The government should ban smoking in public spaces
Debate Rounds (3)
I, pro, will gain position to ban smoking in public areas.
I will first begin by showing you this definition of smoking:
"Smoking is a practice in which a substance, most commonly tobacco, is burned and the smoke is tasted or inhaled. This is primarily practised as a route of administration for recreational drug use, as combustion releases the active substances in drugs such as nicotine and makes them available for absorption through the lungs. It can also be done as a part of rituals, to induce trances and spiritual enlightenment"
According to what it states in this wikipedia entry, I say that it shouldn't be legal to smoke because it influences other people in the area to smoke, because some non influential people convince others to smoke, which will have a great effect on their lives.
Since it does cause lung damage, I think the government should ban it because it will cause many deaths from people encourging others.
To conclude this session, Smoking should be banned because it kills people, and it's spreading from one person to another beause of the non ifluential ways of their effect on other people.
As well, completely banning smoking would be a restriction of free rights. People may take up smoking due to various reasons (eg. stress management) and although you may not necessarily agree with their decision to smoke, who are we to dictate what other people can or cannot do? If we were to ban smoking, perhaps we should ban other substances too then, such as alcohol. Impaired driving is also a contributor to thousands of deaths a year, so should we also place a ban on alcohol consumption? People usually smoke or drink as a form of relaxation and for the purpose of socializing (eg. drinking buddies), so we should not be too hasty in passing judgements in dictating what people ought or ought not to do.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Putting your family in harms way
Now, your argument here states that if I were to smoke in my house because smoking in public areas is banned, I would influence my family. However, in public areas (With tons of people, in general), you can influence much more people, and cause much more deaths.
Goes against their free will
Now, your argument here states that I would be going against peoples' free will if I were to ban smoking in public areas. Then, why do we have laws in the first place? No murdering? That is because if that law wasn't there, this country would be a massacre place. In other words, they are trying to maintain control over us and to prevent harm amongst other people, whilst not being their fault. Alcohol, etc. does not influence people UNLESS you invited them for a try. While you inhale smoke, you can taste it. Same with the public, they can smell/taste it, and give it a try (Due to taste/smell), and suddenly they become addicted. BUT, for the purpose of socializing with friends that are already addicted (Or just like) to smoke, that's definitely acceptable.
I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
littlehatchling forfeited this round.
littlehatchling forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 years 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF. Pro provided 1 source and that is 1 source more than Con.
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.