The Instigator
Yvette
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
annhasle
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Tobacco smoking should be banned to a necessary extent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 7 votes the winner is...
annhasle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,523 times Debate No: 12765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (7)

 

Yvette

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It's the one topic that we aren't listed as agreeing on in our ‘Big Issues', so we thought it would be fun to debate this topic and see if we could

My resolution needs a little explaining. I believe tobacco smoking should be banned to whatever extent is necessary. This would not include a person smoking in the privacy of their own home and not in the presence of children or anyone not wishing to be exposed to the smoke. Simply put, the ban I propose makes tobacco smoking illegal around children or anyone who does not wish to be smoked around.

Con's argument may focus on particulars, I don't require that she argue for 100% legalization including around infants or anything. So long as, by and large, tobacco legalization is being argued for.

Rules:
1. The first round will be used to agree to the rules and definitions. If there are any disagreements on either, they can be discussed in the Comments section before Con agrees to the debate, so they can be changed.
2. The remaining rounds will be used to debate.
3. Excessively semantic arguments should be avoided.

I look forward to a fun debate!
annhasle

Con

I want to thank Yvette for this debate challenge and look forward to our argument and inevitable agreement. Since we were separated at birth and have many of the same opinions, I have the feeling that this will be a fun and productive debate.

My resolution is simple and easy to understand. I believe that tobacco rights are justifiable and necessary. However, there should be public regulations since it affects everyone's health who is the same vicinity of the smoker. But on private property, it's at the owner's discretion of who can and cannot smoke. The law that you have to be over 18 to buy cigarettes should still be enforced. There should also be designated "smoking areas" to minimize exposure to second-hand smoke. But to make it illegal to smoke around those who don't want to smell/inhale second-hand smoke is nearly impossible to enforce so other ways of regulation (like designated areas to smoke) would be more useful.

I agree with the rules put forward. Let's begin!
Debate Round No. 1
Yvette

Pro

I will be arguing on the side of more extensive bans as opposed to more moderate ones. A near-total ban: one which allows for situations in which significant harm is not being caused.

To make things more convenient, I will make a proposal which would fit what my resolution asks for. I propose that smoking be heavily restricted, with little respect to property rights, with much respect to the rights of non-smokers, to the best possible extent, and with the immediate action of preventing new smokers. Thus, harm can be minimized to non-smokers, withdrawals can be minimized, and the future rights of all can start off on a blank slate.

Resolution: Tobacco smoking should be banned extensively, to the extent that it prevents harm occurring to minors or nonconsenting parties.

The reasoning is, of course, that second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke harms innocent parties. The government can protect the rights of smokers to destroy their own bodies, but when forced to choose must uphold the right of all others to live healthy lives instead.

What should force the government's hand towards a ban? It has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). A government which claims the right to rule should not usurp citizens' rights to decide what to do with their own bodies, lives, health, etc, (in fact this would be the opposite of protecting rights) but it must balance the freedoms of one citizen against the other, erring on the side of caution, protecting the most important rights as much as possible.

So the rights we are weighing in this case are the rights of involuntary parties and minors to not be harmed, and the rights of smokers to govern their own bodies. We must ask ourselves these questions:

1. Do minors and involuntary parties come to significant harm due to second-hand and third-hand smoke?
2. Is the right of one person to smoke more important than the right of another to live? Would either be intolerable to deny?
3. Do private property rights overrule rights to life and health? Would either be intolerable to deny?
4. Does my solution balance these rights more fairly than my opponent's?

SIGNIFICANT HARM?
Minors and involuntary parties are significantly harmed by second-hand smoke and even third-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is classified as a cancer-causing agent by major government health and environmental organizations. It also causes heart disease, breathing problems, lung infections, asthma problems, ear infections, birth defects. It causes premature death, illness, sudden infant death syndrome, etc. I quote:

"The scientific evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke." [1]

Third-hand smoke, "the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished", unheard of by most, is deadly as well. It absorbs into walls, clothing, skin, floors, furniture, etc and remains harmful for days, weeks, even months. It causes cancer as well as the rest of tobacco smoke problems. As one scientist put it, "those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere." [2]

So we face two problems. Not only is smoking around others harmful to their health, even smoking away from them is! So while we could allow smokers to smoke inside their own home, if they so much as had contact with another person they will be harming that innocent person. The only way to prevent harm, then, is to stop smoking altogether (barring situations that will not be harmful). This, however, may not be necessary. If scientists can find a level of smoke which is an acceptable amount of harm, restrictions could be cut off at this level.

