The Instigator
alexsupriyadi
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
KatanaBladeNeko
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

smoking should be made illegal and not just discouraged

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 4 votes the winner is...
alexsupriyadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 40594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

alexsupriyadi

Pro

i say smoking should be banned and not just discouraged by the government. a lot of great people have died early just because of smoking or being around smokers too frequently.
KatanaBladeNeko

Con

Okay. So, if it's made illegal. People lose jobs, drug smugglers make more money, and people will still smoke. It's just the way of life.
Debate Round No. 1
alexsupriyadi

Pro

yes people will still smoke. but they won't if the supply of cigarette are completely stopped to the country. sure there will be some black markets selling cigarette illegally but the number of smokers will definitely reduce by a lot. any way, who cares if they lose job, they get their job from selling toxic substance harmful to both the consumers and the environment anyway. if they maintain that job, more lives can be in danger due to the toxic in cigarette. they deserve that. the longer they do their 'job', the more harm they do to others. not only to smokers but to people around them and to wards the environment
and why would drug smugglers make more money if it's illegal? smokers can still be sent to rehabilitation institutes.
which is exactly why smoking should be made illegal.
KatanaBladeNeko

Con

So, we're targeting cigarettes, when we could spend the money on cures? If that person smokes, that's their choice and problem.
Debate Round No. 2
alexsupriyadi

Pro

spending money on cures? do you even know what sickness smoking will cause. it's coronary heart diseases, cancer, lung diseases and many other sickness. do they even have a cure? no. these diseases are called incurable diseases for a reason you know. we can find the cure but by the time the doctors have found the cure, many lives would've flown away to heaven.
even if we want to find the cure for the disease, it would cost a huge amount of money. we don't know how much experiments will be needed and how long it will take. they need to constantly buy new chemicals for the experiments. finding cures are much more expensive than targeting cigarettes. you know there's a saying that prevention is better than cure. and in this case, prevention is cheaper than cure.
KatanaBladeNeko

Con

Listen, I'm done! Screw this, I can't win beyond games.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
Actually with heart desses and lung cancer its hetary and while smoking doesn't help it you cant just ban cigs the government gets taxes on that sh!t but don't get me wrong I hate smoking too but I don't say that they should be illegal
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
I would so want to debate you on this one ;)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
alexsupriyadiKatanaBladeNekoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not provide a well writtened argument
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
alexsupriyadiKatanaBladeNekoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow... CON could've won if he had actually tried... They both had mediocre arguments. And CON could've won if he had just done the last round.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
alexsupriyadiKatanaBladeNekoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has no support. Con also FF.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
alexsupriyadiKatanaBladeNekoTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb below. Arguments to pro because he was the only one to post an actual argument. Spelling and grammar to con because pro had numerous spelling errors.