The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
NightofTheLivingCats
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Your Choice

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 1 vote the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 679 times Debate No: 43681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

I challenge NightOfTheLivingCats to this debate, as we (unfortunately) did not get to debate it last time. He/She may choose any of the BIG ISSUES that we disagree on. I am PRO, so she/he must choose a BIG issue I am pro on.

Some ground rules:


Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: ARGUMENTS ONLY
Round 3: REBUTTALS ONLY
Round 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed.)

Rules:

Plagiarism not allowed
Forfeiture not allowed
Swearing not allowed
Spamming not allowed
Trolling not allowed
Breaking structure of debate is not allowed.
Personal attacks are not allowed.

Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points.

By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Good luck to the opposition, I look forward to a good debate.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

Smoking Ban
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

I will be arguing for a U.S smoking ban.

Thank you for accepting. It is assured that I am looking forward to this debate. I will be pro on smoking ban (a rather weak topic for me, I must admit.) Good choice on your part. I will kick this off with arguments. May I remind you that no rebuttals are allowed in the second round, only arguments, as agreed upon.


--Argument I: Deaths and Risks--

Main source: CDC (Government Website)

The first and foremost topic I will be using is the amount of deaths and injuries caused by smoking.

Many say that you can not put a price on a life, and I see that, in my eyes, as true. However, smoking takes this statement, eats it, digests it with acid and normal organs such as the small intestine, then poops it out.

--Sub-Point I: Deaths--

Smoking causes an insane amount of injuries (internal, mostly) and deaths. Studies show that 444,000 lives are taken in the U.S each year just from smoking (1). This counts for about 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S alone (1). This is more than AIDS, (non-smoking) car accidents, and drinking COMBINED.

The deaths of these people are not all smokers. A counted 9,000 deaths by second hand smoke occurred in the U.S in 2007-08 (2), and 300,000 new cases of pneumonia in infants occurred.. This is just in the U.S, not even worldwide.

--Sub-point II: Cancer--

Next, you know the whole cancer craze we are struggling to find a cure for? Smoking is much to blame. Smoking is the leading cause of all cancer, as well as the leading cause for cancerous death. That means, if a smoking ban was enforced, cancer rates would drop significantly, thus lowering deaths and suffering throughout the United States.

To further prove my points, CANCER sites are putting up the bad effects of smoking in an attempt to stop (or decrease) the amount of cancer in our society today (3).

If cancer is caused by smoking, as shown, this means that a number of animals tested on becomes unnecessary. We are constantly trying to find a cure for cancer by testing on animals and experimenting. If smoking goes down, the number of animals tested on would experience a little drop, and scientists won't be as pressured to find the "holy grail" of modern medicine.


--Sub-Point III: External Injuries--

An unheard part of smoking is the external injures one might suffer. While drinking is clearly a bigger influence on driving, smoking comes in close behind or ahead in other injuries.

Studies show that smokers, on average, are 2.5x more likely to suffer injuries at work, 1.5x more likely to suffer injuries while driving, and 2x more likely to suffer any unintentional external injury at all (4).

Aside from the smokers, other injuries (still external) could happen to non-smokers. A main concern is fires starting in forests, parks, even houses. In fact, the leading cause of house fires are caused by cigarettes (5). More people die in fires caused by smoking than any other cause of a fire.

In conclusion of this argument, I have shown that if a ban is put into effect:

-Cancer rates will drop significantly
-Deaths will drop significantly
-Dangerous house fires will drop significantly
-Risks of second hand smoke will drop significantly
-Infants will be safer, as well as children and elderly
-Workplaces will be safer, roads will be safer, and people would be safer overall
-Animal testing will be (slightly) reduced

I conclude this set of arguments and will now proceed to the second part of my arguments.

--Argument II: Litter--

My second point as to why smoking should be banned is how smoking increases litter and increases both contamination and chances of contamination.

Litter. We all know about it and how it pollutes, yet we all still do it. Some smokers do not litter, but many of them do. And even a small population of cigarette litter can mean a lot of harm.

Cigarette litter is small, many thing, but is actually HUGE. Litter accounts for 1/3 of ALL litter in the U.S (6). In addition to that, they are also accounting for 28% of the litter washing up on the beaches around the world. Don't believe me? Well, to put this into account, there are two billion cigarette butts being flicked every single day (7). That's about 1.7 billion pounds of cigarette butt litter. The San Francisco area spent $11 million just cleaning it up alone (also 6).