INTOLERABLE DENIAL?
To prevent smokers from smoking at all would be, undoubtably, harmful in the short term(though not more intolerable in the long term than preventing non-smokers from living) due to their addiction. But if smokers are not allowed to harm others in a way convenient for them, it is not a tragic loss of liberty. It is, however, a tragic loss of liberty to have others simply take years of your life away from you, as well as force medical expenses on you in a country already burdened with them.

Would preventing private property from being exempt from no-smoking laws be so terrible? This would amount to, at best, inconvenience, at worst, a violation of the right to do with one's property as one wishes. But there are limits to property rights. The right to do with your property what you wish does not give you the right to stab anyone walking in or nearby, nor does it give you the right to pollute shared water or air, and finally it does not give you the right to apply say anthrax to yourself and then walk out into a public location. Living on property not belonging to you does not mean forfeiting your rights.

MY OPPONENT'S SOLUTION
To argue against my opponent's solution would, at this point, be arguing against a straw-man, even though she has identified the basics of it privately. For this reason I will wait until my next reason to address this point.

MY PROPOSAL, IN DETAIL
I will repeat my proposal: smoking should be heavily restricted, with little respect to property rights, with much respect to the rights of non-smokers, to the best possible extent, and with the immediate action of preventing new smokers. Let us examine this in more detail. However, this is no place for legalese, or excessive specifics. Such things can be worked out by those qualified to work them out. I will give broad ideas of how this can work, with examples.

Because no rights are being denied by phasing out smoking and ending it in the future, the government must prevent new citizens from becoming smokers. This will prevent needless harm from occurring to future generations.

Second, my opponent and I likely agree that smoking should be illegal in public locations and around children/pregnant women. If this is not the case, I will go into detail.

So, in a household which one person owns but others live (for example wife, roommates, maid, etc) or in a building which one person (or group) owns but others work or must enter, all of the non-consenting non-owners are having their rights to health and life violated simply because they do not own that property! They of course might be able to choose to leave. But chances are they may not be aware smoke is being moved around through the ventilation system, clinging to the walls, the floor, etc. And their rights to life and health should not be considered forfeit simply because they need to enter a building. Therefor buildings which nonconsenting individuals will enter must be non-smoking, private or not. This is no different from requiring that buildings not collapse or contain harmful chemicals in their materials.

Further, I propose that children's workers, public workers, and those who will be in close contact with others be banned from smoking, due to the smoke that will cling to themselves and their clothing and harm others.

With all of this said, we must keep something in mind. Of course we cannot fully prevent exposure to these dangerous chemicals. Of course we cannot fully prevent exposure to the countless things which could cause every individual harm. But simply because risk will continue to exist does not mean that we cannot reduce risk, and that our government doesn't have a responsibility to. If we were to give this argument any merit it would mean our government shouldn't bother trying to prevent murders, poison in our food, nuclear attacks, etc.

CONCLUSION
Second-hand and third-hand smoke is sufficiently harmful to justify the end of the smoking industry, and further restrictions on smoking rights. Resolution affirmed.

SOURCES
1. http://www.cancer.org...
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
annhasle

Con

I will be arguing against the extensive ban put forward by Yvette in favor of a moderate ban, which still protects the rights of all parties involved.

To make our proposals easily discernible, I'll put forward mine as well instead of ripping apart hers. I propose that smoking needs to be regulated but in such a way that property rights don't become forfeit. Since second-hand smoke is indeed dangerous, new regulations will have to be put forward to protect the non-smokers but without treating the smokers with little thought or respect.

Let's begin!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The argument of protecting the weak and innocent is not only emotional, but also very desirable. However we must look at it from the standpoint of protecting what matters to us (like the innocent) and what we stand for (like personal liberties) in a careful balance. Surely, protecting the innocent looks more desirable at the moment but let's see if, at the end of my first argument, I can assure you we can do both.

