The Instigator
cookie1
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Smoking should not be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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...
cookie1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,868 times Debate No: 61478
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

cookie1

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
I am pro, I believe smoking should not be banned, I am looking for an opponent that believes smoking SHOULD be banned.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I am Con, I believe smoking should be banned, I will state my reasons later.

But I must point out how the very fact that this debate is in the health section is in my favor immensely because, obviously, smoking is not good for your health at all therefore there is not much to prove health-wise. Thus my arguments will mostly be rebuttals but I will give reasons why smoking should be banned later, too.
Debate Round No. 1
cookie1

Pro

You are correct smoking is not good for your health and I have nothing to prove that it is. However smoking is a choice, it should stay this way, I commonly complain about the government structure of England and America, one of my reasons is: who are you and I to vote away someone else's right to make decisions about how they treat their own body? I, myself am not a smoker, but I accept the fact that other people make the decision to smoke and I see the benefits of it. We, as a society are constantly looking to improve everyone else's lives, let them decide what they want to do, warn them of the dangers if you must but stop taking away our rights.

It is a common fact that obesity is a problem commonly effecting Western society and causing lots of death through heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other health problems.
www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html
As you can see in the above page, obesity is a bigger problem than smoking, drinking or poverty. Should we ban fatty foods, fast food restaurants? After all, you people seem to want to make everyone else more healthy, perhaps we should ban red meat altogether, ban alcohol as well, ban driving because it poses a potential risk of injury? There are risks everywhere, banning people from doing these activities is not the way to solve the problem.

I would also like to state that a smoking ban is not practical. If you tried to ban smoking you would be encouraging more crime and slave labour as the tobacco producers abroad turn to criminals to sell their product. People will smoke regardless of the law, lives will be ruined because people will get a criminal record for smoking a leaf and they will consequently find it near impossible to get a job.
I have only scratched the surface, I have many more arguments I am saving for later rounds but so far I have explained why banning smoking is impractical, unfair and unjustified.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Thank you for agreeing how smoking is bad for your health in all ways! Now I will begin my side for Round 2:

Because smoking is a choice, it has become sort of a trend. You see people inner-city who smoke cigarettes because they want to feel good, then you have my grandpa who always thought smoking cigars was classy. A lot of times people want to try it out, next they become addicted. I've never heard of a "good" addiction that involves eating/drinking or inhaling. One poll says 74% people want to quit, but a more in-depth and interesting poll would be the one that has this chart:

Percentage of smokers who want to quit altogether: 70%
Percentage of smokers who will try to quit this year: 40%
Percentage of smokers who will succeed at quitting smoking on their first time: 7%
Percentage of people who will quit smoking cold turkey: 3.5%
Percent of people who relapse into smoking while intoxicated with alcohol: 50%
Average time it takes for toxins to leave your system after quitting smoking: 10 days
Reduced rate of dying from smoking if quitting before age 30: 90%
Reduced rate of dying from smoking if quitting before age 50: 50% [1]

By observing this list you can see how many people regret "trying out" smoking and how many people actually succeed when trying to quit (only 7%!).

Smoking is significantly bad for your health. That statement is no different than saying 'smoking ruins your life.' It's a drug that makes you feel good but in the end the good feeling is just an illusion. 80-90% of lung cancer deaths come from men and women who smoke. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. [2]

Smokers have bad breath. As many as 20% of smokers have ended relationships due to this.

A smoker's skin looks unhealthy due to the chemicals in a cigarette. Smokers have brittle hair, and are more likely to go gray or bald than others.

A yellow smile reveals a smoker. The discoloration is caused by tar getting stuck in the cracks of teeth enamel. Smokers also get yellow nails.

Side affects of smoking are stress and consistent nervousness. It's really a myth that smoking calms you down.

Etc. etc. the videos explain it all.

Smoking causes others to suffer, too. Or should I say suffer-cate. When adults smoke around kids with asthma it raises the risk of the kid's attacks. Any people who inhale smoke have damage being done inside their lungs; this is a testimony of the ripple affect (sicknesses and deaths) that can be caused by one pack of a person's cigarettes. http://lh3.ggpht.com...

