The Instigator
sahaam
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

We should ban smoking in public places.

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...
DudeStop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,496 times Debate No: 43589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

sahaam

Pro

I believe that we should ban smoking in public places.

Firstly,its a bad influence on our children.Young children will see people smoking and start thinking its okay or that its "cool" to smoke.Once they think its all right,they will start smoking.

Secondly when people walk past a person that's smoking in a public place, they can smell it or breathe it in,which wont be good for there health,pets and children.So it will affect the people around them.Even smelling cigarette smoke is bad for you.

Thirdly,the cigarette smoke lingers and can get stuck in peoples clothes and shirts.

Lastly,if we ban smoking in public places then children wont be influenced to smoke and people wont be smelling and breathing in the cigarette smoke.Here is a link showing that smoke free laws are saving lives:
http://healthland.time.com...

I wish my opponent luck and if your going to use a link to show evidence please use a reliable source that means no yahoo,Wikipedia,youtube and so on.

In conclusion I say that we should ban smoking in public places.
Thank you.
DudeStop

Con

Thank you Pro.


"Firstly,its a bad influence on our children.Young children will see people smoking and start thinking its okay or that its "cool" to smoke.Once they think its all right,they will start smoking"

I'd like to point out that no rational has been given as to why children would accept smoking. Why would they choose to accept it rather than reject it? Not everything a child has seen is deemed "cool". We already have programs in schools [1] that shows how smoking is bad, and how it affects your health. Once a child is the legal age of 18, they must have the right to smoke if they want to.

We can also point out two more major flaws in his argument: The slippery slope fallacy, [2]and the fact that the number of smokers has gone down to an all new low, even though it was allowed in public places. [3] If having it in public places increases the amount of smokers, how come It has not increased, but in fact decreased?

"Secondly when people walk past a person that's smoking in a public place, they can smell it or breathe it in,which wont be good for there health,pets and children.So it will affect the people around them.Even smelling cigarette smoke is bad for you"

You are not forced to walk directly into the smoke. It is also bad to be in front of campfire smoke, but obviously we don't ban fire in public places. Why? Well we assume people would have the wisdom to step to the side a bit and not jump in front of a giant smoke cloud.

"Thirdly,the cigarette smoke lingers and can get stuck in peoples clothes and shirts"

Con has not shown a single source for this. Yet again not a shred of evidence.

"Lastly,if we ban smoking in public places then children wont be influenced to smoke and people wont be smelling and breathing in the cigarette smoke"

I think this was the same as the first few points. Nothing new here.

I await your responses to my claims.

[1]http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...

[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[3] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...


Debate Round No. 1
sahaam

Pro

sahaam forfeited this round.
DudeStop

Con

Oh well, tis a shame.
Debate Round No. 2
sahaam

Pro

sahaam forfeited this round.
DudeStop

Con

I'd suggest that the burden of proof was not yet let by PRO...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
sahaamDudeStopTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't add spacing between punctuation which was noticeable and distracting. Con easily dismantled Pro's case leading to a forfeit. Pro did not source key points while Con did.