=> "What should force the government's hand towards a ban? It has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). A government which claims the right to rule should not usurp citizens' rights to decide what to do with their own bodies, lives, health, etc, (in fact this would be the opposite of protecting rights) but it must balance the freedoms of one citizen against the other, erring on the side of caution, protecting the most important rights as much as possible."

I completely agree. This is a major argument for having moderate bans on tobacco, since then there will be minimal infringements on citizen rights while still protecting the health of others.

=> 1. Do minors and involuntary parties come to significant harm due to second-hand and third-hand smoke?
2. Is the right of one person to smoke more important than the right of another to live? Would either be intolerable to deny?
3. Do private property rights overrule rights to life and health? Would either be intolerable to deny?
4. Does my solution balance these rights more fairly than my opponent's?"

I believe this to be a solid place to begin.

SIGNIFICANT HARM?

=> So we face two problems. Not only is smoking around others harmful to their health, even smoking away from them is! So while we could allow smokers to smoke inside their own home, if they so much as had contact with another person they will be harming that innocent person. The only way to prevent harm, then, is to stop smoking altogether (barring situations that will not be harmful). This, however, may not be necessary. If scientists can find a level of smoke which is an acceptable amount of harm, restrictions could be cut off at this level."

Let's begin with second-hand smoke. In the U.S. about 50,000 people die every year from second-hand smoke. [1] This is regrettable and needs to be changed. But let's put it into perspective first.

Annually, in the U.S., Heart disease kills 631,636 people. Cancer kills 599,888 people. Strokes kill 137,119 people. Accidents kill 121,599 people. Diabetes kills 72,449 people. Alzheimer's disease kills 72,432 people. Influenza/Pneumonia kills 72,432 people. [2]

Interesting tid-bit of info: Smokers are less likely to develop sepsis which accounts for 9.3% of the deaths in the U.S. annually. [3]

Now, these are truly staggering figures as well, but what's being done to stop them? We've instated new Health codes to help stop heart disease but we haven't gotten rid of fast food. We have put into place countless safety regulations and checked the safety of thousands buildings, cars and boats but we haven't gotten rid of the automobile industry. We've stopped allowing the windows on tall buildings to open, but of course we didn't get rid of the windows. Now, why did we regulate but not get rid of the rights? Because in America, we are built on the promise of personal rights. Our main objective is liberty, isn't it?

What Yvette is proposing not only violates personal rights but also property rights. That cannot and should not happen. What we need is a moderate approach that can still help, while protecting our rights. I propose designated smoking areas. These will be enclosed areas that the city must build either into existing buildings or new ones, so that smoking out in the open is discouraged. This will reduce exposure to secondhand smoke while also helping reduce the amount of cigarette butts that are strewn about the streets.

How about third-hand smoke? From the link that Yvette has provided, it theorizes that third-hand smoke is harmful for babies and toddlers but not for the rest of society. [4] But how can we assure safety from third-hand smoke while keeping rights intact? We cannot invade houses to check for smoke. In this case, we have to trust in the judgment of the mothers. It is the same for alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are allowed in houses, and there's no punishment for underage drinking while indoors, but we trust in the parents to not allow such activity. What we should do, is expose the truth about third-hand smoke and make sure that parents know that smoking clothes can harm their children. Through TV commercials, bus ads, billboard ads, or Radio announcements that the Health Commission should fund, we can help educate society, just like we do for second-hand smoke or the dangers of drinking.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTOLERABLE DENIAL?

">Would preventing private property from being exempt from no-smoking laws be so terrible? This would amount to, at best, inconvenience, at worst, a violation of the right to do with one's property as one wishes. But there are limits to property rights. The right to do with your property what you wish does not give you the right to stab anyone walking in or nearby, nor does it give you the right to pollute shared water or air, and finally it does not give you the right to apply say anthrax to yourself and then walk out into a public location. Living on property not belonging to you does not mean forfeiting your rights."

A violation of any right should not be taken lightly. Yes, there are limits to property rights but my opponent's comparison is unfair. When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law, it is also malicious intent. No one smokes to kill the people around them. That is absurd. Also, everyone pollutes air since we currently still use fossil fuel so that point is moot. Yes, no one should pollute water but is that really enforced? And if you apply anthrax to yourself and walk out in public, that is once again malicious intent. Plus, anthrax would affect anybody except third-hand smoke affects babies and toddlers.

