addiction that they know is hurting their family, doesn't garnet much sympathy. Nobody is forcing them to smoke. If someone is addicted to something that harms other people, it doesn't mean it's okay to do it and it should be legal.

Again, I retract the phrase "violent" only on technicality. But it does cause damage at any level. THIRD HAND smoke is also a problem:

So, yes I would characterize someone who does not have children as also having a lack of regard to human life. Simply breathing someones breathe can set off asthma attacks. It clings to hair, skin, etc. so anyone who is around the person for any amount of time is being hurt against their will.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tree_of_Death 1 year ago
I don't dispute that it's child abuse but violence by definition involves physical force.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.