Not to mention how many kids smoke underage. [3]

Not to mention how much a pack of smokes costs. In my opinion, when a parent gets addicted they have to spend so much of their profit on packs that they can't afford other more necessary things, which creates broken families. Heath care--smokers tend to spend more money per year on it due to an increased frequency of illness. Like health insurance, life insurance premiums are higher for smokers since statistics show that smokers have a shorter lifespan. These premiums can be upwards of double - thus, thousands of more dollars a year. If there is an increase in health care visits, then there is bound to be an increase in medication costs. Smoking in the home can raise the rate of homeowner's insurance due to a higher risk of house fire. Statistics show that smokers get into more accidents than non-smokers, translating into higher premiums. The higher rate of accidents could be attributed to drivers being distracted while trying to light cigarettes, dropping lit cigarettes, etc. Smoking can increase dental problems, which of course leads to more visits and costs. Smoking inside the home can decrease the home's value "possibly by tens of thousands of dollars. This is due to smoke leaving an odor in the carpets and on the walls. In addition, smoking can yellow the walls, leaving the home unattractive to potential buyers. Cars lose value over time, it's an inescapable fact. But smoking inside a car can leave tough odors inside the vehicle, burns to seats and other damages. All of these can accelerate the depreciation of your vehicle. Statistics show that, on average, smokers pay less into Social Security and pensions because they work less than non-smokers do. As a result, when they retire, they will receive fewer benefits. It costs a lot of money to help keep the smell of smoke out of fibers. Therefore, smokers need to spend more money keeping clothes, houses and cars clean. This means more cleanings and more money spent on cleaning supplies.

The list goes on and on.

To see for yourself how much cigarettes cost for an addict in your part of the world, see the 4th source.

REBUTTALS

"I, myself am not a smoker, but I accept the fact that other people make the decision to smoke and I see the benefits of it. We, as a society are constantly looking to improve everyone else's lives, let them decide what they want to do, warn them of the dangers if you must but stop taking away our rights."
My argument will stand that people should not have the right to fall into a drug-trap even though they may think it is fine. After all you just read (and watched), are you sure you want to keep exposing this threat to billions of people's lives?

"It is a common fact that obesity is a problem commonly effecting Western society and causing lots of death through heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other health problems."
My opponent never mentioned lung cancer. His case does not prove anything because it does not take away the fact that smoking kills too and does not justify it in any way.

"...obesity is a bigger problem than smoking, drinking or poverty. Should we ban fatty foods, fast food restaurants?"
Is eating a burger addictive or harmful? Mostly, no. You are assuming that all food leads to obesity and that is not true. Do we need to be able to buy food and have good food options? Yes.

"I would also like to state that a smoking ban is not practical. If you tried to ban smoking you would be encouraging more crime and slave labour as the tobacco producers abroad turn to criminals to sell their product."
Yes--just like selling drugs on the streets is illegal. We can enforce the law and security.

"People will smoke regardless of the law, lives will be ruined because people will get a criminal record for smoking a leaf and they will consequently find it near impossible to get a job."
Not necessarily. Lives aren't literally ruined because of their criminal record and it's their fault if they got themselves into an illegal drug. Besides, less lives will be ruined because there will be less people dying from a leaf.

"I have only scratched the surface, I have many more arguments I am saving for later rounds but so far I have explained why banning smoking is impractical, unfair and unjustified."
Thank you for your argument. Voters will judge that for themselves.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...

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

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

[4] http://www.cancer.org...
Debate Round No. 2
cookie1

Pro

Thank you con.

Other than your argument that second hand smoking causes harm to others and that the payment of cigarettes takes money away money that could be spent on something else you haven't supplied me with any arguments that justify forcing other people to abide by what you 'think' is morally right.

I will respond to each of your atguments with logic and sources will come in later.
"It's a drug that makes you feel good but in the end the feeling is just an illusion."
Interesting, so you are claiming the good feeling from smoking is an illusion? Illusion - "A thing that is or is likely to be wrongly percieved or interpreted by the senses."[1] So you are claiming the feeling from smoking is being wrongly interpreted by the body, I don't think so, you are experiencing the chemicals in the cigarette such as dopamine [2] that helps control the brains pleasure centre, this is no illusion, it is physically happening to the body. Also, as I've said before people are aware of the risks, its not your place to determine what they should or should not do about their bodies.

"Smokers have bad breath"
Is this really a reason to ban smoking, that is poor.

"Smokers skin looks unhealthy"
So now we are banning things because they are making people look unhealthy, guess what fast food makes people look unhealthy when they become obese.

"Smokers have brittle hair.....a yellow smile reveals a smoker......smokers also get yellow nails."
Really? Perhaps we should ban these as well then.
www.everydayhealth.com/hair-loss-pictures/surprising-things-that-cause-hair-loss-0209.aspx

"Its really a myth that smoking calms you down."
Well I guess pretty much every smoker I have spoken to is lying then and also:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423193946.htm

"Smoking causes others to suffer as well"
www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/19/second_hand_smoke_proven_harmless_again
news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger
As for asthma, the fact that second hand smoke can trigger attacks is not reason enough to justify banning cigarettes overall, people should be more wildly educated about these facts, this is the way to really solve problems not just banning everything.