Also, most buildings and places that require work or a constant stream of people will be public, and for their safety, it should be non-smoking. Also, no smoking within 25ft. of the door to protect them when they are walking in. Now, in places like apartments or condos, those who inquire for a living space should be informed if smoking is allowed in the building. If they choose to still rent, they do so at their own risk. Those who violate apartment/condo laws by smoking when it is not allowed should be dealt with immediately and with the necessary severity. I've already addressed private property so I will not go into that again.

It is the government's job to protect the citizen's healths but also their rights. What I have proposed has done both, and can easily be enforced.

Resolution negated.

Sources:
[1] http://www.inforesearchlab.com...
[2] http://community.wegohealth.com...
[3] http://www.matrixbookstore.biz...
[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com......
Debate Round No. 2
Yvette

Pro

I thank my opponent for her response. This round, I will respond to Con's previous post. I will point out here that my opponent has provided no argument against phasing out the number of tobacco users, nor against requiring children's/public workers to quit smoking.

RESPONSES
Con is mistaken, my proposals not simply about "protecting the weak and innocent". I'm not sure I ever mentioned "weak", although children and infants are defenseless. The entire point of my proposal is for the government to protect the right of it's citizens to choose a healthier life, and to protect their right to life itself.

"We must look at it from the standpoint of protecting what matters to us (like the innocent) and what we stand for (like personal liberties) in a careful balance." Again, when put this way, things are skewed. This is not a matter of purity vs. liberty. It is a case of rights to health & life of the majority AND the defenseless vs. minor property and personal rights of the minority. Even more simply put, it is vital liberty rights of the majority and defenseless vs. minor liberty rights of the minority. We are not just balancing minority and majority but the weight of these specific small liberties must also be balanced. Which is the greater affront to one's liberty, the theft of one's health, or the loss of a cigarette? If we are honest with ourselves, it is the former.

Re: Perspective. My opponent is true that perspective is important. However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents deaths, and only ones attributed to second-hand smoke (not third-hand smoke). Let's review what second-hand smoke does: causes cancer, breathing problems, lung infections, worsens asthma, ear infections, illness, and low-weight births. This list of deaths would not include deaths which are not obviously attributable to tobacco smoking (ie, caused by problems over time, or caused by the symptoms such as asthma) and it does not include the people who suffer from second-hand smoke. The long term effects may not be as obvious. Even when death has not occurred, health problems do. Simply because having a health problem is less severe then dying does not make it alright for one person to sap another's health for no better reason than, "I want to smoke". It is not legal to punch a person, regardless if that punch causes death. Furthermore, let's compare smoking to something a little more similar. If my opponent's argument were to be applied to, say, domestic violence, which caused only 31,000 deaths in twenty years, then domestic violence should be fine in private households. [1] That second-hand smoke causes less death than other problems is irrelevant. It's an injustice either way.

"We've instated new Health codes to help stop heart disease but we haven't gotten rid of fast food. We have put into place countless safety regulations and checked the safety of thousands buildings, cars and boats but we haven't gotten rid of the automobile industry." My opponent's comparison makes little sense. Smoking a cigarette is similar to eating fast food, true, but eating fast food does not harm anyone but the person eating it. Why would we abolish fast food for causing health problems when, and this is the key part, it doesn't cause any health problems against anyone's will? We respect the freedom of people to partake in fast food because the action doesn't violate any liberties. My opponent's comparison to buildings only harms her own argument. As I argued earlier, property rights and liberty do not extend so far as to allow people to build faulty cars or buildings, no matter how badly they want to. Con simply names an example of freedom compromised for greater, more vital freedoms.

I repeat: small freedoms must be compromised for greater, more vital freedoms. To do the *opposite* would be to disrespect our values of freedom. And that is what my opponent proposes: to value the privileges of the few over the freedoms of the many.

"In America, we are built on the promise of personal rights. Our main objective is liberty, isn't it?" If we wish to fulfill the promise of personal rights, the most vital rights for the largest amount of people should be protected first.

"What Yvette is proposing not only violates personal rights but also property rights." If by violate you mean restrict, yes. But only to the point that a building code or a law against punching someone could be considered a violation of rights. At best, they are light in weight on the scale of rights.

"How about third-hand smoke? From the link that Yvette has provided, it theorizes that third-hand smoke is harmful for babies and toddlers but not for the rest of society." The story itself, as opposed to the title, shows it is not just a guess:

"Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs...TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco."

