The Instigator
Kanishk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Whether banning smoking is a good idea or not.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,303 times Debate No: 19159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Kanishk

Pro

You make your argument and I will respond.
jm_notguilty

Con



Thank you for instigating.

As CON, I’ll be arguing that banning/prohibiting the smoking (of tobacco) would be a bad idea while my opponent (PRO) argues that it would be a good idea. But since my opponent granted me power to make the first arguments, let’s begin.

But, I’d like to remind everyone that in order to vote fully for the instigator, my opponent must prove that the good ideas and upsides of smoking ban somewhat outweigh or override the bad disadvantages.

Case:

Banning it would be a breach of the right to choose

There are different activities that can be dangerous (even more dangerous than smoking), like drag racing, rock climbing, eating non-stop and not working out, but they’re legal, why? Because the people have the right to choose on what they have to do with their lives, what’s the difference of this and smoking? Do we really want to invade this personal freedom?

Banning it would be far-fetched

Smoking can let the person feel relaxed in a temporary time, so this might be an advantage when someone is over-stressed, like if someone is too depressed with their work, why do we need to ban this activity when it can help the worker do his job more nicely.

Next, I’d have to jump to conclusions, but I sense that PRO will argue that smoking is unhealthy, addictive and harmful, therefore, it should be banned, my response, it would be unreasonable, untenable and frivolous. Why? Because if we prohibit these things just because it’s harmful then we also need to prohibit the ones I mentioned above (rock climbing, etc.) and probably almost anything that can be considered harmful.

Banning it would be bad for business

Surely, if we ban cigars, it would affect the business of society, bars, clubs and restaurants that allow smoking would lose customers and they wouldn’t sell cigarettes which would affect their sales, they would earn less money and eventually close, affecting people’s jobs and possibly the economy. The government would also lose tax revenue from the sale of these tobaccos, which can affect the income for national healthcare. {1}

Banning it would be unnecessary

Not to mention it would be unfeasible, unachievable, unattainable and unenforceable

Cigars are everywhere, sure, let’s ban it, but are we that sure that we can keep the whole society smoke-free? There are people who smoke in their homes and apartments, which affect neighbours, kids, etc. Nothing will really change here. If we ban this, it’s like giving people the power to smoke it in their privacy of their own home with their kids.

Banning it would probably raise crime

Of course, if we ban this, people will go out and steal cigars, and smoke nevertheless, we would need more police force, where would we put the offenders when jails are overfilled?

Some solutions to solve the ‘second hand smoking’ problem

Now, you might argue that we should ban because it’s unhealthy, harmful, addictive and bad? Again, that’s unreasonable, see my above arguments.

Plain and simple, if you hate the smoke, leave, there are lots of places to go where smoking is not allowed, mostly in a private air-conditioned place. If you want to avoid the harms it causes, don’t join in or just sit there and breathe the smoke, leave ASAP.

So, in conclusion, with the arguments I’ve presented, a smoking ban is really unnecessary and unenforceable, it would be a bad idea and be a disadvantage to society and economy.

I’m quite not done with this, so I’ll just strengthen them in the next round.

References:

{1} http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 1
Kanishk

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge my worthy opponent.

As you said "Banning it would be a breach of the right to choose". Yes it might be true but the smokers mainly smoke on the roads and not inside their houses and so other people get exposed to the smoke and become passive smokers whether they are in favor of this or not. I believe this is what would be a breach of the right to choose. As you said there are many other activities as harmful as this or even more but they can only cause harm to the person engaged in these, not the by passers. For example, if a person does not workout, he is the one who will not be healthy, it will not effect the others any circumstances.

You also mentioned that it would be bad for business. Yes banning it will be bad for business, but some things have to be banned as they are unhealthy to the general population. The smoke released from these cigarettes is Carcinogenic. This is a proved fact, and the government can not always think about business the government cared only about money, why did it then ban cocaine and other drugs, it should have legalized it one one condition, that all the payments are to me made by Cheque, but no. It isn't always about the money, sometimes you also have to think for others.

By banning smoking we mean that the government will stop any business related t it, that includes the factories where it is made, the shops where it is sold, everything. So that means that there will be no Cigars or cigarettes remaining, so the addicts will not be able to smoke it. Sure there will be a few thousands of them in circulation even after the demand, but eventually they will be finished. If there are no Cigars or Cigarettes, there would be no increase in the crime rate because there will be nothing to steel

My opponent also mentioned that it helps a person relax, yes it does, the fact is undeniable but there are other safe ways to relax which do not cause harm to anybody including themselves.

BEST OF LUCK MY WORTHY OPPONENT.
jm_notguilty

Con


Thank you for responding.


