Smoking Ban
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
JustVotingTiedDebates
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 6/18/2016 | Category: | Society | ||
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 588 times | Debate No: | 92865 | ||
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)
 Pro I want to do a quick debate on smoking ban 1. Acceptance/ Argue 2. Argue/ Rebut 3. Rebut/ Defend 4. Defend/ Waive The definitons are easy. Ban is a stop to, and smoking is a cigarette, made from tobacco. Please don't forfeit, troll, plagarize, and don't have bad conduct. I hope that someone will accept this debate, and good luck.  Con Firstly, I would like to point out something which i hope voters don't give importance to, is that 'ban' is not to stop something. It is an order to stop something. If you ban smoking, you don't stop it. You order people to stop it. Thanks. Hope for a good debate |
 |
|
Pro My argument in this debate will be quite long, but it is totally worth it. 1. Secondhand impact I will use this source for my argument: http://www.cdc.gov... It is a good source, and it has many citations in the end to prove it. Smoking does second hand impact. "Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke." This number is big. Many people, only adults died because of smoking. Who cares about their liberty? Much more people die, you won't die if you don't smoke!!! "Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually." And that is infants, not all children!!! "Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%." And this "Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year." For the sake of crying out loud, that is too much people, just because of smoking. Smoking is bad for other people, not only theirselves. Yes, they have their liberty, so we don't need to care about the smoker's health, but if other people are dying, smoking should be stopped. The "liberty of choice" does no match with second-hand impact. http://www.cdc.gov... Therefore, please vote Pro, and let's ban smoking once, and for all. Con '1. Acceptance/ Argue 2. Argue/ Rebut 3. Rebut/ Defend 4. Defend/ Waive. ' So I don't know what my role in this round is. However, I assume that yhis round is rebuttal for me, as my opponent is pro and has BOP. Rebuttal: 1." Secondhand impact" This points as a whole, is out of topic. Worthy opponent, the topic of our debate is not about banning smoking in public places. It's about banning it from anywhere. Why do you want to ban smoking for somebody who wants to smoke in his house, far from his family, if he has one? Or, lets say somebody wants to smoke in the desert, why are you stopping him? Let him do whatever he wants. 2. "Since the 1964 Surgeon General"s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke." That's not because of smoking. That's because of the carelessness of the people who smoke in public places or in middle of their families. You could as well ban driving because many people are killed because of cars. It's all about the person behind the driving wheel, and in this case, it's about the carelessness of the smoker. 3. "Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually" I would like to point two things in this point. 1. The same thing. Out of topic. We are not talking about banning smoking for pregnant women. We are talking about banning it for everybody. What is the ratio for pregnant women in all the population. To the most most extreme, you could ban smoking for women on the basis that they could become pregnant, but I am sure that men cannot become pregnant. You could make a new debate with the topic 'Ban smoking for pregnant women.' 2. You didn't put 'smoking while pregnancy' as a point. You put it in the '1. Secondhand impact' point. 4. You talk about secondhand impact, then talk about smoking's impact on pregancy, then you come back to secondhand smoking. Why don't you make points? You made just one argument, Secondhand impact, and then put everything bad you got about smoking in it. 5. "Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually. And that is infants, not all children!!! " A human being is not called infant in it's mother's womb. 6." Yes, they have their liberty" "liberty of choice" Sorry. I don't know why you say 'liberty' instead of 'freedom' everytime. Thanks. VOTE CON. Sources ( I don't have many sources as I did only rebuttal) : https://www.heartland.org... http://www.spiked-online.com... |
 |
|
Pro anna0128 forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
|
Pro anna0128 forfeited this round.
|
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
| anna0128 | JustVotingTiedDebates | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
1. Smoking Ban in all places. Yeah, but it does have public places, and most people smoke in public places.
2. It is cause of smoking. You find a way to stop the carelesness, because it will be impossible
And liberty means freedom.
It's like saying, yes, we SHOULD (try our best) to save the world from pollution, disease, starvation, and every single other problem with a time limit of 100 years. But is it possible? As far as we're concerned we won't be anywhere close to solving those problems within 100 years.