"Not to mention how many kids smoke underage"
So your way of solving this is by banning smoking, you know how these kids get their cigarettes? Illegaly. So banning them probably wont solve that problem. Also it should be down to the parents and failing that, the education to educate kids of the risks. Take it from me, its not difficult for kids, yes kids, to get hold of marijuana and alcohol.
blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/
This is another argument that shows that banning wouldn't be effective.

Anyways, my arguments are largly summed up in my rebuttals below. But I digress the reasons you gave wrre largly not plausible reasons to ban it. A decent example would be banning video games.
Video games, like smoking give tue participant pleasure.
Video games, like smoking are very addictive.
Video games, like smoking can have negative health effects if you become addicted.
Now I ask you this, should we ban video games? Should we ban caffiene?
Unlike the fast food example these are similar circumstantialy to smoking.
Over to you con.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Thank you pro.

You chose to rebut only the part of my argument that was concerning the side effects of smoking. That's sad. In fact, I have not only proved that second hand smoke is harmful and the payment of cigarettes is destruction to people's lives and to some families too [1], but also how smoking is basically suicide and homicide (do we want that for our country?), how many kids smoke underage and that is illegal (why not ban it altogether?), all the traits to how smoking is bad for your health (why would we let people fall into this trap and then die early because of a leaf?), how people who start smoking always become addicted and drug addictions are never good, how 70% all smokers want to quit and only 7% can (why not ban it if most users regret their choice of trying a cig?), how something that looks 'good' is not always 'right,' etc. etc. You only chose to try to rebut a fifth of my argument.

By the way your sources aren't showing up. I will use common sense and sources in my rebuttals:

"So you are claiming the feeling from smoking is being wrongly interpreted by the body, I don't think so, you are experiencing the chemicals in the cigarette such as dopamine [2] that helps control the brains pleasure centre, this is no illusion, it is physically happening to the body. Also, as I've said before people are aware of the risks, its not your place to determine what they should or should not do about their bodies."
Exactly: if people are aware of the risk, why should we let them go ahead and ruin themselves? It like secret suicide. Because it started off as a trend (in the early 1900s until it was condemned in the '80s) but it has stayed an option for people who don't believe smoking is actually that bad for you. Smoking doesn't relieve stress in any way, that is a myth. [2] If I was going to pull a Mr. Incredible and try to save someone from attempting suicide, would you let me? Same concept.

"Is this really a reason to ban smoking, that is poor."
I was giving reasons why smoking should not be allowed...

"As for asthma, the fact that second hand smoke can trigger attacks is not reason enough to justify banning cigarettes overall, people should be more wildly educated about these facts, this is the way to really solve problems not just banning everything."
Smoking just makes other people miserable, that's all. As I said, it not only triggers asthma attacks but is bad for anyone who breathes the smoke in.

It's really useless for you to try and refute the health related arguments of mine. Please don't even.

You CANNOT compare video games, or even caffeine, to the drug called tobacco! It is such a lame way to say smoking should not be banned (your summary was literally comparing video games to smoking). Nevertheless I will rebut:
"Video games, like smoking are very addictive.
Video games, like smoking can have negative health effects if you become addicted."
What are these negative health effects, staring at a screen too long therefore slight worsening of eyesight? I think you should debate whether video games cause violence or not. That would be a better suit for you. Do video games cost money for every level as smoking does for every pack? Do video games make your lungs fail you? Do video games hurt others as well? No no and no. It is not a good comparison in any slightest way. You act like smoking is the most innocent thing one could do.

Looking forward to the last round. It would be nice to have a rebuttal for the videos I posted, too.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com...

[2] http://www.answers.com...
Debate Round No. 3
cookie1

Pro

At the moment this debate is just going to be you stating stats then me stating stats and the stats will always contradict eachover. This argument is more about morals and logic than stats ans science. You, me or anyone else should never have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking. People that smoke now are educated about the health risks, and this is a good system, it allows people the right to choose what they want to do with THEIR bodies.

Rebuttals-
"Not to mention how much a pack of smokes cost"
Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them. The United States government brings in an anual tax revenue of $5,860,000,000 from cigarette tax. How do you think this would effect the non-smokers in society? They would have to pay almost 6 billion more dollars on taxes a year, something tells me theat once the people that want smoking banned realise this they won't be so eager to ban smoking.

