The Instigator
induced
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

smoking cigarettes is stupid

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 6 votes the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,074 times Debate No: 30264
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

induced

Pro

My position: smoking cigarettes is a stupid choice for the average person to make.
CONs position: smoking cigarettes is a good choice for the average person.

burden of proof: im sick of people talking about burden of proof. just make your best arguments.

opening argument:
1. the average person wants to be healthy, attractive, not get frequently agitated, and not waste money.
2. smoking is known to cause people to waste money, be unhealthy, be less attractive, and be more frequently agitated.
3. smoking doesnt cause any major benefit. the benefits are a mild temporary high, and easing nerves.
4. there are better ways to be calm, or high. marijuana is a much better alternative. even things like breathing deeply, stretching, exercising, meditation, and eating right, are equally or more effective at helping oneself be calm. also, if you werent dependent on smoking, you wouldnt have as hard of a time being calm.
5. it would be stupid to go against your strong desires in order to fulfill weaker desires, especially if there are better alternative ways to allow you to fulfill both these sets of desires.

conclusion: basically, smoking is stupid. the negative results far outweigh the benefits.
Beginner

Con

As long as the person likes to smoke, the choice to smoke is a good pme Why? Let us think of this in terms of life:
A human's life is short: geologic time shows us the earth is at least a billion years old. If we were to compress this into one day, human civilization, estimated at 5000 years, has existed for less than a second (about .4 to be more accurate).
The average human life span, which is an even smaller fraction, (.004 seconds) is so insignificant in comparison that a few years, even few decades off of our lives is nothing in comparison with the eternity we're all doomed to spend underground: rotting as nutrients for other beings.

Let's look at our deaths mathematically:
(x/infinity) = 0. This is a common theorem mathematics.
Therefore:
(1 second alive/infinity years dead) = (120 years alive/infinity years dead) = 0.
There is no significant difference between living a second and living 120 years. We will all be dead in the end.
As an online meme adequately put it: You Only Live Once, or YOLO (grammatically incorrect, but who cares)
*note: See how generous I am? I gave this person a 120 year lifespan, but it makes no difference!

Samuell Becket: "one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more." [1]
~Waiting For Godot

What does this all portend?
First, I'd like to establish that the strides toward happiness are universally considered good choices through an individual stance.
Basically, for all the pointless fuss over health, attractivene, money, etc., isn't a person's happiness the only thing that truly matters? Since death is only moments away, shouldn't a person spend whatever time he/she has in his/her life doing what makes him/her happy? If smoking makes a person happy, then its a good choice.

If my opponent denies the first I have established, then what is good?
Good toward what ends?
Why is the end good?

"1. the average person wants to be healthy, attractive, not get frequently agitated, and not waste money.
2. smoking is known to cause people to waste money, be unhealthy, be less attractive, and be more frequently agitated."
Why should we seek to become or remain attractive? What is attractive? Isn't this purely subjective? 20th century cinematic productions featured much idolized smokers. 21st century culture just happens to find smoking an abominable image. It's simple opinion, therefore, this contention cannot be used as absolute reference against smoking's attractiveness (as this is probably based on my opponent's own opinions).
Why do must seek to become or remain healthy? All this extra strain and effort, at the cost of personal happiness, to give our lives a few extra geologic milliseconds.
Nice way of saying the same thing twice :P.

"3. smoking doesnt cause any major benefit. the benefits are a mild temporary high, and easing nerves. "
The benefit is temporary happiness is what my opponent is trying to say. What is wrong with happiness being temporary? Human life itself is ephemereal. Even if we were to establish happiness to last a lifetime, it'd also be temporary.
If smoking is bad, then wouldn't it logically follow that anything and everything the human being strives to do then bad?

Vitam
vivere plenissime - Live life to the fullest

If a person decides that smoking is life-

"4. there are better ways to be calm, or high. marijuana is a much better alternative. even things like breathing deeply, stretching, exercising, meditation, and eating right, are equally or more effective at helping oneself be calm. also, if you werent dependent on smoking, you wouldnt have as hard of a time being calm."
This is irrelevant. Studying two hours a day is logically more productive than studying one hour a day, but that doesn't make studying one hour a day bad.

