THW: ban smoking everywhere
Debate Rounds (3)
Before moving on to my arguments, I will first define some important terms in the motion. Smoking obviously means any kind of smoking, and by everywhere, I mean everywhere, even all the smokers' homes. My caseline is that banning smoking will not cause any benefit in society. In the first round, I will be stating the first argument about the rights of people, second round the effect to economy, and finally the third round about the inefficiency of it.
My first assertion is that the rights of people must be protected. As stated before, humans have a set of rights that no one can disobey or challenge. And one of these human rights that a human has is the freedom of choice, that a human has all the justification and rights reserved for eating, drinking, and other things. Smoking is one of them. Everyone must be able to eat or drink whatever they want, and some people should be able to smoke, too. When banning smoking, it is abandoning the rights that is reserved for every human. And so, in order to protect the rights that a human, and smokers, have , we certainly must not ban smoking.
We must oppose.
On many points, I agree with you. Every single persons rights are important, and a government restriction on what we can and can't do is a terrible idea. I think that people should do what makes them happy.
But let me ask you this. If a being an axe murderer makes someone happy, would you let them be happy at the detriment of others? My point in this being, that smoking KILLS.
According to the CDC "Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.1 This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.1"
You read that right. 41,000 people die every year as a result of second hand smoke. This isn't even when you're smoking the cigarettes yourself, as that imparts a risk ten times higher!
So you can keep smoking away, but you're killing people.
I look forward to a high level argument. Good luck and have fun :)
Yes, I agree that smoking and secondhand smoking will damage people, and kill, to a certain extent. Yes, I certainly would not like an axe murderer who is happy, and I certainly agree on the point that smoking can be dangerous to others.
However, this is only the case in some public smokings. In public, yes, secondhand smoking exists. They can be dangerous. However, this is not the case for someone who is smoking at home, or private places. When smoking in private places, the smoker harms nobody, and secondhand smoking does not exist there. As I have said, a human does what he wants with himself, and by private smoking, he is doing what he want, and he is harming nobody. And so, when it is somewhat justifiable when banning public smoking, it is certainly not when banning private smoking, and the motion includes the two kinds, and so my opponent has certainly made a right point about public smoking, but has not for private smoking.
My second argument is about the effects to the economy when all smoking is banned. First, when all smoking is banned, what happens to the tobacco farmers? They had made money be growing tobacco and selling them. When all smoking is banned, they will not be able to sell this crop, and they will likely go under. And to protect these tobacco farmers, we must not ban all smoking.
Second, cigarette companies contribute a lot to the economy by selling cigarettes. When all smoking is banned, then these companies must go under, just like the tobacco farmers, and their portion of contributing to the economy will not be there anymore. I am not saying that the whole economy will fail-I am saying that a part of economy will not be there, and we would not be able to do with that part of the economy.
And this is why these assertions connect to the caseline. We must oppose.
This is the basic shopping list for cigarettes:
Ammonia: Household cleaner
Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas
Cadmium: Used in batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
DDT: A banned insecticide
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element
Not to mention 4000 more chemicals.
Cigarettes have been proven to damage your genes within minutes of you smoking them. Your genes are what you pass on to your children and then to your grandchildren. You are not only harming yourself.
You stated that getting rid of cigarettes would not destroy, but at least severely damage the economy. The cigarette industry is estimated to be worth a total of 35 billion dollars. While this is not to be laughed at, the GDP of the united states is worth over 17.5 Trillion. The cigarette industry only accounts for 1/500th of our economy.
The average number of cigarettes per person per year is over 1000. (1038 to be exact) With 63% of the population of the United states being adults, That accounts for over 532,224 pounds of waste PER YEAR. Over 5 million pounds of waste in the last 10 years alone. Not only do the chemicals damage us, but they also damage the environment. Incinerating them is not an option and putting them in a landfill lets the dangerous chemicals seep into the ground.
If Marijuana and other drugs are banned, the why are cigarettes still allowed? They have no medical properties, at least no positive ones. If addiction to other drugs is a terrible thing, then why is addiction to cigarettes a banal thing? There are absolutely ZERO benefits to cigarettes.
Thank you and please consider my argument.
Parthenos forfeited this round.
jubjub2398 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by debatefox 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: I put the reasons in the comments
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.