"You are assuming that all food leads to obesity and that is not true."
1) Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope. 2) I stated all FAST food is bad for you, an important detail, my point is, if you are so eager to improve everyone else's lives by taking away their rights then why dismiss thinks like fast food which as you say, may not be linked to lung cancer but is proven to cause health problems.

"Yes--just like selling drugs on the streets is illegal. We can enforce the law and security."
Is this a joke? Because I have to say I laughed a little when I read this. Its not like in Mexico (where drug use is illegal) there are cartels running around gunning eachover down and beheading eachover on the internet. Yeah I'd say drug control is going pretty well.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/02/26/where-7-mexican-drug-cartels-are-active-within-the-u-s/
latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/12/mexican-drug-cartel-violence-spreading-to-rural-us-as-police-crackdown-in-major/
"But also how smoking is basically suicide and homicide."
Suicide - "The action of killing oneself intentionally" To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc.
Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers.
You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them.

"You chose to rebut only the part of my argument about the side effects of smoking, that's sad."
So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad.

As for these videos, I cant see the link so...

I will give you more reasons smoking shouldn't be banned now.

Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold. This resulted in massive amounts of violence and lots of innocents being killed, is this what you want? There's an old saying "learn from your mistakes" it applies here.

Thousands of jobs in the tobacco industry would be lost, that means thousands more lives ruined by your plan to ban smoking.

A smoking ban would disregard property rights, why should the politicians or people like you have the power to tell someone what they can do on their own property? This is another breach of basic rights.

The smoking ban removes freedom of choice.

The smoking ban is not democratic, as much as I criticize your much loved democracy, it is clear that this isnt a democratic choice, "the UK office of national statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban." [1]

[1] www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/9278#.VBTDtn3TXMI
My summary of my argument is this-
If you are a fan of democracy the smoking ban is undemocratic. If you are a libertarian the smoking ban takes away peoples rights to make their own basic decisions. If you value a co-operative society then the smoking ban doesnt because it would take a man or woman away from his or her family and throw them in jail, and ruin the lives of them and their children because they made a poor health choice. It would increase the crime rate, it would also increase the amount of taxes everyone would have to pay. Prohibition on alcohol has failed before, so has the prohibition on drugs so why would a smoking ban be practical?
Thank you for reading my debate I hope you choose freedom over being controlled.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's "common sense," what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say "There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking." Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying "smoking hurts you." You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one.

An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it.

"Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them." It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban.

"Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope." Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER.

"Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them."
Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly.

"So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad." You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad!

"Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold." You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2]

This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit.

In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong.

"The smoking ban removes freedom of choice." In some cases, that's a good thing.

I am not exactly democratic or libertarian.
Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies.

SOURCES
[1] http://ash.org...
[2] http://www.minyanville.com...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by cookie1 3 years ago
cookie1
Doesn't matter what you are im just curious as I dont see many alternatives other than communism or fascism.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Does it matter what I am? And I did not dodge your points about the government alcohol ban. "...I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America...." Does that ring a bell?
Posted by cookie1 3 years ago
cookie1
2 things- you dodged my point about how the banning of alcohol in america had already been tried and it ended up increasing crime rate and increased the number of organised gangs.
And if smoking is banned it won't be a good day at all, just another aspect of our lives the government will try to control but fail.
Also if your not democratic or libertarian what are you?
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
I believe for it not to be banned that those who do make the choice to smoke accept the responsibility for its effects.Quit running to the taxpayer to pay your hospital bills.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
Seems like an individual rights/government's scope question more than a health-based one (though health will undoubtedly be important in the debate)
Posted by Andro 3 years ago
Andro
People smoke because they like the effects, or they use it to release stress. But it's unhealthy
Posted by wolf24 3 years ago
wolf24
Smoking is the stupidest thing someone could do. All people do it for is to be cool. Smoking can kill you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SamStevens 3 years ago
SamStevens
cookie1JasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had equal sources, spelling, and grammar. Pro made a good points/rebuttals in the third round thus had better arguments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
cookie1JasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's main argument was an appeal to pathos: 'Look at all these bad things from smoking! Look at them! Ban smoking.' Pro advocated for choice, and Con never really gave a compelling case against that choice. As such, arguments to Pro, though, I'll note it was a narrow victory. Pro, you conceded the health effects very early on--you shouldn't have let him continue dragging you into discussing a point you'd already conceded--it just feeds into Con's appeal to emotion. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.