"5. it would be stupid to go against your strong desires in order to fulfill weaker desires, especially if there are better alternative ways to allow you to fulfill both these sets of desires."
What do you mean by strong and weak desires? What conditions must a desire meet to be strong or weak? If someone REALLY wants to smoke, wouldn't that be considered a strong desire? Also, as I've established above, it doesn't matter if there are better alternatives. Studying 2, 3 or 4 hours a day is better than studying 1 hour a day, but that doesn't make studying one hour a day bad.

Since smoking makes us happy, we should all smoke. None of my opponent's complaints against smoking are compelling in comparison to the pursuit of happiness.

In short, my opponent fails to establish his resolution against smoking supercedes mine. Despite all your biases against smoking, it is, actually, a good choice, something the average person should do.


[1]http://www.imdb.com...
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Pro

1 second equals 120 years? no, but instead of getting into that premise, let me address the conclusion you drew from it by asking you, would you rather have most of your life filled with unhappiness that comes from bad health, or most of your life filled with joy from health?

"for all the pointless fuss over health, attractiveness, money, etc., isn't a person's happiness the only thing that truly matters? Since death is only moments away, shouldn't a person spend whatever time he/she has in his/her life doing what makes him/her happy?"
-peoples overall happiness is generally negatively impacted by not attaining those things.

"If smoking makes a person happy, then its a good choice."
-there are obvious alternative choices that would lead to much more happiness, so smoking is a poor choice.

"Why should we seek to become or remain attractive? What is attractive?"
-when i say smoking hurts peoples attractiveness, i mean things like their tooth color and youthful appearance, which most people dont want damaged. we would be happier if we were attractive.

"Why seek to be healthy?"
-people are happier when they are healthy. health helps happiness while cigarettes hurt health.

"What is wrong with happiness being temporary?"
-i didnt mean to imply that temporary highs are bad, that's why i listed temporary highs as a benefit.


"it doesn't matter if there are better alternatives"
if there are better alternatives, then arent they smarter choices?
what would you choose?
1. "Benefits A" plus "Benefits B"
-or-
2. "Benefits A" plus "Benefits B" plus "negative effects"


"If someone REALLY wants to smoke, wouldn't that be considered a strong desire?.....Since smoking makes us happy, we should all smoke"
-CON has not proven that we would have more overall happiness if we smoked, and seems to concede that there are obvious better alternatives. therefore, smoking is a stupid choice
Beginner

Con

I thank my opponent for a swift reply.
I will begin by addressing my opponent’s final statement:

"“CON has not proven that we would have more overall happiness if we smoked"
Smoking stimulates the brain to pleasure. Indeed, what is happiness?
Definition of happy: "characterized by a dazed irresponsible state" [1]
and
"enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment" [1]
Pleasure and contentment are the same. There is no point in denying smoking's correlation with happiness
Both factors are inherent in smoking. Definitional stance proves this assertion. This, along with the philosophical supplication of happiness, more than adequately establishes smoking as an inducer of happiness and, concurrently, a good choice for the average Joe.

"CON. . .seems to concede that there are obvious better alternatives. therefore, smoking is a stupid choice”
My opponent again fails to understand my premises. CON is not here to prove whether we are going to have MORE overall happiness by smoking, CON is here to prove that there exists, within smoking, goodness for the general populace. That there are better alternatives has completely nothing to do with the resolution. Let me give another example (if you haven’t got the study example, I’m sure this will hit home): Person A exercises 2 hours a day. Person B exercises 2 hours a day AND follows a healthy diet. Obviously, Person B’s alternative is much better than that of Person A, but this DOES NOT MAKE PERSON A’s ALTERNATIVE BAD. Both alternatives are good. Similarly, Person A’s choice, although not the best alternative, is nevertheless a good alternative, as con has already established.
This is ALL CON has to establish since the debate context his opponent sets only asks him to prove that smoking is good, NOT smoking is better.

“1 second equals 120 years? no, but instead of getting into that premise, let me address the conclusion you drew from it by asking you, would you rather have most of your life filled with unhappiness that comes from bad health, or most of your life filled with joy from health?”
The conclusion drawn from this premise (which my opponent allegedly concedes) is resolute. My opponent asks whether CON would rather have most of his life filled with unhappiness from bad health or joy from good health. This is what is generally considered a loaded question, and is based off two assumptions while completely ignoring what has already been conceded earlier.
Assumption 1: Unhealthiness brings unhappiness.
Assumption 2: Health brings joy
The ignored: Smoking brings happiness
Let me reword my opponent’s question: “Would you rather have your life filled with happiness at the cost of health or would you rather be healthy?"
This would more adequately address what CON has established (what PRO has failed to refute)
My opponent hasn’t yet proven either assumption. His question is therefore irrelevant.

