The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Smoking Ban

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,567 times Debate No: 27292
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I am looking forward to it.

My opponent believes that the government of the United States should ban the smoking of cigarettes.

I will give my opponent the chance to go first. If she does not wish to, she can start up in round two.


Thanks for letting me start.
Well I believe smoking should be banned because it would help the environment in many ways. There would be cleaner air and more attractive people. Smoking makes you age like crazy. Plus smoking is very unhealthy. It messes with all your internal organs. I just dont see any good from smoking. Surely you could find something better to do or even spend your money on.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for her response.

I will agree with her that smoking is unhealthy; in fact I wish that no one smoked. However we have to face the reality that people do, and most likely always will. My argument is not based off of what is healthy or not, it is based off of individual liberties.

A1: If we are going to ban smoking because it is unhealthy, why not ban soda, candy, popcorn, cakes, ice-cream, and all junk food. The number of people who die of heart disease far exceeds the amount of people who die of cancer. Diabetes is on the rise due to our daily diet. So why should the government not ban this? Because of basic human choice. We should have the choice to consume soda, smoke tobacco, or drink alcohol. The government should not have the right to take away our choices. If we let them ban one thing to take care of us, then what stops them from banning those other things? When you willing buy a milkshake, no one is forcing you to consume it. It was your choice to get it. No one is forced to smoke cigarettes.

A2: My second argument is tax revenue. The government makes a decent amount of money selling tobacco products. State governments need all the money they can get right now, and taking away such a big product would take away plenty of money.

A3: Banning cigarettes would open up a new market for drug dealers. Do you think that once it’s banned it will just fade out and be forgotten? Dealers from all over, including Mexico, would see the potential in this new law. People would be willing to pay extreme amounts of money for their tobacco. Do we really want yet another drug on the market? Do we want to spend tax payer dollars putting people who smoke and sell tobacco in jail?
Also, for some reason youth flock to illegal products. It’s “cool” to smoke weed because it’s bad. I would not want this starting up with something as simple as a cigarette. Of course kids are already attracted to cigarettes because they are under eighteen, however a ban would make it all the more “cooler” because not even their parents are supposed to have them.

Regarding my opponent’s arguments, I agree that you could find something better to spend your money on. However, just because you could give my family some food does not mean you should be banned from buying some new shoes.

The environment issue also came up, but I will simply respond that if we are going to take that approach, we might as well ban the automobile.
I look forward to the next argument.



well im pretty sure you just won this debate. I see where you are coming from.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for this debate.

Do you like KFC?


like kentucky fried chicken??
Debate Round No. 3


Yes. Do you like Kentucky Fried Chicken?


taylorr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
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 gets the victory as Pro failed to respond to his case.