The Instigator
Abraham665
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Clash
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA

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 6 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,918 times Debate No: 26940
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

Abraham665

Pro

Rules :
1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No spamming
4. No profanities

The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that smoking should not be banned in all states in the USA, feel free to join.
Clash

Con

I accept. As Con, I will argue that smoking should not be banned in all states in the USA. Pro didn't give any definitions, and since I think doing so is important, I would like to give some definitions in regards to what we are going to debate:

Smoking: "Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes, and cigars." [1]

Should: "Used to state that something ought to happen, be done etc. You should hold your knife in your right hand; You shouldn't have said that." [2]

Banned: "A prohibition imposed by law or official decree: a ban on cigarette smoking on airplanes." [3]

USA: "North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776." [4]

Lastly, what does it exactly mean to say that smoking should be banned? When we say that we should ban smoking, then we can rightly say that this means to not prevent people from smoking. With this being said, I'm looking forward to a good debate. Over to Pro.


[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Abraham665

Pro

First, I want to thank Con for accepting this debate and giving the exact definitions of my resolution.

I have numerous reasons why we shouldn't smoke, here are the reasons :

Point 1 : The negative effects of smoking on the smoker

Smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. Some of those health problems are heart attack, stroke, and lung cancer. Those diseases are caused by the 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette smoke that cause problems to human cells.[1] Around 6 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco.[2]

Smoking also costs the smoker's beauty, because :
1. Smoking ages you.
2. Smoking depletes the collagen in your skin.
3. Smoking thins the skin.
4. Smoking can alter your body shape.[3]

Smoking costs the smoker's money. He/she will have to pay :
1. The cigarette smoke itself. One packet of 25 cigarettes costs around $14 and the price keeps rising.
2. The hospital bills for later when you're sick because of smoking.
3. The dentist bill so that your teeth could be cleaned professionally.
4. The cleaning bills for your house, car, and clothes that will stink of cigarette smoke.
5. The redecorating fees. Smoking can make you redecorate more often because smoking inside your
house discolors the paint and wallpapers.[4]

Smoking can lower your IQ, too.[5] Lastly, smoking can create fires. Every year, almost 1,000 smokers and non-smokers are killed in home fires caused by cigarettes and other smoking materials.[6]

Point 2 : The negative effects of smoking on non-smokers

Passive smoking is as dangerous as smoking itself. Smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. One third of those are children.[7]

Smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy.[8] Smoking can also influence children to smoke.[9]

Point 3 : The negative effects of smoking on the environment

Smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Just to produce 300 cigarettes, one tree is wasted. Energy and water are also wasted for the production of cigarettes.[10]

Conclusion

Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA because it causes negative effects on the smoker, non-smokers, and the environment.

1. http://uk.prweb.com...
2. http://www.inforesearchlab.com...
3. http://www.ivillage.co.uk...
4. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...
5. http://doctor.ndtv.com...
6. http://www.usfa.fema.gov...
7. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
8. http://www.babycenter.com...
9. http://www.redorbit.com...
10. http://smoking.ygoy.com...
Clash

Con

Thank you, Pro, for presenting your arguments. In what follows now, I will refute Pro's arguments and show why they are fallacious.


Smoking and Health

Pro said that smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. In short, smoking is dangerous and harmful for you. However, although it is true that smoking is dangerous and harmful, it is also true that there are many more other things which are dangerous and harmful, like for example rock climbing, rag racing, motorcycles, surfing, eating a lot of fatty foods, and skate boarding. What would be more reasonable: Completely banning all these things, or just give out the information that these things can harm you and then let people decide for themselves how they want to make use of their freedom of choice? You decide.

The fact of the matter is that thousands of things are dangerous and harmful for you, but this doesn't justify the government to take away our personal freedom of choice. The government should only protect us from harm which its purpose is to feel pain - not harm which makes you feel good and happy, and which its bad effects will only come to you many decades latter.

To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. Moreover, we should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom. Of course, smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public places where it may be non-smokers, but they should surely have the right to, for example, smoke at their own home if they choose to do so.

Smoking and Beauty

Pro said that smoking costs the smoker's beauty. However, so does coffee.[2] If we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should be banned. In fact, numerous things should be banned, because there are numerous other things that can cost your beauty. Moreover, I don't see how we are justified in completely banning something just because it may cost your beauty. Of course, the government should give the information that this and that may cost your beauty, but not taking away people's freedom of choice. It's your beauty, and if you choose to harm your own beauty, then no one should forcibly stop you from doing that.