DEFENSE


Freedom of Choice


PRO counters with his argument saying that the freedom of choice of passive smokers are being violated because the smokers are smoking in public areas, again, if they’re disturbed by this, they can just leave quickly, or go to a more private area, a mall, a café, restaurant or some air-conditioned place where smoking is prohibited, they’re freedom of choice is in no way being violated here. Second-hand smokers choose to breathe the smoke, why not hold your breath for a few seconds while getting out of that smoky place. My opponent also compares smoking to workout, yes, it might not affect others since this is a shallow and ludicrous comparison, but let’s compare it to fast food, at least cigarettes have a label on its pack that warns the public on smoking can cause health problems, but when we see fast food ads, we don’t see any warnings about their effects on obesity and food poisoning {1}.


Hurts Business/Economy


PRO argues that a total ban must be considered since it is unhealthy and argues that shutting down tobacco companies would benefit us. Again, if we did a total ban and abolish said companies, we need to also abolish fast food, which of course, is unreasonable and unfeasible, the same goes with cigars.


Also, my argument that when we abolish businesses that are linked to tobacco still stand, as I said, we would be affecting millions of people, people with jobs, people who need to earn money to provide for their family. This is bad for the economy, this may cause various protests and rallies, and if people are jobless, their children hungry, it would be a nightmare.


Oh, and my opponent’s rebuttal here is more somewhat more of like a rant on the governments’ role to care about people’s health, he really doesn’t have a decent rebuttal here.


Moving on, PRO also states that banning it would stop the problem since cigars will eventually vanish from Earth. My opponent obviously doesn’t know how cigars are done. Tobaccos come from anagricultural product made from the leaves of plants in the genus/herbs of what’s called Nicotiana, tobaccos are then harvested and produced in many, many ways, and then we go to cigars, which is known to be just a small roll of finely cut tobacco leaves wrapped in thin paper. {2}{3}{4}


Marijuana and other drugs are illegal and banned in most countries but there are cases being reported every day, you think cigars won’t? Crime rates will surely raise, considering the US’ and some countries crime rates on drugs (which tobaccos are considered a drug).


Yes, cigars can help people relax, but people have the right to relax on any method they choose, whether dangerous or not.


Now, my opponent obviously hasn’t fulfilled is burden of proof yet and failed to provide decent arguments and references as to why smoking would be a good idea.


Again, I’d like to remind everyone that in order to vote for the instigator, he must show that the advantages of fully banning smoking and abolishing the tobacco industry and business linked to tobacco outweigh the disadvantages.


For now, please extend my previous arguments.


I await PRO’s response.


REFERENCES


{1} http://en.wikipedia.org...


{2} http://en.wikipedia.org...


{3} http://en.wikipedia.org...


{4} http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
Kanishk

Pro

First of all I would like to tell you that this round is the last round and is for acceptance only. This is because I lost an argument in round 1 when when the debate started.

Well should why the passive smokers they go to another place, and firstly people do to not roam around on the roads for no rhyme or reason, they must be doing this for a reason and I am not sure that, it can be fulfilled in a place like a mall or a cafe.

When the owners of the cigarette brands advertise, they do not mention all the harmful effects, it is the same with fast food advertisements. On the cigarette packets in the tiniest UNREADABLE form is written " Smoking Kills". It is somewhat the same with the fast food boxes, except it is usually written " Fast food kills ". You can check on the packets or look it up on the internet.

CON is being unreasonable and saying that we should ban fast food also, but fast food does not harm the passers under any circumstances. SMOKING DOES.

Con is saying that it would effect people because they would loose their jobs, this is true, but would the governments like their countries being filled with smokers or would they prefer that a small number of people compared to the population be fired. Again there is a great chance that they might get a job somewhere else, or if not, they can request the government to place them elsewhere.

WHETHER I HAVE A DECENT REBUTTAL OR NO IS NOT YOUR DECISION.

Yes the Cigars can be made easily but in a few decades there will be a ZERO CRIME RATE. By that time Cigars WILL SURELY VANISH. But for this to take place, the step of banning smoking has to be taken now.

Killing makes contract killers relaxed, why doesn't the government make that legal too.

You are really bad at typing because I cannot make anything out in the second last paragraph, so next time you are in a debate, please type something THAT MAKES SENSE. Below is a copy. " Good " was in Italics.

"Now, my opponent obviously hasn't fulfilled is burden of proof yet and failed to provide decent arguments and references as to why smoking would be a good idea."
jm_notguilty

Con

Thanks for the response.

Rebuttal/Defense

I’ll begin by addressing my opponent’s counters. I’ll quote then respond.

"First of all I would like to tell you that this round is the last round and is for acceptance only. This is because I lost an argument in round 1 when when the debate started.”

It’s too late to make that claim, since you waived your right as an instigator to type the rules/outline of this debate. And you lost an argument? How? That’s preposterous.

"Well should why the passive smokers they go to another place, and firstly people do to not roam around on the roads for no rhyme or reason, they must be doing this for a reason and I am not sure that, it can be fulfilled in a place like a mall or a cafe.”

