The Instigator
jh1234lnew
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Rizkaa
Con (against)
Losing
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 2 votes the winner is...
jh1234lnew
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,145 times Debate No: 65431
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jh1234lnew

Pro


PURPOSE:
This debate is about whether or not smoking should be banned.



DEFINITIONS:
Smoking-The act of smoking tobacco
Banned-To disallow


ARGUMENTS:


1. The government should keep people from harm


This argument is constructed in the following way:


Premise 1: The government should choose actions that, on balance, minimize the harm to its citizens and provide a benefit for its society.


Premise 2: If an action has to be banned (e.g. murder) to achieve the goal, it ought to be banned.


Premise 3: Banning smoking points towards the goal.


Conclusion: Smoking should be banned.


Justification for premise 3: Smoking negatively affects society by causing deaths through second-hand smoke, [1] and it may raise tax rates in countries with universal health care.


2. The government has a right to limit what people do to their bodies


Banning smoking is more beneficial to society, in general, because it reduces the dangers of second hand smoking. Even though it may restrict certain rights, it is, from a utilitarian perspective, superior to not banning smoking.


If the government does not have a right to limit what people do to their bodies, then indecent exposure and smoking illegal drugs would both be legal.


Also, even assuming that the government does not have the right to restrict what people do if it only affects them, the government should be allowed to ban smoking since it affects others, and therefore does fall under the scope of civil rights. This is because second hand smoking can affect others, as second hand smoke contains many harmful carcinogens, and has caused the death of 2.5 million non-smokers since 1964. [1] Smoking also affects society in other ways, too. For example, smoking can raise tax rates in places with universal health care because of the diseases it causes which can otherwise be averted by banning smoking.


This means that “the government does not have the right to choose what I can do with my own body” is not a valid rebuttal, as smoking affects non-smokers, so it is not necessarily a right.



3. Many illegal substances like marijuana are banned, and smoking is more harmful than these substances


The government has banned many other illegal substances, and by the same logic tobacco should be banned. This is because tobacco is more harmful than marijuana, and as stated before, affects non-smokers.


In summary, this study showed little, if any effect of marijuana use on non-AIDS mortality in men and on total mortality in women. The increased risk of AIDS mortality in male marijuana users probably did not reflect a causal relationship, but most likely represented uncontrolled confounding by male homosexual behavior. The risk of mortality associated with marijuana use was lower than that associated with tobacco cigarette smoking.”[2]



4. Tobacco smoking is an unnecessary risk


Unlike vehicles or other things that cause mortalities, tobacco smoking is an unnecessary risk because it does not create anything productive. Continuing from Premise 1 of section 1, because tobacco has little productive purpose and a lot of harm, the benefits of banning it outweighs the negative effects.


[1] http://www.cdc.gov...


[2]http://www.pbs.org...

Rizkaa

Con

I accept this challenge.

Society accepts that adults can decide to harm themselves to some extent, so long as they do not harm others. This is why the proposition is not arguing that people should be banned from smoking in private. Passive smokers do choose to breathe in other people"s smoke. If they do not want to smoke passively, they do not need to go to places where smoking is allowed. There is therefore no reason to ban smoking in public.

If enough people want to go to non-smoking bars, companies will set up non-smoking bars. If there are no non-smoking bars, this suggests that very few people want them. Some people are quite happy to work in smoky places. In any case, workers should be allowed to choose to work in dangerous conditions. This is accepted for jobs like mining, fishing and the armed forces. Individuals decide that they are better doing this work than not having a job at all. A complete ban is not necessary to protect workers anyway " ventilation fans can remove most smoke.

A ban on smoking in public places would drive many bars, pubs and clubs out of business. Smokers would not go to these places. These businesses would also earn less money from selling tobacco. In many places, pubs and Working Men"s Clubs are important social places for communities. They also provide jobs for people with few skills in places with little other work. It is therefore important that they survive.