And, of course, that smoking can continue to harm small children and infants is hardly the small problem my opponent makes it sound. We should be alarmed that minors are being exposed to and harmed by smoking even when it occurs nowhere near them. This only shows that simply sectioning off areas for smokers does not protect the rights of children to their health is not enough. I do not propose we storm into anyone's house. In fact, imagine this acceptable scenario: in addition to preventing new smokers, the government either encourages or requires smoking to occur in "smoke clubs", so long as they are not parents or children's workers.

Re: Education. My opponent proposes an education campaign. While this could be a great idea, I ask her to make a convincing case that an education campaign on third-hand smoke would be effective, especially on addicts.

"When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law..." This is arguing that something should not ever be illegal because it is not currently illegal.

Re: Malicious intent. While the punishments for stabbing someone should certainly be worse than the punishments for breathing smoke into someone's face, intent has no impact on how much another's rights are violated. The point is prevention of harm, not punishment of wrongdoing. Stabbing a person will harm them regardless of intent, and should be prevented regardless of intent. Does a police officer, seeing a stabbing about to occur, check to make sure the stabber doesn't mean to hurt anyone before he stops it? And if the stabber's intents aren't malicious, should he allow it to occur?

CONCLUSION
My opponent does not address key parts of my proposal, makes a series of inaccurate representations, and I feel weighs minor rights of minorities more heavily than major rights of majorities. Finally, I contend that simply because something only has a serious effect on infants and toddlers doesn't make it less of a concern.

SOURCES
1. http://www.aardvarc.org...
annhasle

Con

I thank my opponent for her timely response and apologize for my late second post. In this response, I will point out my opponent's error in judgement and understanding of my position.

=>Con is mistaken, my proposals not simply about "protecting the weak and innocent". I'm not sure I ever mentioned "weak", although children and infants are defenseless. The entire point of my proposal is for the government to protect the right of it's citizens to choose a healthier life, and to protect their right to life itself."

The government is entitled to protecting the right's of citizens, which is why I have put forward the idea for a moderate ban. Through this, I will show how we can phase out tobacco users, protect the innocent and protect everyone's rights.

=>Again, when put this way, things are skewed. This is not a matter of purity vs. liberty. It is a case of rights to health & life of the majority AND the defenseless vs. minor property and personal rights of the minority. Even more simply put, it is vital liberty rights of the majority and defenseless vs. minor liberty rights of the minority. We are not just balancing minority and majority but the weight of these specific small liberties must also be balanced. Which is the greater affront to one's liberty, the theft of one's health, or the loss of a cigarette? If we are honest with ourselves, it is the former."

How is balance skewed? Regardless of the "weight", one's rights are extremely important, and it is the government's job to protect them. 20.6% of adult Americans smoke cigarettes, and 19.5% of High School students smoke cigarettes [1]. Although this is the minority, they still deserve to have their rights represented, and with respect. Would you be willing to look an adult or teenager in the face and say, "Look, you're smoking so your rights, in this case, are less than mine. I'm the victim."

=>"My opponent is true that perspective is important. However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents deaths, and only ones attributed to second-hand smoke (not third-hand smoke). Furthermore, let's compare smoking to something a little more similar. If my opponent's argument were to be applied to, say, domestic violence, which caused only 31,000 deaths in twenty years, then domestic violence should be fine in private households. [1] That second-hand smoke causes less death than other problems is irrelevant. It's an injustice either way."

"However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents death.." is an absurd statement. First of all, how can something be harmless when it causes deaths? And if smoking only causes deaths, which it invariably does, how is that not enough cause to change something? Even without listing other deformities and diseases secondhand smoke causes, it is still presented as dangerous within my post and to say otherwise is a lie. What I had done was to show that there are other causes of deaths that could easily be banned, but have not been. Also, comparing secondhand smoke to domestic violence is, once again, unfair. You seem to forget the importance of intent. If I were purposely blowing smoke in the face of my spouse or child, this is abuse and could be persecuted. If I am smoking within my house while watching TV and my kid walks through, I am not trying to kill my offspring. I am smoking... for the purpose of smoking. There's no intent to hurt, so why treat it like I'm committing a heinous crime?

