The Instigator
joshuaXlawyer
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Tobacco Should Be Illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,034 times Debate No: 16837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

joshuaXlawyer

Pro

First round is for acceptance...
Debate Round No. 1
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

Opening Statement: Tobacco kills kills and keeps on killing, how you may ask because its a addictive little stick that cause's cancer. Smoking is similar to crack, both are addictive substances and both kill you. They make you dependent on them, and you keep smoking and you keep hurting yourself until you die. It is hypocritical to say tobacco legal , crack illegal; when they do the same thing. Not to mention tobacco targets kids, with the tobacco signs put at kids eye level, and before it was illegal they had flavors like tropical blast. Now they even appeal to the women with the slim sexy cigerette with the pink packaging. Also they have a smokers diet? Come on they say ever 6 seconds someone dies from tobacco, and they make billions of dollars a year how can this be? how can this be?

Points

1. tobacco companies are the same as crack dealers.

2. tobacco targets kids.

3. why is tobacco legal yet crack isn't when they are the same thing?
headphonegut

Con

Thank you for starting this debate.

Ob1- this should not be a legal platform but one philosophical argumentation

Intro: men in the natural state are independent of one another, as far as as any rightful submission of one individual to another is concerned. Each has an equal share in freedom what one does with his body is his business unless his actions inflict on others freedom. You must accept human liberty whole or entire, or you must give up all cogency of reasoning by which to defend any part of it. Either it is a right, as sacred in one part as in another, an intelligible and demonstrable right, from which political justice and political equality intelligibly and demonstrably descend or else it only exists in the world as a political luxury. To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and sen it's duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with mans nature: to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts.

C1 - Kant -
If a man chooses to smoke or chew tabacco it is a moral thing to do because that person believe it is right not taking inti account the consequences of his actions if everybody was in an addicts circumstance or would smoke socially and they would continue to smoke then it is morally just.

C2 - Thoreau -
People have an moral obligation to themselves to act upon their personal convictions. An individuals act of reason is what determines what is just and unjust, not the laws of state. No group of people can decide what is right mo ruler or group of rulers determine what is morally right. That decision is for the individual, and the individual alone, to make. There is no social contract people are only obligated to themselves and to accept their own concepts of right and wrong. Majorities are no better than dictators, since regardless of the form of government, the state forces us to deny our own inclinations of right and wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
But how can the government put people in jail if there is no right and wrong?
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
What do you mean who determines what? If you meant who determines who goes to jail I'd say the government that the people put in charge what would the resolution be?
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
@Hedphone, I would gladly accept any debate challenge.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
but who determines that?
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
Debate
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
Prisoners are prisoners not becaus they did something morally wrong but because they broke the law I'd be willing to debt this
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
" No group of people can decide what is right mo ruler or group of rulers determine what is morally right."

This is where I disagree with con. What, then, determines our morals? Should we release the prisoners?
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
lol. Pro, is that all you got?
Posted by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
Good I mean bad I'm against banning tabacco
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
Just so you know im for banning tobacco.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
joshuaXlawyerheadphonegutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
joshuaXlawyerheadphonegutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
joshuaXlawyerheadphonegutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.