It would be impossible to police this ban in many public places. Small workplaces will often ignore the ban and are unlikely to be caught. Staff who do not smoke are unlikely to report smokers, in case their colleagues work out who told the authorities.

THE FACTS :

Economic Impact

- It is the hospitality industry that the smoking ban seems to affect the most. People who smoke, are often major patrons of cafe, bars, and restaurants, and the number of these patrons tends to diminish when a smoking ban is imposed.

- The reduction in the number of patrons would earn them lesser profits, thus leading to financial difficulties. Moreover, if these difficulties go on increasing by the day, some of the businesses might also consider permanent closure.

- In such cases, the risk of more and more employees losing their jobs is elevated. Also, the job market would, in turn, generate much lesser jobs, leading to a rise in unemployment.

- The government earns a lot of revenue through the sale of tobacco and cigarettes. The ban results in a major drop in this revenue.

Personal Right :

- It has been argued that imposing a smoking ban is against the 'freedom of choice'. Some people opine that it is okay to do anything one wants as long as he/she is not hurting the others in the process.

- Some have proposed that nonsmokers, in order to avoid inhaling the smoke, may prevent themselves from going to places that allow smoking. However, this is not always possible.

- Moreover, banning only smoking as a potential health hazard seems a little absurd as there are some other substances as well (drugs, alcohol, etc.), which pose similar, or rather much greater health hazards.

Difficult to Implement

- Though a smoking ban may seem like a brilliant idea to control the potential dangers, it is not always easy to implement at all places.

- Many times, it is extremely difficult for businesses to disallow their patrons from smoking in their premises, especially if the patrons insist on the same.

- Furthermore, isolated areas such as washrooms, where people might secretly smoke, cannot be monitored all the time.

- Also, if it is a small or a new business, it may not afford to lose its clients because of the ban. After all, it all about survival. In such cases, the ban loses its purpose.

So, pro can't only look in one side but must look in all side if government banned smoking. And pro only give us his argue without solution to solve other problem if government banned smoking. Pro must think about what will happen after that. And in the fact, if government banned smoking give more negative effects than positive effect.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234lnew

Pro

Thanks to Rizkaa for responding!

Here, I will attempt to refute Con's arguments and put forward my own.

1. People who do not want second hand smoke should just not go to places where smoking is allowed

Con argues that people should not go to places if they do not want to get second hand smoke. However, if smoking is allowed in public, there will be little places that they can go because there are so many smokers. My argument, argument 2, still stands.

Con's argument is also based on the idea that adults are allowed to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm others. I have proved that smoking harms others in my previous round, and forcing people who do not want to suffer from second hand smoke to either put up with it or avoid going to a lot of places actually reduces rather than increases rights.

2. Ventilation can remove most of the smoke

Ventilation is, in fact, ineffective in removing harmful gases caused by tobacco smoking. (http://www.cdc.gov...)

3. Economic impact

Con claims that establishments such as bars and restaurants will get reduced profits if a smoking ban takes place. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits stayed the same, and pub profits dipped slightly but increased in the long run. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This proves that economic issues do not result from smoking bans.

4. Personal right

I have debunked the "freedom of choice" argument before in the last round: smoking affects non-smokers, and the government does have the right to make certain drugs illegal.

Con argues that because some other substances are more harmful than smoking, smoking should not be banned. This is a red herring: just because one is worse than another does not mean that the less harmful one is not an issue.

Also, as stated in the previous round, marijuana is less harmful than smoking in terms of death rates but is banned: this shows that, according to con's logic, smoking should be banned, too.

5. Difficulty of implementation


- Though a smoking ban may seem like a brilliant idea to control the potential dangers, it is not always easy to implement at all places.

However, the difficulty of implementation does not mean that implementing something is wrong: abolishing slavery was difficult, but that did not mean it was wrong.

- Also, if it is a small or a new business, it may not afford to lose its clients because of the ban. After all, it all about survival. In such cases, the ban loses its purpose.

I have proved above that smoking bans had little to no impact on restaurant and pub revenues: in fact, pub revenues rose after the small dip caused by the smoking ban.