Smoking and Money

Pro said that smoking costs the smoker's a lot of money. However, should something be completely banned just because it costs a lot of money? This is surely an unreasonable and absurd argument. Thousands of things costs a lot of money, but this doesn't mean that we should ban it. If the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice.

Smoking and IQ

Pro said that smoking can lower your IQ. However, if you read the site in which Pro referenced this claim to, you will read that "It is unclear whether smoking causes IQ levels to drop or whether less intelligent people are simply more inclined to smoke." [3] So basically, the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This claim by Pro is therefore extremely weak.

Moreover, even if we assume that it is true that smoking can lower your IQ, this wouldn't in way mean that smoking should be banned. Numerous other things can lower your IQ as well, like for example alcohol and artificial food colorings.[4] Should we completely ban all these things too? Of course not.

Smoking and Fires

Pro said that smoking can create fires. Again, although this is true, in no way does this mean that smoking should be banned. If we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them.

Smoking and Babies

Pro said that smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. This may be true, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. If anything, it can only show that smoking should not be used by a women when she is pregnant. Also, remember that there exist men too. Men don't get pregnant and thus, this argument cannot apply to them. Thus, again, this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that nobody - be it a women or a man - can smoke.

Smoking and Children

Pro said that smoking can influence children to smoke. But so does, for example, eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, surfing etc. Just because something may influence children, that doesn't therefore mean that we should completely ban that thing. If anything, it only means that we should try to smoke less next to children. Moreover, even if a child is influenced to smoke, it would be very hard for that child to smoke since you must be at least 18-years old in order to legally purchase cigarettes in the US.

Smoking and Death

Pro said that smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. It is true that many people die from smoking, but I contend that this doesn't justify completely banning it. Why? Because if we are to ban something just because it may kill you, then numerous other things should be banned too. For example, there is about 6,000,000 auto accidents in the US every year. Does that mean that automobiles should be illegal? People who surfe always have a risk of dying by drowning. Should we therefore ban surfing and not allow people to surfe? Of course not. Although something can kill you, it should be up to the individual if he wants to buy this thing. We should not stop people from taking risks for themselves, and nor should we take away their personal freedom of choice.

Smoking and Environment

Pro said that to produce cigarettes, trees, energy, and water is wasted. But this doesn't mean that we should ban cigarettes. Of course, things are being used in order to produce cigarettes, but this is true in regards to pretty much everything else. For example, a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers - since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Of course not.

Pro also said that smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Although this is true, there are also several other things that cause air, land, and water pollution. For example, cars and trucks put a lot emissions of gases into the air. All animals release gases, like methane, which also pollutes the air. If we are to follow Pro's logic, then all animals, cars, trucks, and many other things should be banned because they harm the environment. The fact of the matter is that there is numerous things which are bad for our environment, but this doesn't justify banning it.

Moreover, even if we ban smoking, this would help the environment in a very low level. Why? Because millions of people would still smoke. Indeed, smoking is so common now that there is hardly any chance that banning it would stop people from smoking, just like banning some kind of drugs haven't stopped millions of people from still using these drugs. In fact, banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s.[5]

The resolution is negated.

_______


Sources

[1] http://www.forces.org... Though the risks of smoking are highly publicized, the medical benefits of smoking are rarely mentioned.

[2] http://www.realbeauty.com...

[3] http://doctor.ndtv.com...

[4] http://www.increasebrainpower.com...

[5] http://idebate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Abraham665

Pro

Thank you Con for refuting my argument.

Smoking and Health

You said that there are other things are also harmful and it would be absurd to ban them. It is true that they have certain risks, but most of them don't cause danger to other, to your beauty, and to the environment. Smoking has all those things and more.

We have a freedom of choice. That's true, but some illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking, for example cannabis and ecstasy.[1] If those illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal, then smoking should be illegal too.

Smoking and Beauty

Coffee costs you beauty, but it doesn't cause harm to others, does it? And to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should be banned? I said, "Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA because it causes negative effects on the smoker, non-smokers, and the environment." I didn't say that coffee should be banned just because it costs you beauty.

