The Instigator
ClashnBoom
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Arcanas
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Smoking ban.

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...
Arcanas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,484 times Debate No: 72284
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

ClashnBoom

Pro

I think that the smoking ban is good.

Three important things to know
1.We'll mainly be debating tobacco.
2.I suck at grammar and spelling.
3. I don't like arguments like they should choose there shouldn't be a ban.

Rules:
1. No arguments without source.
2. No biases
3. No foul words

R1 Acceptance and definitions
R2 Arguments
R2 More arguments and rebuttals
R3 More rebuttals
R4 Constructive criticism rebuttals and closing statements.

Keep your arguments simple and organized. Example:
1. Smoking is good.
Blah blah blah www.smokingisfakesite.com that's only an example.
Debate Round No. 1
ClashnBoom

Pro

I think that the smoking ban is good.

Three important things to know
1.We'll mainly be debating tobacco.
2.I suck at grammar and spelling.
3. I don't like arguments like they should choose there shouldn't be a ban.

First off I'd like to thank con for giving me the honors of his first debate here and I hope it will be fun for the both of us, now let me begin.

1. Second hand smoke.
People who do not smoke still feel the pain. Things secondhand smoke couses
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
"More respiratory infections (such as bronchitis and pneumonia)
"More severe and frequent asthma attacks
"Ear infections
"Chronic cough
" Lung cancer
" Heart diseases
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.cdc.gov...

http://www.m.webmd.com...

http://www.livescience.com...

2. Harm to the environment.

" Cigarette filters are NOT biodegradable
"According to Action on Smoking and Health, the tobacco plant is prone to lots of diseases and insects
" Cigarette smoke contains up to 4,000 chemicals. In 2004, a small Italian study lead by Giovanni Invernizzi from the Tobacco Control Unit of Italy's National Cancer Institute in Milan found that air pollution that comes from cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust.

http://www.keenforgreen.com...

http://smoking.ygoy.com...

http://www.tobaccofreeca.com...

3. Deaths.

Smoking caused and is causing many deaths and the deaths may grow in a few years.

http://www.howmanyarethere.net...

http://m.mic.com...

http://www.healthproblems101.com...

4. Pregnancies.

"Lower the amount of oxygen available to you and your growing baby.
"Increase your baby's heart rate.
"Increase the chances of miscarriage and stillbirth.
"Increase the risk that your baby is born prematurely and/or born with low birth weight.
"Increase your baby's risk of developing respiratory (lung) problems.
"Increases risks of birth defects.
"Increases risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

http://www.m.webmd.com...

http://www.babycenter.com...

http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Like I always say it's better to drink cause the drunk will die but if you smoke it will be you and I.
Arcanas

Con

As the rules in round one say, I'll only make arguments this round and wait until the next to make my rebuttals to pro's case.

Before I begin I'd like to establish what a smoking ban would entail so that everyone is on the same page. The definition of ban is as follows: "To prohibit, especially by legal means". [1] So a ban on smoking would essentially be a law that makes smoking completely illegal.

Contention 1: With all details considered, smoking is not harmful to society

Smoking actually provides many benefits to society, which outweigh any drawbacks they cause. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, which essentially makes up for any harm caused by them. [2] Banning smoking would actually *harm* society, as it would mean that the government no longer collects taxes from smokers, resulting in a huge loss of money that could have been put towards roads, schools, and many other useful things. It also would mean the firing of everyone who works at the companies that produce cigarettes, (Over 800,000 people) heavily hitting the economy in a negative way. [3] In addition, a ban on smoking wouldn't be enough to stop smoking. Many popular drugs that have been banned in the past are still commonly sold on the black market. the government forfeits any right to regulate these when they put a ban on smoking, resulting in even more health risks as people no longer have to follow laws on what you can put into cigarettes is they're already selling them illegally.

Contention 2: Smoking is a right, that should not be taken away

Smoking bans violate the rights of smokers. As shown above, smoking is not very harmful to society and in fact helps society. A ban on smoking would take away from one's fundamental right to regulate what they put into their own body. Smoking bans also fail to respect the private pretty rights of individuals. Many businesses (Mainly restaurants) actually want their establishment to be a place where smokers can be free to smoke, and the business themselves should be able to decide whether or not it's allowed. In addition, the customers of said restaurants can choose if they want to experience a smoke free experience or not by either going or not going to said business.

