Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Weird Arguments

Posts: 5,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 10:32:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We should not do many famous debate topics (Pro)

I think that some usual debated topics should be banned. This is because that many people know what the other opponent will argue about. For example, in the topic smoking ban, most people who are in Pro side talk about the bad health, bad environment, and secondhand smoking. Con knows that this will happen. Con will probably talk about we have self-ownership, we have the right of choice unless it harms others. Pro knows this. These debates are too obvious. Now let's think about the rebuttals. Pro will probably talk about that many people are addicted, and they don't want to smoke, or that the harm principle says that you can do things unless it harms others, but smoking harms others. Con, like me, usually knows that Pro will argue this from my arguments, so I make the defense of my arguments, and rebuttals of my arguments before. Con will rebut about an counterplan: That people do not smoke in public places, and there is places for smoking in some areas. I am just talking about that everyone knows what the others are saying, so we should change that, or ban old debates that many people do.

Always, or mostly these are the main arguments, and rebuttals of the topic smoking ban. That is why everyone knows what the other team's arguments are, and that is not fun. So I wish that the mods will remove many of these debates, like Gay Marriage, there is over 400, Smoking because 100, Banning Homework, Animal Rights. Instead we should do more topics that are like topics not debated. I highly recommend debates in the big issues to not be debated because most of the people make debates there. Also here in


My argument:

1. Economy

My first argument will be about the economy. The economy will become low if we ban smoking.

Smoking makes a lot of money if smoking. There are many tobacco farms. They get more than a million dollars a hour, and about 28 million dollars a day. That is a lot of money just for smoking. However, what happens if we ban this?

Okay, this is the chart. As you can see, if you ban smoking, the economy turns in that state. This is because the US earns a lot of money because of tobacco, in tobacco farms, and also everywhere else. They use this tobacco make cigarettes, people buy them, and the government earns the money. However, the bad thing is that if we ban smoking, there will be no money for smoking, no one buys it, and the government earns less money because of this. If we ban smoking, the economy will be at risk, and turns bad, so that is why we should not ban tobacco.

2. Liberty

Okay, this argument is about the right to choose, liberty.

Why the smokers are smoking? Because they want to. The government does not 'force' the citizens to smoke, it is the citizen's or person's choice. They can just quit smoking, however they aren't. They want to smoke because of some reasons. Why do we ban smoking to people who want to smoke? It is their decision, and we need to have the right to choose what we want to do. The people who smoke, all have the right to do this, because it is harming no one. Pro might say that there is a problem, so I will explain that in the next argument. Our point is that the smokers want to smoke, they are not forced. They need the right to choose what they want to do, and not always get controlled by other's decisions, or the government's decisions. This shows that we need liberty, and do what we want sometimes, and not always be int he government's hands. We can't ban anything that is not that good sometimes. We should not ban tobacco in the US.

3. My solution

This is not really, an argument, just my solution to fix this why we should not ban tobacco.

Solution: Pro might argue that smoking is bad for your health, and other's health in the environment. So there is a solution. Ban smoking in public places, however make more spaces for yes smoking. This does not approve the resolution in any way. The resolution says, "Tobacco use should be banned in the US." We do not ban tobacco use. We ban it in public places, so that there is no bad pollution in the environment from smoking. Another way is that make more private places or spaces to allow smoking. If we used this solution, why would anyone smoke outside if there is a smoking center right next to the place, and you pay money? This solution will increase lots of smoking in the environment, making smoking okay, and doing no damage to non-smokers.

4. Dependent

Defintinon of Dependent: needed something else for support.

This argument is about if we ban smoking, some people will be dependent of the government.

Who gets the tobacco? The farms will get tobacco. Who makes cigarettes? Companies do. What happens if we ban smoking? The people who make money by tobacco selling like the farms, have no jobs, the companies have no jobs because of the ban. The people will become dependent on the government. About 5 million people in the US work on the tobacco farms. These 5 million people will have no jobs, and will become dependent on the government.

5. Illegal Tobacco

Tobacco will just become an illegal drug like cocaine. Then, there will be 3 times more of the actual cost, and they will just strenghten the criminal networks. So a ban is bad, and it harms the society.

Mostly, everyone has self-ownership/ or liberty and economy.

Thanks I hope many people read this.
Posts: 5,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 10:38:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

I showed you my argument. Lets show someone else.

Contention 3: Secondhand Smoke

This contention is enough to win the debate. Voters, pay attention. Seconhand smoke nullifies freedom, as recipients of secondhand smoke do not choose to smoke, they simply breathe and suffer the effects of others selfishly choosing to smoke.
The Surgeon General Report concluded that 2.5 million American citizens died of secondhand smoke since 1964. What more do you need for an all-out ban? Con's counterplan of restricting smoking to private places will not help as smoking in private simply keeps the smoke inside the home and will cause the secondhand smoke to go straight to all the other people inside the home- such as the other family members, especially children.
"It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.""Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States." (This is citing the previous Surgeon General Report)
A study by David M. Homa, PhD1, Linda J. Neff, PhD1, Brian A. King, PhD1, Ralph S. Caraballo, PhD1, Rebecca E. Bunnell, PhD1, Stephen D. Babb, MPH1, Bridgette E. Garrett, PhD1, Connie S. Sosnoff, MA2, Lanqing Wang, PhD found that from 2011-12, 58 million people were exposed to secondhand smoke.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) from burning tobacco products causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, and coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer in adult nonsmokers (1,2). No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists (2). SHS exposure causes more than 41,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year, and approximately $5.6 billion annually in lost productivity "

See, they write about Secondhand smoking, that is proof. Now if we ban these topics, then we will have new arguments, new debates. Or, we make new arguments, which is just hard to do. Thanks.