Smoking and Money

There are a lot of things that cost money, I agree. But after one year of smoking, you can lose more than 5,000 dollars.[2] So if you smoke for 30 years, you can lose over 150,000 dollars. A huge amount of money.

Smoking and IQ

Okay, maybe you are right about your argument. But again you still make examples of other things that can ruin your IQ, and I will have to say that those things are just bad for your IQ, not costs you beauty or money.

Smoking and Fires

Again, not all of those things really costs you your money and other bad things.

Smoking and Babies

Do you know how hard it is for a pregnant woman to stop smoking? To stop a woman smoking when she is pregnant, she shouldn't smoke in the first place. And to stop her from smoking, smoking should be banned. Men also take part. Smoking near a pregnant woman can cause harm to the baby.[3]

Smoking and Children

You must be at least 18 years old to legally purchase cigarettes in the US. Yes, it is true. But people can influence children to smoke in the future.

Smoking and Death

Automobiles and surfing have a positive impact on us. I don't see the positive impact on us, yet it costs deaths of people, including passive smokers.

Smoking and Environment

Paper and other things you mentioned have a positive impact on us, smoking do not.

And even if after smoking is banned, some people will still smoke. It wouldn't cause as much harm as if many people smoke. And crime, yes it may be a side effect.

There is one more thing I have found :

Point 4 : The negative impact of smoking on the economy

The tobacco industry is one of the most profitable businesses in the country, making billions of dollars every year. But the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales.
1. Smoking causes more than $193 billion each year in health-related costs, including the cost of lost productivity caused by deaths from smoking.
2. Smoking-related medical costs averaged more than $99.5 billion each year between 2000 and 2004.
3. Death-related productivity losses from smoking among workers cost the US economy almost $97 billion yearly (average for 2000-2004).[4]

Conclusion

Con refuted my argument in many categories. If you put them together, smoking would look bad and harmful for all of us.

1. http://www.cbsnews.com...
2. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...
3. http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com...
4. http://www.cancer.org...
Clash

Con

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, Pro's response couldn't have been more fallacious.


Smoking and Health


Recall that I said that to ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. In answering to this, Pro said "It is true that they have certain risks, but most of them don't cause danger to other, to your beauty, and to the environment. Smoking has all those things and more." This is really a bad response. Pro agrees that these things have certain risks, but claims that most of them don't cause danger to others, to your beauty, and to the environment. However, even if this is true, that still doesn't change the fact that these things are dangerous and harmful. Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful.

Pro also said that some illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking, like for example cannabis and ecstasy. Pro claims that since those illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal, smoking should therefore also be illegal. This is a non-sequitor. Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. You cannot say that smoking should be completely banned just because there are other things which are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal. That's just bad common sense.

Moreover, I contend that these illegal drugs shouldn't be illegal too, because (1) To ban something just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too, and (2) We should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom of choice. These two points have not successfully been refuted by my opponent. In fact, Pro even agrees that we have freedom of choice, something which means that people should be allowed to choice for themselves as to what they want to use.

Smoking and Beauty

Pro said that he didn't say that coffee should be banned just because it costs your beauty. This is true, but Pro did say that smoking costs your beauty. I then responded by saying that coffee can cost your beauty too. Thus, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should also be banned because it may cost your beauty. Pro didn't give any response to this.

Smoking and Money

Obviously, Pro agrees that there are a lot of things that costs a lot of money. After agreeing to this, he simply just said that smoking costs a huge amount of money; basically the same thing which he said in his previous round. Recall that I said that thousands of things costs a lot of money, but that this doesn't mean that we should ban it. I also said that if the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. These two points goes completely unanswered by Pro.

Smoking and IQ

The only thing which Pro said in this category is that those things (the examples I gave which are also bad for your IQ) are just bad for your IQ, but doesn't costs your beauty or money. However, this category is about IQ; beauty and money is therefore irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are several other things which can lower your IQ and thus, if we are to ban smoking just because it can lower your IQ, then these things should be banned too. This goes completely unanswered by Pro.

Also, remember that I said that the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This also goes completely unanswered by Pro.

Smoking and Fires

Recall that in my previous round, I said that if we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Pro doesn't give any good response to this, instead he just said that these things doesn't costs you your money and other bad things. However, this doesn't in any way refute the fact that there are still several other things which can create fires and thus, if we are to follow Pro's logic and completely ban smoking just because it can create fires, then numerous other things should be banned as well.