Cigarette litter, is not biodegradable like many people think (8). This means they do not sink into the environment and are a constant threat to animals. 801 dogs (non-wildlife) in a study consumed cigarette butts from their owner (9). Furthermore, cigarettes kill 1 million birds and 100,000 animals per year (10). So not only does cigarette litter pose a threat to humans, but also to animals too.

Enough with that. Now let's see what the cigarette butt, when littered, actually does. What it does (to say shortly) is release toxic containment's into the soil, water, and dirt of our Earth (11). This can make water unsafe to drink and plants unable to grow.

In conclusion of this argument, I have shown that a smoking ban will:

-Decrease wildlife deaths
-Decrease money spent on litter
-Decrease contamination throughout U.S
-Decrease pet consumption
-SIGNIFICANTLY decrease litter
-Water and plants would be safer

I wrap up this argument and my arguments overall.

Thank you for reading. I hand this debate over to the side of con and wish him the best of luck.

(1) http://www.cdc.gov...
(2) http://www.cdc.gov...
(3) http://www.cancer.org...
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(5) http://www.esfrs.org...
(6) http://www.nytimes.com...
(7) http://whyquit.com...
(8) http://www.no-smoke.org...
(9) http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...
(10) http://intraweb.stockton.edu...
(11) http://www.longwood.edu...

NightofTheLivingCats

Con

I am wondering whether or not Pro supports total prohibition on smoking or whatever, but, I will point out that such a ban is simply not feasible.

Also, Pro is taking the affirmative stance, so he has the BoP.


Thank you.
----------------------

Argument 1

Such a thing was tried before.


That is, Alcohol Prohibition. Of course, people like their smokes and beer. They didn't give up alcohol. Instead what happened is that organized crime rose, to meet demand. Now, the government at the time could not stamp out the gangs that was bootlegging. What could it have done then?


But why am I telling you this? So what? I'll tell you simply, it won't work! Much like the 1920's, there will be a Black Market for smokes. Why would this be different?

--------------------------

Now, I DO have one more argument, but it is more of a rebuttal, a counterexample of sorts. So, I hope Pro allows me to rebut that he would allow other dangerous items to be bought openly like beer or, say fatty food. These cause deaths.

But I digress. I will rebut to the full of my abilities next round.
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

Thank you for a speedy response. Just to clarify, I am for a mild U.S smoking ban, which allows people to only smoke inside. If this is switching the goalposts too late in the debate, then call me a full U.S smoking ban.

The BoP is on both of us. I would not of had you do any arguments, only rebuttals, had the BoP been solely on me. Placing the BoP on me in the second round, after my arguments, is not a good move. It would've changed my arguments to a different format and to different points.

--Rebuttal 1a--

Due to only one argument being presented, there will only be one rebuttal in this round for me. However, I will try to make it lengthy to successfully satisfy the reader.

In this argument, my opponent states that a smoking ban would never work due the the Alcohol Ban of the early 1900's. However, the alcohol ban was actually more of a success than you think. A full prohibition has never FULLY worked, and never will FULLY work. However, the alcohol prohibition you are comparing this to means the smoking ban might actually be a success. Allow us to look at the facts.

Alcohol hospital (mental) dropped from 10.1 to just 4.7. The best estimates are that the alcohol consumption dropped 50%, which means very few, if any, drinked during the time (1). So yes, many of them DID give up alcohol. Organized crime rose not because of alcohol, but because America was in the midst/past a big WWI and the Great Depression. Of course crime is going to raise when you put those two events together. Violent crime stayed roughly the same through the ban.

You state the government at the time could not have stopped bootlegging. Well, yeah, they were the past government. They didn't even have TVs yet, they were dealing with a war and a Great Depression on their hands, along with other crime. Second, times have changed. The government is smarter in those situations from the past mistakes that they made. They would be able to be significantly better, if not perfect, in upholding a ban on smoking.

Next, you state that it won't work. However, I have stated that the alcohol ban worked, and therefore (now in more modern times) the government would be able to uphold the smoking ban. Even if the smoking ban does not work and a black market is open, is this really equivalent to all of the people saved? All of the birds saved? All of the mammals saved? A black market during the smoking ban would be a small consequence of saving millions.

As for the "second argument," yes, they both cause deaths, but a very less number than smoking, rendering it not a fair argument to smoking, with 88,000 deaths by drinking (2). However, drinking is not very dangerous (that much, except for an overdose) on its own, but drinking and driving attributes to most of the deaths.

