Smoking should be banned
Debate Rounds (4)
Because one debate did not get accepted by him, this debate will go to fire_wings. Because I use a phone, there will be no sources in this debate.
Because I hear mostly BoP is on Pro, so BoP is on me. Today's topic is Smoking Ban, and I will be Pro.
1. Seconhand Smoking
Because of the pollution in smoking, many people who do not smoke innocently die because of the bad smoke in their lungs. So, if we ban smoking, these innocent people will have no need to die. I really want to site a source, but I can't, so I will just say that Over 500,000 thousand children died from secondhand smoking in one year.
2. Bad for your health
Smoking makes smoke pollution. Smokers and non-smokers die because of bad lungs, and heart attacks. With a ban, There will not be lots of lung diseases and heart attacks.
Vote for Pro.
Also, tobacco is the most heavily taxed product in the US and the tax continues to increase. The tax revenues generated from smokers pay for things like public schools, and emergency services, and libraries.
Because my opponent is not fire_wings, I win this debate. I said only accept if you are fire_wings.
Pro says that they have the freedom of choice. However, there is one easy way to rebut this argument. The harm principle says you can do things unless it harm others. However, smoking harms others, making this argument invalid.
Pro says that there is an economic impact. However, there will be an impact also because people die, making the economy worser.
Because the structure is only rebuttals, and I rebuted his arguments well, vote for Pro.
Con says, "there will be an impact also because people die, making the economy worser." First of all, "worser" is not a word. Second, everyone dies, including non-smokers. We cannot avoid death by not smoking.
I thank my opponent for his arguments. I already won this debate.
BoP on me.
1. Con says thar non-smokers should move. Non-smokers have rights to be where they want, and the smokers do the harm, making them have to move, not the non-smokers. Why should we move when the people are doing harm to us? Pro's argument is rebutted.
2. Worser is not a word, but a typo. Also, he says that everyone dies even non-smokers. Do you want to die because of smokers? They are harming our normal lives, and they should move because non-smokers are doing nothing wrong.
Con does not refute my arguments. Thank you.
2. If smoking is only done in designated areas, then only smokers will suffer the negative health affects that are associated with smoking. The general pubic is well informed of the risks involved with smoking.
BTW, Con is a she. If you truly feel that you have already won, there is reason to continue this debate, is there?
1. However, when we go out and in the places with the doors, smoke comes in, and it smells bad. That will do almost no help because air can move. If we open any doors when moving, or even a slight bit, many people can get infected by smoking, so those areas are not helpful.
2. Again, the second-hand smokers still smell this.
My opponent fails to rebut freedom, and economy, making you have no choice, but to vote for Pro. Okay, Con's a she. If my opponent does not rebut my arguments, then there is no chance my opponent will win because she dropped all my arguments. Thank you. You have no choice, but to vote for Pro. Thanks. :)
My opponent also should have pointed out that even if smoking only affected the health a smokers (which is unlikely), their poor health is still a burden on society. Smokers get sick younger and are therefore less productive than non-smokers and they often cannot afford their astronomical medical bills, leaving it up to the tax payers to pay.
I would have rebutted this argument by saying that the morbidly obese also put an unfair burden on society, but no one is advocating banning junk food, candy and soda. Alcohol is another example of a legal substance that is a burden on tax payers.
Smokers are treated like second class citizen, even though they are victims of the tobacco industry. Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. It is not smokers' fault that they are unable to stop smoking. We already use the millions of dollars in taxes from tobacco products for beneficial programs like helping people quit smoking, lung cancer research, and many others programs that benefit everyone, not just smokers. Without those taxes, many people would have to find new employment, which would take time for the economy to resolve. The solution is obvious. Banning smoking does not benefit anyone. We need to protect non-smokers better and continue to help smokers quit smoking.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.