Conclusion

I would like to thank con for putting effort into his well thought out arguments.

I believe that I had proven that smoking is harmful, that "personal rights" is not a valid objection to smoking bans, and that con's concerns are invalid. I believe that con has left some of my arguments, such as my argument about personal rights, inadequately addressed. I believe that I have adequately proven my case for this round.
Rizkaa

Con

Ok,

1. Pro said about "The government has right to limit what people do to their bodies" is silly thing. Like what I said before, this is personal right. Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. Another reason to oppose the current campaign against smokers is because it violates the legitimate rights of smokers. John Stuart Mill, in a slender book published in 1859 titled On Liberty, wrote: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. This is the basic premise of libertarianism, the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

Mill statement is directly applicable to the controversy over smoking. Quite simply, a just government does not have the authority to ban smoking on private property or to tell smokers to quit or to punish them if they do not. Smokers are adults, not children, and they deserve to have their informed choices respected by others.

If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day?

So, if government has right to limit what people do to their bodies, directly government will too much interfere. They will limit what food that should we eat maybe worst, government will handle the time to us sleep for our healthy. Can you imagine how suck is that?
Pro failed broke my arguments about smoker's rights.

2. Second-hand Smoke

Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking bans? The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3.

An important report on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997.

"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect. "The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

"It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day, according to Enstrom and Kabat. "If so, a small increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is highly implausible.

3. Business
Smoking bans have had severe negative effects on restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in cities where such bans have been enacted. Smokers choose to stay home or visit with friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars and nightclubs before leaving. Smoking bans can also move noisy and potentially dangerous crowds onto sidewalks, and divert police resources from battling more serious crime.

Smoking bans violate the private property rights of individuals. The owners of bars, restaurants, and other businesses should be free to decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments and what kinds of accommodations to make for nonsmokers. Their customers should decide how important it is to be able to smoke or to experience a smoke-free environment.

People often include smoking to the list of pleasurable activities they enjoy when dining out or visiting a bar. Banning smoking at these establishments may make people less likely to visit, which can hurt the business owners if smokers make up a large percentage of their customers.

On the other hand, potential patrons who may have avoided a location because smoking was allowed may now visit a business because of the lack of irritating smoke.

4. Taxing Smokers
Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed commodity in the U.S. The federal excise tax is $1.01 a pack and the national average state excise tax is about $1.36 per pack, for a total of $2.37 per pack. Some cities and states impose far higher taxes. The combined state-local tax rate in Chicago is $6.16 per pack, and in New York City it is $5.85 per pack.

Cigarette taxes also are an inefficient and unreliable way to raise funds for government. Excise taxes require relatively high rates to raise funds, creating opportunities and incentives for evasion and the transfer of economic activity to states with lower taxes. Dramatic price hikes and extreme taxes on cigarettes are threatening to create a stampede of tax evasion, black-market transactions, counterfeiting, and even use of lethal violence against convenience store clerks and truck drivers. Recent tax hikes adopted by New York, Cook County, Illinois, and elsewhere threaten to take us to a neoprohibitionist era with all the crime, expenses, and loss of respect for law enforcement that accompanied Prohibition.

Excise taxes are also regressive. People with low incomes not only pay a higher percentage of their incomes on cigarette taxes than do wealthier people, they even pay more in absolute terms. Persons earning less than $10,000 paid an average of $81 a year in tobacco taxes, versus $49 for those who make $50,000 or more. This was before recent massive tax hikes!

Finally, excise taxes require regular rate increases to keep pace with inflation, whereas income, sales, and property taxes all rise with inflation or economic growth. Because of their narrow bases, excise taxes are unstable revenue generators.

5. Solution
In April 2014, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a report summarizing a survey of more than 19,000 past and present users of electronic cigarettes "" the largest survey of its kind to date.

