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

This house would not ban smoking #4

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,963 times Debate No: 29148
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again.

I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned.

The rules for each around is as follows.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments)
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Counter-attacks
R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals)
I look for a great debate.

I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.


I strongly believe that smoking should be banned. I say this because of many reasons. Following:

1. Health issues
I say this because many surveys, studies and scientific research have proven that smoking is injurious to health. Smoke is unhealthy and suffocating. It pollutes the environment. There are two types of smokers - active and passive. The person who smokes is active and other who are near to him and inhale the smoke are passive smokers. Both are equally affected by the ill effects of smoking. Smokers and non-smokers meet in many places like offices, buses, hotels, etc. So, considering the bad effects of smoking on individual's health, environment as well as individual rights, it should be banned in public places.

2. Influence
The smoking of cigarette is glamorized through advertisements. More and more young boys and girls are attracted by this. Even the 'statutory warning' on the cigarette packets does not stop them. The young generation thinks that those who smoke are smart, modern and intellectual, which is not so.

Yeah so, I will be debating more in the upcoming rounds.
Debate Round No. 1



Human beings ban activities and object that cause grave harm to the society and individuals. There are laws to ensure members of society do not harm others and these laws are regulated so the purpose of their existence is actually served. This debate comes from this notion, that no one should harm others. Harmful substances such as cocaine and heroin are prohibited since they can ruin lives of people and weaken the fabric of the society. Other than those two, there is endless list of so-called “illegal drugs”. This debate will focus on if cigarette – a substance seen everywhere – should join the league of “illegal drugs”.

The definition of ban in this debate would be if cigarette should be removed completely. In this debate, I will Pro the motion that “This house would not ban smoking”, where I will defend cigarettes. The setting of the debate would not matter because the main essence of this debate would remain identical anywhere. My opponent is free to challenge this place setting though.


Though I am not a smoker myself, I firmly oppose the notion of banning smoking due to three reasons: that they are unenforceable, that they limit citizen’s freedom and cigarette industry brings practical benefits.

Argument 1: Unenforceable Nature of the Motion

There are about 43.5 million smokers in the US solely. In the same country, 21.5% of men and 17.3% of women are smokers [1]. Cigarette is undeniable everywhere in modern society. Just about every convenient stores, newsletter kiosks and supermarkets sell tobacco. Cigarette industry is an industry that has a size of few hundreds of billion dollars. In some occasions, cigarettes are also handmade with rolling paper and cigarette leaves. From these factors, we can already see that cigarettes are easily acquired and easily made as well. When cigarette is so abundant in quantity, it is very unrealistic to enforce a cigarette ban. Passing of the ban would primarily be unrealistic. Giant tobacco companies worth billions and billions would oppose the ban with every resource they can afford. For the sake of argument, let’s assume tobacco companies decided to forsake their lucrative business and became philanthropists by miracle. Even then, we face predicament of having to sabotage all tobacco farms and infrastructures. When that happens, incredible amount of stockpile of this new illegal drug would have to be disposed and be taken care of. These few things are already unlikely to happen. But even under assumption that they happen, the ban would still have to be regulated. Are we saying we are going to place police officers in public places to follow track of cigarette smoke and arresting smokers?

Again, for the sake of argument, let us imagine we live in world with cops chasing for cigarette smoke and tobacco companies became nice enough to forsake their multibillion corporations. Cigarette ban would still be ineffective since it will open up a black market. India bans cigarette from other international brands and this action enforced by Indian Government was admitted by the government (Tobacco Institute of Indian States [2]) to only result in an exponential increase of these banned cigarettes being smuggled in. Banning cigarette is fundamentally unenforceable and purposeless. Even by miracle, if total ban of cigarette actualized, the ban would not serve its purpose since market of contraband will emerge as seen in similar case of India.

Argument 2: Individual Freedom

The argument behind the ban of smoking is that cigarettes cause harms. Nevertheless, every single smoker is well aware of danger of cigarette. In many countries, cigarette companies are required to leave a warning message on their cigarette pack regarding the danger of smoking. Often, they are also required to illustrate the message with gore pictures of victims of excessive smoking.

These are some mild examples. It is understandable why this idea of banning cigarette emerged. But it is evident that harm of cigarette is being well-informed to smokers themselves as well. Already, smokers are restricted in many ways so that they do not harm others. By law, smoking in airplane is forbidden. Many public bathrooms have “no smoking” signs. Most restaurants forbid smoking too. Freedom of smokers is already restricted to a level so that they cannot cause grave damage to others. Any further actions against smokers would be persecuting and demeaning the freedom of about 20% of a nation in the case of USA. It is a choice of lifestyle and a personal freedom. Law can prevent smokers from harming others. But law cannot step further and stop responsible adults from harming themselves. Attempting to help smokers from harming themselves can be done with a better alternative of “educating” which also fits the principle of democracy. If a government truly aims to protect smoker, they should consider something that is against the spirit of democracy and is unenforceable in the first place but consider campaign against smoking. The purpose of banning cigarette seems aimless.