Smoking and Babies

Pro said that it is very hard for a pregnant woman to stop smoking and thus, to stop her from smoking, smoking should be banned. Again, this may be true in regards to pregnant women, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. What about women who are not pregnant? Should smoking be banned for them too?

Pro said that men also take part, because smoking near a pregnant woman can cause harm to the baby. However, this only means that men shouldn't smoke near a pregnant woman - it doesn't, however, mean that smoking should be completely banned.

Smoking and Children

Pro said that people can influence children to smoke in the future; basically the same thing which he also said in his previous round. It doesn't matter if children can be influenced to smoke in the future, as long as it is their own choice to smoke in the first place. Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well. Eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, and surfing are just some examples. Pro completely ignores this point.

Smoking and Death

Pro said that automobiles and surfing have a positive impact on us. However, smoking does also have some positive impacts on us.[1] The fact of the matter is that there is great risk for you to die in regards to automobiles and surfing; does that therefore mean that automobiles and surfing should be banned? Pro gives no answer to this question.

Smoking and Environment

Pro said that paper and other things I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. First of all, as I said above, smoking does have some positive impacts on us. Secondly, even if it didn't, this wouldn't change the fact that a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers. So again, since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Just like numerous other things, this goes completely unanswered by Pro.

Also, recall that I said that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. This argument goes completely unrefuted. In fact, it seems like Pro himself agrees to this very important fact.

Smoking and Economy

Pro made a new argument saying that the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales. But is it really true that the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales? Well, it may be true in an indirectly way. However, nonsmokers cost the society and the government more in the long run.

Why? Because nonsmokers live a longer life and thus, cost the government a lot more money in medical bills, pension plans, subsidized housing, and other programs. It is therefore not necessarily true that a smoker's health problems cost the society and the government more, because nonsmokers will live longer and thus, incur more expenses that the government would have to cover.[2]

Conclusion

Pro's fallacious arguments have once again been refuted. Pro has ignored and dropped several points which I made in my previous round. Indeed, Pro himself admits that his argument was refuted in many categories.

The resolution remains negated.

Sources

[1] http://www.forces.org...

[2] http://financialhighway.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Abraham665

Pro

Thank you for your response.

Smoking and Health

Con said, "Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful." But they are not as dangerous as smoking. Smoking should be banned because it can cause more negative things than the activities you mentioned.

"Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too."

"To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too."

You just contradicted yourself. When I said that smoking should be illegal, you said that there are other things that also give negative impact on your money, health, beauty, and the environment, so should be banned to. But then you said this. So considering your previous argument, you didn't give a good reason why smoking should not be banned, and you also pointed why surfing or motorcycling shouldn't be banned if smoking is banned. And to add that, smoking is more dangerous than the things you mentioned earlier.

(1) The things you mentioned are less dangerous than smoking. And most of it have some positive impact on us.
(2) I agree on freedom of choice. But the government should care for the people's welfare. Sometimes the government have to give boundaries. And this also contradicts your previous argument. Freedom of choice means the government shouldn't ban everything you mentioned. But smoking is bad for many aspects in your life.

Smoking and Beauty

I said in R2 that smoking should be banned because it causes negative impacts on the smoker, non smoker, and the environment. Coffee just costs you beauty. And I clearly didn't say that anything that causes only one of those negative impacts should be banned too.

Smoking and Money

Buying a cigarette smoke is a waste of money because it's like buying poison. Other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes.

Smoking and IQ

The things you mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects. Smoking is bad in many aspects. The government should only ban something that have many negative impacts for us.

There have been numerous studies which proved that smoking is bad for your IQ. Besides that, smoking often causes anxiety, irritability, and depression on a person.[1]

Smoking and Fires

Other things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. And smoking do have a few positive impacts I see. Smoking can prevent us from having a few diseases, like Parkinson's. Who wants to increase his/her risks of heart attack and lung cancer so he/she could prevent having some minor disease? Those positive impacts are not great.

Smoking and Babies

Women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. And Con said that men shouldn't smoke near pregnant women, not banning smoking. But people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better.

Smoking and Children

"Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well."

Smoking doesn't just influence children, it can cost numerous other things that is bad. And those things you said is less dangerous than smoking.

Smoking and Death

Those positive impacts are not so great. It is true smoking can prevent Parkinson's. But it increases the risks of heart attack and lung cancer too. Despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. So they should not be banned, as everything you mentioned.