Here is what the survey found:

Electronic cigarettes helped 81% of the survey respondents quit smoking. Among those who had not quit entirely, one-third were non-daily smokers, and the rest had decreased consumption from 20 cigarettes to 4 per day.
Smokers primarily begin using electronic cigarettes for harm reduction and to reduce second-hand smoke exposure to family members.
Electronic cigarettes appear to be effective even in highly-dependent smokers.
Side effects are minor and reported health benefits are substantial.
Unfortunately, some public health organizations and lobbying groups have made a business out of opposing smoking. If electronic cigarettes solve many of the problems that come from smoking tobacco, their """business” may be hurt. This conflict of interest means they will be among the last to admit that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative for smokers.
So, government should not banned smoking. If they worry about people healthy, smoker can choose to use electronic cigarettes. But still,government can't force them to stop smoking. That is their right to choose.
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234lnew

Pro

1. Personal right

Con ignores my arguments on second hand smoke and the fact that marijuana is less harmful than smoking. My arguments still stand.

"If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior "for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day?"

The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions, not others around them.

Plus, as argued in round 1, the ones that do affect others in the above list are necessary risks.

Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. “

This ignores my first argument which showed that marijuana is less harmful than smoking, which by con's logic means that smoking should be banned since marijuana is banned.

Plus, in an utilitarian society, personal rights can be reduced to benefit society as a whole. For example, hate speech can be banned but is not a violation of freedom of speech.

2. Second hand smoke

Con uses an argument from authority by quoting a single expert and using it to "debunk" established, peer reviewed reports. Con ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of studies support a casual link between second hand smoke and childhood asthma, stroke, and lung cancer. Con uses a single example instead of looking at the overwhelming majority of studies. (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org...)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)(http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...)

The above are meta-studies which aggregate results of many studies.

3. Buisiness

Con ignores my previous argument, which proved that smoking bans do not affect businesses. Con restates his case instead of providing new evidence. My original argument from last round: Con claims that establishments such as bars and restaurants will get reduced profits if a smoking ban takes place. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits stayed the same, and pub profits dipped slightly but increased in the long run. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This proves that economic issues do not result from smoking bans.

4. Taxation

While the highest amount of tax per pack of cigarettes is $6.16 in the U.S., the estimated cost of a single pack of cigarettes on society caused by reduced productivity and deaths is $7. Many smaller cities have lower tax rates for cigarettes than $6.16. This shows that even with taxation, smoking is not worth it. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

5. E-cigs

Con's argument goes like this:

P1. If people can quit smoking, smoking should not be banned.

P2. People quit smoking with E-cigs.

C. Smoking should not be banned.

This does not make sense, as even if people are able to quit smoking, smoking is still a risk. People can quit illegal drugs, but illegal drugs are banned.

By con's logic, I can argue that:

-People can quit drugs by slowly reducing the amount of drugs they take.

-Gradual reduction requires the drugs to be continued to be taken during the quitting period.

-Illegal drugs should be legalized because the treatment requires small amounts of them.

Conclusion

Con has not successfully refuted my arguments, and in one case restated a debunked argument without using sources or new evidence. I believe that I have met my burden of proof.

Rizkaa

Con

1. Personal Right

Con said that "The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions", I already talk about it in the 2nd round. Everyone as human has right to choose what they want to do. This is personal right. Con said "Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. It is a silly thing. I mean, if con want to not infringe on other people rights, Government can make a law for smokers to smoking in a special room NOT banned smoking. With this, government can protect smoker rights and other people rights. So, from the 1st round until 3rd round, he just make a problem that government can solve it this problem with other way with not adverse one party. Government should fair to make a decision.

Even, The World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) formally classified outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (PDF). "The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances," the IARC"s Kurt Straif told the South China Morning Post. "We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking." http://www.businessweek.com...

Con said that "marijuana is less harmful than smoking" But con said before "The government should keep people from harm. In the fact, marijuana is also harm. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect non smokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Separating smokers from nonsmokers within the same air space, cleaning the air, opening windows, and ventilating buildings does not eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.
So, if government should keep people from harm : marijuana, vehicle, alcohol and more should be banned. Not only smoking. But, you know that is so illogical. So, con failed to break my argument about personal right and it's also answered about second hand smoke.