Argument 3: Practical reasons to not ban smoking

The fundamental purpose of banning smoking seems to be missing. Not only this, there are also practical harms of banning cigarette. As shown above, cigarette industry is a gigantic industry that brings billions of profit to tobacco companies. Top 6 tobacco companies in US added up together generated about $346.2 billion of market revenue and they profited about $35.1 billion in 2010 [3]. Banning cigarette would place cigarette companies out of business and would also place countless employers of a huge industry out of work. Harm of cigarette companies going bankrupt is not only limited to personal loss of employers. Thriving tobacco industry resulted in astronomical amount of tax revenue. When an industry that thrives collapses, annual tax revenue of about $17 billion will disappear. As soon as total ban on smoking comes into action, all the tobacco companies will disappear along with $17 billion of tax revenue.


Banning cigarette is unrealistic. Adding on to that, there are issues with individual rights and freedom of banning smoking if this ban is to be passed. But on top of such a problematic action, there are also practical harms caused by such action. These problems that total ban on smoking carries are too significant and destructive to be seen as collateral damages to solve a social problem. In fact, total ban is not even the best answer if there is a problem to address. All in all, I am proud to oppose a ban that demeans freedom, hurts a country’s economy and is ineffective.




I strongly believe that smoking should be removed completely as per your motion. Not only the person who smokes will be affected but also others due to smoke that is released. Why do you think asthma and other respiratory diseases are caused? It's purely because of bad air (smoke).

This time I'm unable to post my complete arguments, I will definitely come up in the next round. Thank you for your kind co-operation.
Debate Round No. 2


To answer the simple point that my opponent made, I want to point out that asthma is caused by many factors and cigarette smoke is just one part. There are causes relating to allergens, airborne irritants including but not limited to cigarette smoke, medicine side-effects, emotional factors, diet containing sulphites, weather, indoor conditions, lack of exercise and even genes. Hence, we cannot blame cigarettes for asthma.

Anyway, I await for my opponents complete round, rebutting my Round 2.


Now, my opponent says "It's just a part of smoke" yeah right I agree, but if we can stop that little thing then that would be of a great use wouldn't it? Lack of exercise?! Do you think old people would be able to do exercise? So, yeah I conclude by saying that cigarettes are a bad influence and they should be banned completely.

Thank you for waiting!
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for his argument. I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me.


All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette.

By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question.

I look forward reading round 3.



Okay thank you Pro.

Firstly, I do not use the internet for my debates, mainly this one. I use my brains to answer your questions and to bring about my arguments. I might have failed in in talking about a few things but I am sure I have a reason behind it.

Fine now, cigarettes are harmful in many ways like I mentioned earlier. By banning the use of cigarettes, we do not limit the freedom and the rights of the people. Once they stop using it, they will know its effects and other things. Cancer, Asthma and other diseases will make people die everyday. We need to ban it completely. I stress upon.

I look forward for a better argument, Pro.
Debate Round No. 4


I thank my opponent for this punctual reply in this debate. I will just briefly summarize the debate.

There was not that much in this debate. My opponent only focused on was health aspect. This was met with rebuttals coming from various aspects.

Firstly, smoking is not nearly bad as other illegal drugs. In order to meet the burden of proof in the debate, my opponent was required to show that the harm of cigarette is as bad as other illegal drugs. All he did was simply explain some possible harms of cigarette.

Secondly, there are other harmful things that are perfectly legal. Games, alcohol, cars and fast-food are all unhealthy to one’s physical or mental health but they are legal since we know the harm simply is not enough.

Thirdly, it takes a life-long and continuous habit of smoking in order for cigarette to crucially harm one’s health. Put simple, it takes around 40~50 years for one to suffer greatly from cigarette, which already is time of death. Hence, cigarette simply shortens one’s life for few years which cannot be viewed as a legitimate reason to start violating individual’s right to cigarette.

By all these reasons and examples, my opponent’s case fell flat.

On the other hand, my argument regarding unenforceable nature of the motion and individual freedom was not met. It is evident I dominated this debate. Please vote for Pro.



Thank you for ending the debate from your side. Now I will do my part. Frankly speaking, I didn't get enough time to debate on this topic, so I couldn't surf the internet for examples properly. I did it with the little brains I had on this topic.

OK, so to conclude, I will summarize.

Games, alcohol, cars and fast-food are unhealthy, I agree.. But it spoils only that person, smoking kills people who are near smokers too. So, your can be rebutted easily buddy.

How sure are you about one's life span? So, you mean the person can die even before their *END* date is there? That is really dumb, Pro. This is an example of a murder.

By the rebuttals I gave now, I chose to win. Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Smileybubb27 3 years ago
@Ike-Jin-Park: I was not very much into this debate cuz I didn't know info about this topic. But right now, by seeing your arguments, I chose to win this motion wherever I go. Thank you!
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
The link does not work for some reason.

Try this:
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by youmils03 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins in a landslide. Con has no contention-level arguments and made Pro wait an extra round to generate arguments. Con satisfies no burden of proof whatsoever.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give this one to Pro. Con did not provide arguments in R2 & R3 other than stating his opinion that the resolution should be negated. Pro provided sources, whereas Con wanted to rebut all arguments without using any sources to support his assertions. Both debators were cordial and appeared to have no spelling or grammar errors.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets grammar as Con didn't even try to make good arguments, Arguments as his were well constructed and warranted and con did not respond to them, sources for... well providing any.