Smoking and Environment

Paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. Even Con know it himself. It gives us knowledge, write out our feelings, and much more.

And I know crime is a side effect, but the punishment shouldn't be to tough, such as fines. And banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking.

Smoking and Economy

What you just said about that is probably true, but there are hundreds of dollars lost every year because of smoking if we don't count the non smokers. Nobody knows exactly how much money do non smokers take from the government, so it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy.

Conclusion

Con was trying to refute my argument with other examples. But those examples should not be banned if smoking is banned because of my reasons above. And smoking is not bad because it just costs you money or health. It's because smoking costs you your health, beauty, money, environment, and more.

Thank you, Con, for participating in this debate. Because this is my very first debate (online and real life), I hope you can forgive me if I make some mistakes.

1. http://www.chantixsite.net...
Clash

Con

Many thanks to Pro for his response and for this great debate.


Smoking and Health


Pro said that the examples which I gave of dangerous things are not as dangerous as smoking. Really? Just one mistake in rock climbing, and your life will end in seconds. Moreover - even if we assume that the examples which I gave of dangerous things, are not as dangerous as smoking - it would be very mistaken to say that it doesn't exist things which are more dangerous than smoking. Indeed, there are numerous other things which are more dangerous than smoking. In fact, even drinking a lot of Soda can be more dangerous than smoking.[1]

Pro said that I contradicted myself. This claim by Pro is ridiculous. Yes, I did say there are other things that also give negative impacts on your money, health, beauty, and the environment. And yes, I did say that just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. But did I contradict myself by saying this? I don't see how I did. Pro doesn't explain how I contradicted myself; he merely just claimed it.

Pro said that he agrees on freedom of choice, but that the government should care for the people's welfare. That's true. However, although the government has a responsibility to protect its people and their welfare, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. Thus, since the government has a responsibility to protect its people, it should give out the information that this and that can harm you. But since the government also has a responsibility to defend the people's freedom of choice, it should also allow the people - after giving out the information that this and that can harm you - to choice for themselves if they want to use this thing or not.

Smoking and Beauty

Pro said that coffee just costs you your beauty, and that he clearly didn't say that something that causes only this should be banned. But this is clearly not what Pro said in his second round when he first presented this argument. What Pro said when he first presented this argument is simply just that coffee costs you your beauty. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then coffee should be banned as well. And if Pro wasn't trying to say that smoking should be completely banned just because of the fact that it can cost you your beauty, then why at all mention this in an debate that is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US?

Smoking and Money

Pro said that buying a cigarette is a waste of money, because it's like buying poison. Sure, but it should still be the choice of the individual to buy a cigarette by his own money if we wants to. Pro also said that other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. However, as I have said previously, smoking can also give us some positive benefits and impacts.

Smoking and IQ

Pro said that the things which I mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects, but that smoking is bad in many aspects. The things which I mentioned that can also lower your IQ, is alcohol and artificial food colorings. Sure, smoking - in contrast to these two things - is probably bad in many more aspects. However, this category is about IQ, so smoking being bad in many aspects really doesn't matter.

Pro is trying to ignore the real case of this category. What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can lower your IQ. That's it. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then alcohol and artificial food colorings should also be banned. And if Pro wasn't trying to show that smoking should be completely banned when he said that smoking can lower your IQ, then why mention it at all in the first place? This debate is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US, so why give an argument if its purpose isn't to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US?

Smoking and Fires

Pro said that these things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. But this doesn't matter! What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can create fires. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then numerous other things which can create fires should be banned as well. It doesn't matter if these things that can create fires have positive impacts on us or not.

Smoking and Babies

Pro said that women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. Of course, this is true. However, I really don't understand why Pro is pointing out this self-evident fact. Pro also said that people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. This may be true in a place where there is many women. However, what about a place where these is only men? Shouldn't we be allowed to smoke then? This is why this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that people should not be allowed to smoke at any place - be it a place where there is only women or a place where there is only men.

Smoking and Children

Pro said that smoking doesn't just influence children, but that it can cost numerous other things that is bad too. But so does many other things as well, like for example eating a lot of fatty foods or drinking a lot of Soda.