This will end my arguments and rebuttals. I will sum up in the fourth round.

(1) http://www.nytimes.com...
(2) http://www.cdc.gov...
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

Thank you for a speedy response. Just to clarify, I am for a mild U.S smoking ban, which allows people to only smoke inside.

Thought so, thanks for clearing it up.




In this argument, my opponent states that a smoking ban would never work due the the Alcohol Ban of the early 1900's. However, the alcohol ban was actually more of a success than you think.

What ever benefits that gave from the Ban did not outweigh the costs.


Alcohol hospital (mental) dropped from 10.1 to just 4.7. The best estimates are that the alcohol consumption dropped 50%, which means very few, if any, drinked during the time (1). So yes, many of them DID give up alcohol. Organized crime rose not because of alcohol, but because America was in the midst/past a big WWI and the Great Depression.

There was also that market of alcohol. We will not argue Prohibition here, only how it relates to the debate. The Ban DID drop it, but, again, at a cost.

Of course crime is going to raise when you put those two events together. Violent crime stayed roughly the same through the ban.


Relevance?


You state the government at the time could not have stopped bootlegging. Well, yeah, they were the past government. They didn't even have TVs yet, they were dealing with a war and a Great Depression on their hands, along with other crime. Second, times have changed.The government is smarter in those situations from the past mistakes that they made. They would be able to be significantly better, if not perfect, in upholding a ban on smoking.

Oh. Well, this is a assertion. Here is a link[1] that states that bootlegging cigarettes is (kinda) common



Next, you state that it won't work. However, I have stated that the alcohol ban worked, and therefore (now in more modern times) the government would be able to uphold the smoking ban.

See above.

Even if the smoking ban does not work and a black market is open, is this really equivalent to all of the people saved? All of the birds saved? All of the mammals saved? A black market during the smoking ban would be a small consequence of saving millions.



Appeal to Emotion. But, a partial ban on smokes would not alleviate these issues. And you know those plastic rings that hold cans of pop and beer together in the Supermarket?[4]

Marine wildlife are effected by them.[5]


As for the "second argument," yes, they both cause deaths, but a very less number than smoking, rendering it not a fair argument to smoking, with 88,000 deaths by drinking (2). However, drinking is not very dangerous (that much, except for an overdose) on its own, but drinking and driving attributes to most of the deaths.


But Pro, THINK of the 88,000 who are dying. Think of the ~51% of 18+-year old drinkers who drink often.[2]
Some say 30% of Americans abuse alcohol.[3]


The principle remains that you just cant control people's behavior. I could say the same things, and apply it to alcohol. This is a form of Special Pleading.













Thank you, and vote NIGHTCATS.





[1]http://reason.com...


[2]http://www.cdc.gov...


[3]http://www.cbsnews.com...


[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...


[5]http://www.helpwildlife.com...
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

In conclusion, I would like to show that every single one of my round two (arguments) points were dropped. Only my rebuttals (round 3) were argued. This means my opponent concedes that if a smoking ban occurs:

-Cancer rates will drop significantly
-Deaths will drop significantly
-Dangerous house fires will drop significantly
-Risks of second hand smoke will drop significantly
-Infants will be safer, as well as children and elderly
-Workplaces will be safer, roads will be safer, and people would be safer overall
-Animal testing will be (slightly) reduced

-Decrease wildlife deaths
-Decrease money spent on litter
-Decrease contamination throughout U.S
-Decrease pet consumption
-SIGNIFICANTLY decrease litter
-Water and plants would be safer

So in conclusion, my opponent concedes to all of my arguments. Therefore, I have met my BoP.

Thank you for reading, and thanks to my opponent for the debate. Vote pro.
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

To wrap up, I stated how the ban is unfavorable to the problems he listed above. I suggest the voters read the debate and vote right. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
STALIN
dtaylor971NightofTheLivingCatsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I will have to give sources to Pro since Con used wikipedia. Also, Pro used twice as many sources as Con making his info more reliable. Pro had very good arguments about how smoking can lead to death and how smoking is bad for the environment. Con mostly refuted Pro's arguments. He presented none of his own. No arguments were presented by Con in the last round. Con didn't really refute Pro's argument on cancer well enough. Overall, Pro had much better arguments. I actually feel very bad about giving Pro so many points considering the fact that Con's win ratio is very low at the moment. However I felt that Con didn't put enough effort into his arguments.