“"for all the pointless fuss over health, attractiveness, money, etc., isn't a person's happiness the only thing that truly matters? Since death is only moments away, shouldn't a person spend whatever time he/she has in his/her life doing what makes him/her happy?"
-peoples overall happiness is generally negatively impacted by not attaining those things.”
My opponent does not address my implied statement which, in summary, runs thus: A person's happiness is not determined by set factors. The factors of happiness is anything a person deems as such for him/herself. Therefore, if smoking is deemed as a happiness-bringing factor, then it is, for the general mass of individuals, good.
Have you ever had trouble finding happiness in your life?
Smoking creates an extraneous but plausible method of happiness. Smokers, especially those who've garnered an addiction, are able to find that, upon smoking, they are happy. They no longer need to FIND what makes them happy, they KNOW what makes them happy. If we were to factor out religion, then what would be the purpose of life? Wouldn't it boil down to the pursuit of happiness? What, then, is wrong with smoking? Smoking is the direct causal media by which a person gains happiness
To prevent a dispute on the definition of good, I will bring up several definitions from Merriam Webster:
Good - 1. Handsome; attractive.. 2. suitable; fit.. 3. profitable; advantageous.. 4. Agreeable; Pleasant.. 5. Adequate; Satisfactory.. 6. Right, Commendable [1]
Each definition here is derived from Merriam Webster.
20th century cinematic culture sported various smoking idols, thereby conforming smoking to the first definition.
Smoking is suitable and fit toward the pursuit of happiness (which is in itself a good) and therefore fulfills the second definition.
Smoking is a profitable venture, creating billions in GDP regularly. It is advantageous not only to our economy, but also for the individual who seeks happiness.
Smoking is an agreeable and pleasant experience. It is so agreeable and pleasant, in fact, that its users are apt toward reliving the sensation with another smoke. Definition 4 fulfilled.
Smoking is adequate and satisfactory in qualifying as a substance that never fails to deliver what it is supposed to do: stimulate the mind in the form of pleasures, thereby creating happiness which is, as CON has established uncontested, good. Definition 5 satisfied.
Smoking is commendable. Smoking has the capacity for being commended. CON has, in fact, been commending it for two whole rounds! Definition 6 satisfied.
While smoking qualifies a multitude of definitions of good, it is still prudent to note that it wis satisfactory as a good choice as long as it satisfies just one definition of good. If PRO fails to contest & negate each and every qualification, leaving even one (arguing the credibility of the dictionary), CON wins.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Pro

my resolution was to show that smoking is a stupid choice to make. you have conceded that there are obvious better decisions. well since it's stupid to go against the obvious better decision, then smoking is a stupid choice. i have proven my point. i never set out to prove that there are no benefits of smoking. in fact i listed a couple benefits in my first post. drinking urine can be called good because it can temporarily help quench your thirst, but it's stupid to drink urine when you could drink water. by your logic, drinking urine is a good choice to make.


Beginner

Con

"my resolution was to show that smoking is a stupid choice to make. you have conceded that there are obvious better decisions."
Let me refresh the reader on the parameters PRO has created in setting this debate:
"My position: smoking cigarettes is a stupid choice for the average person to make.
CONs position: smoking cigarettes is a good choice for the average person."

I did not concede that there are better options. I concede that there are potentially better options and that their potential superiority, if such exists, is irrelevant to CON's side of the resolution. If my opponent had somehow established correlation between a stupid choice vs. an inferior choice, he might have gained some ground (maybe). Here I will refer back to the example in which the choice to exercise/study one hour a day, although inferior to the 2-hour a day decision, is not stupid. My opponent fails to contend against this.