Contention 3: The health risk of forcing all smokers to go "Cold turkey" on smoking

While it may seem surprising to many, recent studies have found that forcing smokers to stop smoking by going "cold turkey" is actually worse for their health than it would be to allow them to continue to smoke. Health.com notes in an article highlighting the effects of going "cold turkey" that: "[The smoker's] bodies experience withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, insomnia, and depression, which can last up to three months".[4] Although this has already been proven through various studies , it has also been confirmed by the smokers themselves. Evan Rabinowitz (Who, like many smokers, has tried and failed at going "cold turkey" multiple times) has stated that "The withdrawal symptoms were unbearable", and that he "became incredibly agitated and irritable every time [he] tried to quit". [4] The article also states that "But only about 3% to 10% [Of smokers who attempt to go cold turkey] are actually able to kick the habit...",[4] further proving the difficulty of quitting by going cold turkey. As mentioned earlier, a smoking ban would essentially force all smokers to go through this incredibly tough process, forcing them to either continue smoking (And face risk of getting caught and sent to jail) or undergo extreme drawbacks to both their mental and physical health. Obviously, it's unreasonable to force smokers to go through such a rigorous process, and is even less reasonable to punish those that are unable to do so. The smoking ban would be unfair to those who are addicted, and would lead in unnecessary health hazards, arrests, and even suicides for those who are unable to handle the side effects of going cold turkey.

In conclusion, I have shown why smoking is actually beneficial to our economy, society, and health overall, and have revealed the major drawbacks of having it banned. As mentioned in my first few sentences of this round, I can't make rebuttals to Pro's case until round three; so I end my round here.

Thank you for reading, and good luck to you Pro!

Sources:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://policybot.enginez.com...

[3] http://healthliteracy.worlded.org...

[4] http://www.health.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ClashnBoom

Pro

Arguments:

Smoking is addicting.

Everything I've mentioned before is happening plus the smokers can't stop even know it means death.

Sources:

http://m.cancer.org......

http://www.heart.org......

http://www.drugabuse.gov......

Also look at this http://whyquit.com...

Rebuttals:

1. Tax.
Yes, I know how much the government earns but I ask you is that enough to make victims of secondhand smoke alive again is it really worth it? From someone who just came from my friend's funeral I say no.

2. Smoking is a right that should be taken away.

3. Cold turkey.
The affects of going cold turkey is milder then smoking and it does not affect the entertainment or bystanders so I'm okay with it and if it is not banned more people will start smoking.
Arcanas

Con

Arcanas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ClashnBoom

Pro

1. Smoking is a right that should be taken away.
Smoking is bad to your health and the environment so it should not be legal to smoke.
Arcanas

Con

Arcanas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
I don't think that would change anything...
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
@Bluesteel No there was two forfeited rounds.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: lannan13 // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (conduct, arguments, sources). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture}

[*Reason for removal*] There was only a single round forfeit, which is sufficient to award conduct, but not arguments and sources. This RFD does not adequately explain why it awarded sources and arguments.
====================================================================
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
Ops I guess I'll put it next round
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
What was the rebuttal to point two?
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
I was, I woke up and logged in to write my argument.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
@Arcanas I almost thought you were sleeping or something.
Posted by Arcanas 1 year ago
Arcanas
It tells me the time I have left as well, but thanks anyway.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
@Arcanas You only have two and a half hours left. Don't disappoint.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
@Arcanas Thank you. I don't really like free wins.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NateTheFirst 1 year ago
NateTheFirst
ClashnBoomArcanasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's multiple forfeits. Con's arguments did a good job of explaining why it was harmful to society. His foe, pro, gives tons of sources but doesn't give many arguments. He sort of just asserts a fact and gives sources but doesn't explain his argument at all. Con made good points and had a nice explanation to go with them, and his points effectively rebuttedPro's.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
ClashnBoomArcanasTied
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: FF