I don’t quite understand my opponent’s point here, but I’d like to repeat, we live in a free society where everyone has a right to choose, if you want to smoke, then smoke, if you don’t, then don’t and leave or implement a restaurant or whatever and ban smoking, etc.

When the owners of the cigarette brands advertise, they do not mention all the harmful effects, it is the same with fast food advertisements. On the cigarette packets in the tiniest UNREADABLE form is written " Smoking Kills". It is somewhat the same with the fast food boxes, except it is usually written " Fast food kills ". You can check on the packets or look it up on the internet.”

Actually, cigarette brands do advertise with warnings {1}. Oh, and you say it’s unreadable? And you’re saying that fast food ads are the same? Since my opponent failed to provide evidence with it, it may be considered null and void, but in the spirit of fairness, I’d like the readers to please examine the following images.


It’s crystal clear, folks, the warning signs are as readable as it can be, now compare it to a typical fast food packaging? See any warnings on obesity/poisoning? I don’t.

“CON is being unreasonable and saying that we should ban fast food also, but fast food does not harm the passers under any circumstances. SMOKING DOES.”

I’m not being unreasonable here, and fast foods, in a way, via their advertising, are luring or tempting potential fast food customers to buy their products knowing it has some health issues.

“Con is saying that it would effect people because they would loose their jobs, this is true, but would the governments like their countries being filled with smokers or would they prefer that a small number of people compared to the population be fired. Again there is a great chance that they might get a job somewhere else, or if not, they can request the government to place them elsewhere.”

Most countries have people that smoke, in fact, in the US, an average adult smokes over 1000 cigars a year, and over 20% of adults smoke, ratings from which it decreased, I don’t see the government complaining. And no, I assume that the government would not want a less smokers-more jobless people society. And what ‘great chance’ of getting a job? And I don’t think that you can go to a government official and demand for a job at the spot. It’s ridiculous.

“WHETHER I HAVE A DECENT REBUTTAL OR NO IS NOT YOUR DECISION.”

Actually, since you waived your instigator right to state the rules, I have an obligation to clarify both positions, or else this debate would be pointless.

“Yes the Cigars can be made easily but in a few decades there will be a ZERO CRIME RATE. By that time Cigars WILL SURELY VANISH. But for this to take place, the step of banning smoking has to be taken now.”

Again, I’ve shown my opponent how cigars are made, they come from leaves of a genus herb. There is no such thing as ‘Zero Crime Rate’, most recreational drugs are illegal, but crime rates are never zero and users are never zero {3}. What more on cigars, they won’t ever vanish, and I highly doubt that people won’t smoke if we enforce such untenable law.


“Killing makes contract killers relaxed, why doesn't the government make that legal too.”

Misleading and invalid, seriously.

So, ladies and gents, in conclusion, my arguments supporting the bad ideas of banning cigars are:

- Violates Freedom of Choice

Society has no right to dictate on what people should do with their bodies, even if it’s bad for them or not.

- Unfeasibility

It would be unenforceable if we ban cigars, since nothing would seriously change, cigars, like recreational drugs can come from anywhere, and once a smoker gets them, who knows where would they be smoking, perhaps in the privacy of their own home, I doubt the cops would arrest them that fast. It’s unreasonable.

- Probability of Crime Rates increasing

It’s like doubling the arrest rates of other drug offenses.

- Economical Disadvantages

Again, people will lose jobs to provide for their family, if we ban smoking, the taxation of it would vanish, losing millions.

- Unreasonableness

It’s untenable, apart from the arguments above, there are already some places where smoking is banned, which is good, but banning it in the public streets? Unreasonable.

While my opponent’s arguments are:

- Cigars are unhealthy to the smoker and other people.

I’ve rebutted this already, and triumphantly rebutted his failed refutations on my arguments, to which he did a noble but futile effort. I’ve satisfied my BOP while my opponent didn’t, but overall, my arguments surely outweigh his, so also please review and extend all my premises.

It was a pleasure debating with you, PRO. I hope we debate again soon.

Voters, I urge you to vote CON.

Reference:

{1} http://goo.gl...

{2} http://goo.gl...

{3} http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
But unfortunately, PRO din't make that argument.
Posted by poorenglishspeaker 5 years ago
poorenglishspeaker
The second-hand somoke from smokers really affects other health or feeling.
If smoking is banned,
revenue will decrease,
medical expenses such as pneumonia will decrease.
However,I don't care about smokers smelling.
Posted by Yarely 5 years ago
Yarely
I think Con has more persuasive arguments
Posted by Desertice 5 years ago
Desertice
Get rid of smoking and when people don't get it ban it. yes it is right ban it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Kanishkjm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though I agree with the pro, a lot of con's initial arguments went unconested, and to the arguments pro gave the con gave some strong counter points, so I gave him arguments. pro didnt use any sources also so i gave con con sources as well. Debate could have been better though