"in fact i listed a couple benefits in my first post. drinking urine can be called good because it can temporarily help quench your thirst, but it's stupid to drink urine when you could drink water. by your logic, drinking urine is a good choice to make."
1. I contended against each and every benefit you've 'posted'
2. Drinking urine quenches thirst and is thus a good option toward the goal of self-sustenance (this is what people who are out of water do while wandering through deserts.) However, there is a difference between my example of smoking over something else, and your example. Urine's accessibility is rather low in comparison to water. Happiness is not easy to obtain. Smoking is, however, a quick and easy access to happiness, pleasure, satisfaction and therefore, goodness. By the example provided by PRO,
Drinking water : smoking
Drinking urine : other-methods-of-obtaining-happiness
I don't see my opponent's point, but my opponent's example only serves to further my case.

My opponent concedes several points:
1. Happiness & its pursuit is, in itself, a form of good, making smoking a good choice.
2. Smoking matches 6 definitions of 'good' from a credible source. Smoking can be consequently categorized as a good under definitional clauses
3. Smoking is a good choice, but not the best. CON however has no need to prove that smoking is the best choice for the average person, CON only has to prove that smoking is a good choice for the average person. I believe I've already produced enough adequate examples to prove the following:
The existence of a better choice doesn't make other choices bad/stupid, only inferior. Inferior =/= stupid
4. None of the 'points' brought up by PRO correlates to the goodness or stupidity of smoking. PRO, after eliciting several premises based on assumptions (assumptions which CON points out), fails to substantiate said assumptions. CON has contended each and every point uncontested.

Conclusion: Since CON has proven smoking to be good (and PRO fails to fulfill the burden of proving smoking to be stupid), the choice to make smoking is then consequently good. A person who decides to smoke is automatically making a good choice, therefore, the decision to smoke is a good choice not only for the average person, but for all people.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by moocow 4 years ago
moocow
weak!
Posted by MRReadme 4 years ago
MRReadme
@Beginnger
I would like to debate further with you on this topic. If you accept, i will gladly show you how moronic you and anyone who chooses to buy and use cigarettes really are.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
THere is obviously the benefit of pleasure. If even this didn't exist, no one would smoke. What a silly denial. Even my very reasonable opponent concedes this benefit. Obviously, MRReadme, you didn't have this in mind when reading this debate. Reread the debate with this new context and you will understand the potential strengths of CON's side.
Posted by MRReadme 4 years ago
MRReadme
There is no benefit to smoking cigarettes, what a stupid outcome for this debate.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
Oh gosh, I got vote bombed.. it happens everywhere for some reason o-o
Posted by mt0203 4 years ago
mt0203
Pro smoking argument? That's new..
I love how Beginner's argument makes sense even though smoking is bad.
000ike: Burden of proof was on both sides, meaning when you said con didn't address pro's issues, u mmiight as well also attack pro for not addressing con's premises. Your vote basically is limited to what con did (or did not do) to refute pro when con must also be accredited for establishing his own cases. At the very least the debate was even although, personally, I think the 'beginner' did pretty well.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
Lol, people.. don't really start smoking. *-* It's nasty.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
Wow! Forcing a position on pro.. This is not debatable. :|
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
inducedBeginnerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows that smoking is inferior to other alternatives, but not a bad or stupid choice. Con wins on arguments. Con also win on s&g due to Pro's errors.. for example not capitalizing sentences.
Vote Placed by WesternGuy2 4 years ago
WesternGuy2
inducedBeginnerTied
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 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: Ok, so this debate was all going back to the resolution Smoking Cigarettes is stupid The Idea that smoking cigarettes is stupid was well shown by the pro Great debate Pro- could use evidence- it is easy to find it on your side :)
Vote Placed by kingsjester 4 years ago
kingsjester
inducedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Though I agree with pro, con made much more convincing arguments. Pro is right nut he didn't argue his side well enough to convince me if I was unbiased in voting therefore my vote goes to con.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
inducedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Counter Majducator's vote.
Vote Placed by Majducator 4 years ago
Majducator
inducedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: induced rules!
Vote Placed by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
inducedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate as a whole lacked structure. Too much of pro's case hinged on the voter's agreeing with his assumptions - there was unfortunately a lack of statistics and sources. Con on the other hand never really exploited this or even concretely addressed pro's argument. I think we can see, by fair extrapolation, that pro was offering competing sources of happiness (i.e health, looks, money) in contrast to smoking, and then asserting that those sources superseded whatever temporary happiness the drug gives. Con needed to argue that the happiness is equal, pro's proposition of happiness is not more important, or that happiness is not relevant. Con, however, treated pro's argument as though it was the antithesis of happiness. That's where his case fell short.