2. About Business and Taxing, I already explain this very clearly that based on the fact in the 2nd round. I think here, con ignores my argument that based on the fact. We can"t close our eyes that banned smoking give bad influence for economy impact. So, my argument about business and taxing are very clearly and con failed break my argument.
So many way to protect people non smoker rights without decrease smoker rights. Government can make regulation about special room for smoker. So, "banned smoking" is bad idea. Whereas, smoke has important place In economy impact and this is personal right.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234lnew

Pro

1. Personal rights


Con said that "The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions", I already talk about it in the 2nd round. Everyone as human has right to choose what they want to do. This is personal right

Con misrepresents my case.

I was responding to
"for their own good, we need to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than one cup of coffee each day?"

Even, The World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) formally classified outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (PDF). "The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances," the IARC"s Kurt Straif told the South China Morning Post. "We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking.

Just because environmental pollution also causes cancer, does not mean we should not ban smoking. This is the same logic as not banning drunk driving because non-drunk people also cause traffic accidents.

So, if government should keep people from harm : marijuana, vehicle, alcohol and more should be banned. Not only smoking. But, you know that is so illogical. So, con failed to break my argument about personal right and it's also answered about second hand smoke.

WRONG! Con misrepresents my argument again: I argued that because marijuana is less harmful than smoking and is not banned, smoking should be banned. I never argued for marijuana legalization. About banning vehicles: see my case about necessary risks in the first round.

Con also claims that he has adequately addressed second hand smoke, even though he just put up the opinion of a single person against several reliable metastudies showing that second hand smoke is indeed very harmful.

2. About Business

I already explain this very clearly that based on the fact in the 2nd round. I think here, con ignores my argument that based on the fact. We can"t close our eyes that banned smoking give bad influence for economy impact. So, my argument about business and taxing are very clearly and con failed break my argument.
So many way to protect people non smoker rights without decrease smoker rights. Government can make regulation about special room for smoker.

Except con has not explained it very clearly/ In the second round, all con did was make an unsourced assertion that smoking does impact the economy, when I have shown that credible sources debunked that claim.

Having non-smoker rooms is just like having non-drunk driver lanes.

CONCLUSION

Con has falsely claimed that he has adequately addressed the issue of second hand smoking, when he did not. All he did was put a single opinion against dozens of research papers, aggregated by metastudies linked to in the last round. Con also has falsely claimed that he has adequately addressed the economic impacts of smoking, when in the last round I have clearly shown that to be untrue. Con only made assertions while I used reliable sources.

Because the second hand smoking argument was addressed by no more than a handwave and unsourced quote, and my case for second hand smoking was backed up by multiple metastudies each studying multiple study papers made by real doctors each studying many real people, the second hand smoke argument was proven and it is proven that smoking is not a personal right.

Also, con blatantly misrepresents my case and ignores multiple facts based on reliable sources from the last round.

Vote PRO.
Rizkaa

Con

Rizkaa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
I'm considering it too.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Considering it. I'll take you up on it if this challenge is still up later.
Posted by DavidMGold 2 years ago
DavidMGold
I may very well take you up on the debate given it presents a good opportunity to argue against the authoritarian impulse the control, regulate, and coerce individual behavior. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
jh1234lnewRizkaaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Both are evidently skilled debaters. I actually did not fully agree with the complete banning argued for by Pro or the complete lack of restriction by Con, but rather would support a public ban on smoking specifically, not private as well. Had Con attempted to rebut the one and not the other they might have won I think. As a result Pro was able to clearly establish the dangers of cigarette smoke and why this should result in laws against a danger to others. I thought Pro did a better job with rebuttals although both sides did an excellent job at defending their positions with relevant facts. I did notice more spelling and grammar errors by Con, an area of improvement for them.
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
jh1234lnewRizkaaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.