=>"My opponent's comparison makes little sense. Smoking a cigarette is similar to eating fast food, true, but eating fast food does not harm anyone but the person eating it. Why would we abolish fast food for causing health problems when, and this is the key part, it doesn't cause any health problems against anyone's will?." Eating fast food actually can hurt others and here's how. I'm hungry and decide to take my family out to McDonald's. Now I'm contributing to my child's chance of obesity while also showing unhealthy eating habits. Parents are currently being prosecuted for life threatening negligent behavior, so my comparison still stands [2]. In regards to the automobile industry comparison, no objection was made so I assume it still stands.

=>"I repeat: small freedoms must be compromised for greater, more vital freedoms. To do the *opposite* would be to disrespect our values of freedom. And that is what my opponent proposes: to value the privileges of the few over the freedoms of the many."

I believe that Thomas Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." It's not that I value the majority any less, I just happen to disagree that because there are more people on your side, that you are automatically correct. Your rights shouldn't "weigh" any more or less than a smoker.

=>"I do not propose we storm into anyone's house. In fact, imagine this acceptable scenario: in addition to preventing new smokers, the government either encourages or requires smoking to occur in "smoke clubs", so long as they are not parents or children's workers."

Is that not what I proposed with "Smoking areas" that are furnished by the government?

=>"My opponent proposes an education campaign. While this could be a great idea, I ask her to make a convincing case that an education campaign on third-hand smoke would be effective, especially on addicts."

What is the scariest thought for a mother? That her child can be hurt by her. And if businesses were to hear that third-hand smoke harms people, which will open them to lawsuits by angry costumers, than they are sure to impose new restrictions as well. 68.6% of businesses already have smoke-free policies [1], and I intend to add onto that by spreading the knowledge and scaring the other 31.4%.

=>"When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law..." This is arguing that something should not ever be illegal because it is not currently illegal."

I am not! Otherwise I wouldn't be arguing for a ban at all! I'm merely showing that your comparison is unfair since you are comparing an illegal action to a (currently) legal one. Have I ever said that smoking should be completely legal? No, because I'm trying to restrict it as well!

=>"Does a police officer, seeing a stabbing about to occur, check to make sure the stabber doesn't mean to hurt anyone before he stops it? And if the stabber's intents aren't malicious, should he allow it to occur?"

Once again, you are purposely saying absurd statements to discredit my stance. By protocol, the police officer should arrest him and take him to the local precinct. He is not responsible for finding intent, only the detectives and lawyers are, so your scenario will not happen and is negated.

Conclusion:
My opponent has disregarded my position in favor of discrediting me with unfair accusations and comparisons. Also, no rights should ever outweigh another simply because they are the majority's. I believe that would fall under the phrase, "The Tyranny of the Majority". Also, because I stated it hurts only babies and infants does not make it any less of a concern. In your earlier post, you had implied that anyone could be hurt by third-hand smoke, and I simply discredited that notion.

We must stop smoking through constant education and more restrictions and continued tax on packs of cigarettes. We have to limit second-hand smoke with designated smoking areas. And we should limit third-hand smoke through education and worker restrictions.

Sources:
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...
http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
I thought both sides presented great arguments -- so much so that I have to conclude a draw. I may, perhaps, re-evaluate it at a later time. But as of now, I see a deadlock.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Poop. I really did that badly?
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
This debate was very nearly a tie. It was an extremely good debate. I'm very uncertain about who won this but I'm leaning slightly toward Con so I'll vote to put some points on the board.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
I'm going to be gone for two weeks so I won't know how this ends... :/
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Omg, I hate you all.

Except for Anne...

lol.

Yea, we shouldn't vote. Usually I don't vote unless I feel very very sure about who won a particular voting category (like the GodSands debate).
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
lol, tie votes...
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
However, the effects won't be seen until later.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I feel like doing something dastardly and mean to you guys on purpose.
;D
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
I think you should vote for each other. Anyway I'll vote later, too lazy to read it all now
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
Oh, Yvette, I think we shouldn't be allowed to vote. Is that okay with you?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
YvetteannhasleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
YvetteannhasleTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
YvetteannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
YvetteannhasleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
YvetteannhasleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
YvetteannhasleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by erbelgerbels 6 years ago
erbelgerbels
YvetteannhasleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00