The Instigator
anna0128
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Tashasays
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Smoking should be banned

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: 1/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 85032
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

anna0128

Pro

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.

Structure

Arguments
Rebuttals
Defense
Conclusion

Framework

Because I hear mostly BoP is on Pro, so BoP is on me. Today's topic is Smoking Ban, and I will be Pro.
Arguments

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.
Tashasays

Con

While I agree with all of the points you made, I'm also a supporter of freedom. The restrictions we already have on smoking are sufficient for keeping those who do not wish to smoke safe from those who do.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
anna0128

Pro

Because my opponent is not fire_wings, I win this debate. I said only accept if you are fire_wings.

Rebuttals
1. Freedom

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.

2. Economy

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.
Tashasays

Con

Smoking is already prohibited in and near building, at public parks, amusement parks and anywhere else that it could affect non smokers. It is easy to avoid second hand smoke, therefore, people should be allowed to smoke as long as they are not around non smokers.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
anna0128

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments. I already won this debate.

Framework

BoP on me.

Rebuttals

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.
Tashasays

Con

1. There seems to be some confusion. Allow me to clarify. Smoking should only be allowed in designated areas that non-smokers can easily avoid. A perfect example of this is in airports that have lounges that are just for smoking. This protects non-smokers without banning smoking entirely. Everybody wins.

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?
Debate Round No. 3
anna0128

Pro

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. :)
Tashasays

Con

I find my opponent's argument disappointing. Anyone who has been to an airport knows that smoke does not leave the lounges because of the air filters. If there wasn't a sign, you would not even know it was there. However, when people smoke outside, the smoke certainly travels to those who are nearby, which is why smoking is only permitted away from the general public.

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.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.