The Instigator
nongambler48
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
cathaystewie
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

can smoking be justified in the 21st century?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 78481
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

nongambler48

Con

can smoking be justified
when it ruins health and destroys lives,
spoils the environment,
increases the cost of health care every time people need treatment due to their habit of smoking?
I say that smoking should have been banned once it became clear that it does not benefit those who smoke.
and I believe that the governments have betrayed us by allowing the cigarette business to join together with the advertising business
so they they could entice us to start smoking
even though they knew that it ruins health and causes death from lung and Throat cancer.
I also believe that the governments have mislead us by using the lie that they believe in freedom and therefore if people chose to smoke they are within their rights to do so.
but do people "chose to get lung and Throat cancer"?
would you pay money in order to get a fatal disease in return?
or pay money for the means to ruin your health?
that is the reality of smoking
you pay for the means to destroy your own health.
but the governments and advertising business distorted the reality
and replaced it with a lie
which made smoking look cool.
think back to the many movie made by Humphrey Bogart
in his raincoat
hat and cigarette.
that image is still viewed as an example of being cool.
but is it?
if smoking puts you at risk of getting lung or throat cancer
can smoking still be viewed as a good or cool habit?
I say that we have been betrayed by the people in authority
who misuse their authority by allowing businesses to lure us into taking up bad habits.
and then those businesses drain us of our money
and the government takes its share in Tax Revenue
and as the years go by the relative good health we have is drained away and replaced by bad health.
doesn't make any sense to smoke.
why pay to hurt yourself?
anyway that's my view on smoking.
your view may differ.
please feel free to put your view across.
thanks.
cathaystewie

Pro

I cannot post arguments in this round as I have insufficient time to do so. Please excuse my time organisation. I will be delivering my points and rebuttals in the coming rounds. CON, feel free to proceed with your arguments in Round 2. Apologies.
Debate Round No. 1
nongambler48

Con

nongambler48 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Pro

CON has not put forward any new arguments in the second round, thus I will be addressing only those from the first round. Since the BOP is not shared, I will only be attacking my opponent's points.

CON's entire argument can be summed up into two points:

1. It is unjustified because people know of the harms of smoking in the 21st century
2. Governments and cigarette companies distort the detrimental nature of smoking

It is at this point that I will take the liberty of laying down the boundaries as to what is 'justified', seeing that CON has not done so. An act is generally justified when the practical benefits that something brings outweigh the drawbacks. This is not to say that smoking does more good than harm, because I hereby acknowledge that the health, environmental and humanitarian negative repercussions are in no way inferior to that of any economic and personal benefits that smoking can bring. Rather, I am arguing that banning smoking is an act that will do more harm than good, ergo the justified nature of 'smoking' in the broader sense. This complies with CON's model of outlawing smoking on the grounds of its impermissibility when he/she says "I say that smoking should have been banned once it became clear that it does not benefit those who smoke" (which, in itself, is an erroneous statement).

Now to address CON's first point. It is indeed true that smoking was considered to be nothing more than a recreational time-killer that was in no way synonymous to things like 'lung cancer' and 'yellow teeth' prior to the turn of the century. But one must remember that a sizable proportion, if not the vast majority, of today's smokers became hooked onto their cigarettes during such a time when the health detriments of smoking were unknown. It is unrealistic and illogical to expect these people to drop their cigarettes the minute smoking was discovered to be a major threat to health, and call all of those who fail to do so 'unjustified', for the simple reason that smoking is psychologically and biologically addictive. Plus, given that CON's criteria on justifiability is based on knowledge of the health detriments of smoking when one decides to start smoking, these people can essentially be exempted from the discussion. To address the smokers who have decided to take up smoking wihilst aware of the fact that smoking is harmful, CON must remember that smoking is a matter of personal choice and that there are plenty of behaviours out there which are legal, socially acceptable, and practiced on a routine basis that are also harmful to the human body. The uncurbed consumption of alcohol is one such example, and arguably, a sedentary lifestyle to some extent [1]. CON needs to either single out smoking, rule all of these behaviours as unjustified, or bridge the gap between 'unhealthy' and 'unjustified'.

Let's proceed to deal with CON's second point. CON couples the role of the government with the notion that smoking is unhealthy in the hopes to render the government an immoral institution for its deceptive efforts that go against its duty of protecting the public. There is no evidence to support this claim, and even if we assume it to be true, we do not see how this is relevant to the motion at hand. The government may be wrong in misleading the public about the true dangers of smoking, but this is unjustified on part of the government, not smoking itself. The government is entirely capable, whether in the 21st century or not, of dissuading the public from doing something that is actually beneficial for them on balance. Once again, CON needs to correlate the idea of 'government wrongdoing' and 'unjustified behaviour' for this point to stand and the negate the motion.

If CON responds, I will be posting an argument against CON's resolution of banning smoking in the sense that it does more harm than good. Thank you.

SOURCES USED

[1] http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org...
Debate Round No. 2
nongambler48

Con

nongambler48 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Pro

cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
nongambler48

Con

nongambler48 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Pro

cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nongambler48

Con

nongambler48 forfeited this round.
cathaystewie

Pro

cathaystewie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.