The Instigator
pacadil
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

smokers should be allowed to die

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 17674
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

pacadil

Pro

Should Smokers be allowed to die? Please define your definition and what you think is the right thing to do.
Calvincambridge

Con

To me that means you should kill smokers for smoking thats not right
Debate Round No. 1
pacadil

Pro

If smokers to set fire to leaves and breathe in smoke, then it is their choice. There are many people who have an operation because of their addiction, continue smoking, have another operation and get reffered to a rehabilitation centre, don't put the effort in and the cycle continues. Is it fair that a person who has made a bad choice and has not tried to remedy the bad choice gets to use up tax payers' money to pay for operations that they can't afford?

You may argue that they wouldn't have thought the problems of smoking would have affected them but if they did not fore see that soon enough then it is not because of their ignorance that money and doctors' time should be wasted on them. If they make the decision to take poor care of their health, then it should be their loss not ours. Hense instead of doctors and nurses going out of their way to help these people, they should be allowed to die.
Calvincambridge

Con

You shouldent kill them because they made a bad choice. Most of the time we let people who kill somebody live. Why kill smokers
Debate Round No. 2
pacadil

Pro

The debate is not about smokers getting murdered but about how if they made the wrong decision and did not attempt to make it right before it was too late then it should be their concern not ours. i am not proactively killing them but saying that it should not be a burden on the community if they chose to inflict this fate upon themselves.

The type of problems that smokers inflict on themselves does not come from hereditary or by mere chance. In present times, it is clear what the consequences of smoking are. Adults are capable of making informed decisions about their actions hence the laws about the legal age limit to smoke. Why so much effort and resources should be spent on curing these people who have opted to smoke despite the warnings?

Although many parents quit smoking for their children, many more continue smoking and endangering the health of their children and people around them. If we do not help them, they will pay the ultimate price for their choice to smoke and one less smoker is one less person forcing the people around them to smoke passively.

By not providing health care for smokers we can also save a lot of money and resources from advertising. If we withdraw all forms of aid for the prevention of smoking, we can allow the smokers to smoke themselves to death and to save taxpayers money which is currently used to show the consequences of smoking on television, billboards, cigarette packets, buses, bus stops and many more places. By being harsh to the smokers of this generation we can send a clear message to the next generation about how if one choses to smoke, the government or health care facility won't be there for them and that they will have to pay the price for what they've done.
Calvincambridge

Con

I agree with you but I will debate your motives. But this is only for people who started smoking before it health effects were discovered. We should not do it because of money but because they had thier chance.
Debate Round No. 3
pacadil

Pro

pacadil forfeited this round.
Calvincambridge

Con

I totally agree.
Debate Round No. 4
pacadil

Pro

pacadil forfeited this round.
Calvincambridge

Con

Calvincambridge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DetectableNinja 6 years ago
DetectableNinja
I hope this isn't ad hom, but I find it interesting that Con says that allowing smokers to die because they smoke is wrong (I agree with him), but at the same time he says that gays should be punished for homosexual relations. Just a simple observation. Again, not meant to be ad hom or offensive.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
I don't think we found a cure for death yet.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
pacadilCalvincambridgeTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: "I agree with you[r argument]" - Con
Vote Placed by CD-Host 6 years ago
CD-Host
pacadilCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit vs. no argument. Wow.