The Instigator
castilloj12
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Toxic Smoke

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,002 times Debate No: 20557
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

castilloj12

Con

Cigarettes should be banned!
thett3

Pro

I accept, and will argue that Cigarettes should not be banned. I now await my opponent to present her case.
Debate Round No. 1
castilloj12

Con

I feel there is no purpose for these cancer sticks at all! They only cause death to the people using them and to the people around them . 443,000 deaths are caused annually including second hand smoke.
thett3

Pro

Thanks Con for a very quick response. I'll present my own case (although the 3K char. limit is tough), and then refute my opponents statements.

Observation: I need not prove that Cigarettes are good, rather that they ought not be banned. I in fact agree whole heartedly that they are bad, but by what grounds does that warrant legal prohibitation? The BOP is all on my opponent, not only for advocating a change in the Status Quo, but for making the intial claim that Cigarettes ought to be banned.

I will offer two contentions, one based off of a moral perspective, and the other a practical one.

I. Bans on Cigarettes are an over-reach of Governmental power

I contend that the fundamental purpose of Governments is to defend the rights of their citizens. Thus we must look to what rights are, and what the government needs to do to protect them. In the case of substance abuse, bans are morally wrong because an individual is the sole owner of their own body, and thus the individual has the right to consume whatever they wish provided that they are not acting aggressively against others to consume said substances. Perhaps a case for the just prohibition of mind altering substances could be made because those reduce an individuals ability to rationalize, thus leading to irrational decisions that could harm others. In the case of Cigarettes, however, this is prima facie untrue; while Cigarettes may have certain minimal mind-altering characteristics, there has never been a death linked specifically to those characteristics. From this it follows that governmental restrictions on Cigarettes are a violation of personal autonomy, and therefore systematically unjust. The government respecting rights outweighs all other factors, because governments that throw away the rights of their citizens become oppressive and violate even more rights.

II. A ban on Cigarettes would be impractical

The U.S. department of Agriculture[1] estimates the total value of Tabacco farms in the United States to be $2,382,255,000. Tabacco prohibition takes all of this value and destroys it, and economically displaces these people. Further, there is absolutely no reason to beleive that Tabacco prohibition will have any affect--refer to the 1920's era prohibition or our currently failling Drug War to support this.

More on this later (low on characters), I will now refute what my opponent has stated.

My opponents argument consists of unsourced statistics and emotional appeals. You should look to my contention two, because there is no reason to believee that banning tabacco products will make any significant difference. I offer a turn on this argument: banning leads to adulterated substances which are significantly more dangerous than regulated substances such as cigarettes according to Drugscope[2].

Thus you negate.

1. http://www.ers.usda.gov...
2. http://www.drugscope.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
castilloj12

Con

I will agree with you on the fact that my argument is based on mainly my emotional appeals and also that it is one's own choice to do whatever they please with their own bodies. BUT someone elese shouldnt have to suffer from the health isses casused by cigartte smoke in the air and children shouldnt have to live and die with breathing diffivulites. Yes the goverment make tons of tax money from the sale of cigaretts I will not argue with this. It seems to me they are more concered with making money than the health of thier own people.
thett3

Pro

This round will be short and concise.

Extend Contention I that governments do not have the moral authority to regulate cigarettes, and extend the impact that governmental over reach of power leads to tyranny and outweighs all other impacts. My opponent has conceded to this in her round Three; ballot goes to me by default. Her only response to my economy argument is: "It seems to me they are more concered with making money than the health of thier own people.", but my CII was clearly a supplementary point to the initial morality of CI. No response was made to the argument that tabacco prohibition would be as ineffective as the alcohol and drug prohibition of the past. Again, I win automatically based off this, it makes her disadvantages non unique.

Her disadvantages are not really there anyway. She just asserts a lot, for instance"children shouldnt have to live and die with breathing diffivulites. " but she's never given a specific link between adults smoking cigarettes and this impact, any actual evidence or statistics, nor has she weighed it. Prefer my government over-reach impact.

The winner of this debate is excessively clear.
Debate Round No. 3
castilloj12

Con

castilloj12 forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

My opponent disappeared into a cloud of toxic smoke.
Debate Round No. 4
castilloj12

Con

castilloj12 forfeited this round.
thett3

Pro

Forfeit= I win.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
castilloj12thett3Tied
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 F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
castilloj12thett3Tied
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.