The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The government should ban smoking in public spaces

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 956 times Debate No: 43034
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




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.



Your argument dictates that people should not be allowed to smoke in public areas. Then, should people have to smoke in their own homes or in certain smoking rooms? Wouldn't that also increase the chance of second hand smoking? For example, suppose a typical family man is forced to smoke in his own house due to the ban of smoking in public areas. By doing so, he is potentially harming his own family due to second hand smoking. I would argue that by allowing people to smoke outdoors, they would not have to expose anyone in the house or building to the effects of second hand smoke.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


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.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, I guess that is over, folks.

Vote Pro!


littlehatchling forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ImSomebody 2 years ago

For sources, you're supposed to vote for whoever has more reliable sources, in general, not who has more.
Posted by BruceWayneBM 2 years ago
Please stop debating yourself on your other accounts. It's hilarious, though.
Posted by erikejr 2 years ago
I think that smoking in public areas should not be banned because of the fact that you have the freedom to do whatever you should be allowed as long as your doing it legally if you are under aged then yes obviously it should be illegal. but mostly I think that smoking should be replaced with electronic cigarettes or hookah pens ( if you don't know what they are look it up)they are very clean and do not put a person in harms way of second-hand smoking.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF. Pro provided 1 source and that is 1 source more than Con.