Smoking and Death

Pro said that despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. Of course, the risk to die can be lowered if we are more careful. However, just with smoking, there is always a risk to die in regards to automobiles and surfing. So again, if we are to follow Pro's logic and ban smoking just because it can kill you, then these two things (although it can lower your risk to die if you are careful with these two things) should be banned as well. Moreover, it really doesn't matter if smoking can kill you, as long as it is your own choice in the first place to smoke. It's your life, and the government shouldn't tell you what you can't do with your own private life.

Smoking and Environment

Pro said that paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. However, I didn't say that paper doesn't have a much more positive impact on us than smoking. I only said that smoking does also have some positive impacts on us. In Pro's third round, Pro said that paper and other things which I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. This is why I pointed out that smoking does in fact also have some positive impacts on us. It seems like Pro agrees with this now.

Pro also said that banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. However, just completely banning smoking is not the only option that we have. For example, using nicotine replacement therapies and other medicines can very much help people who are trying to quit smoking. Moreover, what about people who are not trying to quit smoking? Should smoking be banned for them too?

As for my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, this argument goes unrefuted. Pro only said that he know that crime is a side effect, but that the punishment shouldn't be tough, such as fines. This, however, has nothing to do with my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime - let alone refute it.

Smoking and Economy

Pro said that it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy, because nobody knows exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. Of course, we cannot know exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. However, we can still know that they take more money from the government than smokers. I explained why in my previous round, and Pro didn't give any response to it.

The resolution has been negated. Vote Con.

_______

Sources

[1] http://www.alternet.org...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
AlextheYounga, are you talking about the government allowing people to choice for themselves if they want to smoke or not? If so, I made it very clear in the debate that the government should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom of choice.

BTW, thanks to all those who voted on this debate. :)
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
What about smoking and free choice!?
Posted by debateroftheyear1400 4 years ago
debateroftheyear1400
that quite clever but if you are to ban smoking in all the states of the united states you would of taken people dignity there lifestyle and just imagine all those riots what are going to create and the government will have no control there will be looting, murders and the USA may not be as powerful as expected
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
I just have to note a little mistake I made, namely, that source "[1]" isn't supposed to be there. Because of the character limit, I had to take away my argument in which source "[1]" was a part of. I just realized now that I forgot to take away source "[1]" too, along with the argument in which source "[1]" was a part of. I'm sorry about this mistake, and I hope this is okay for my opponent.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Thank you, and good luck to you too.
Posted by Abraham665 4 years ago
Abraham665
Good luck, Con! For the voters, vote for the better debater!
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Of course, smoking is not something good and should indeed not be allowed in public places. However, to say that it should be banned everywhere and in every state, is a little bit extreme exaggerated. Although smoking is bad for your health (like numerous other things), it isn't so harmful that the state would be justified in banning it, let alone banning it in ALL of the states in the US.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Abraham665ClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: CONDUCT: Fine conduct on both sides. GRAMMAR: Fine grammar on both sides. ARGUMENTS: Pro's arguments became shorter and less developed as the debate went on. Con's arguments were much better, explaining that most of Pro's support was irrelevant to his resolution. The problems pointed out with smoking are not enough to make it illegal, and those same problems are inherent in other things too which are not illegal. Con's point about smoking possible leading to crime was good too and went unrefuted. SOURCES: Good sources on each side.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
Abraham665ClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: There are several other reasons why smoking should not be banned which go into the economic reasons. Also the morality of banning it in general.
Vote Placed by Thaddeus 4 years ago
Thaddeus
Abraham665ClashTied
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: A weak showing from pro. He provided no compelling reason to believe that because something is harmful to the user it must be banned.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Abraham665ClashTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Congratulations to Pro on having completed his first debate. I honestly hope to see much more from this debater in the near future. The learning curve can be a challenge: I saw no category that con did not competently manage. The crux seemed to be that "smoking should be banned because it is dangerous," which is an argument that cannot be sustained. I also caution against counter-vote bombing without having discussed the subject with the alleged offender. I feel that a full-7 can be justified.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Abraham665ClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Mostly counter votebomb sjps, but leave three points uncountered because I thought Con's arguments were stronger. I felt Con showed that while smoking is bad, there are lots of other unbanned things that are harmful, bad, unhealthy, damaging, etc. etc. and that for that reason smoking need not be banned. Everything else tied.
Vote Placed by sjps 4 years ago
sjps
Abraham665ClashTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: He did great. Close race, tho.