Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

The prohibition of bottled water is unwarranted.

In the midst of the debate, there was a shift in the resolution, which should have been stated from the beginning. The argument put forth was that "Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!" However, the opponent didn't raise this point until later and didn't mention supermarkets at all, focusing instead on oil, money, and health issues. Let's proceed with the argument at hand.

Firstly, it's not a waste to spend $2 on a bottle of water, an essential resource for all living beings. This is a subjective view, and substantial evidence is needed to support such a claim. The only argument provided was that tap water is available from the faucet, but there are compelling reasons why bottled water is safer:

1) It won't ignite... Yes, you read that right. Tap water in certain regions of America can be highly flammable due to natural gas mining contaminating the local water supply, making it toxic to health if consumed. (Bottled water: 1, Tap water: 0)

2) The government is contemplating adding fluoride to tap water... In some areas, this has already happened. If this occurs, the government would legally be adding chemicals to your tap water, whereas bottled water would remain 100% H2O. (Bottled water: 2, Tap water: 0)

3) Availability... The argument that bottled water should be banned because it can be obtained for free from the tap is weak. Here are scenarios where water is needed but a sink is not nearby:
- In the desert
- On an airplane
- In your car
- In any classroom
- On a city sidewalk
- At a beach where the water is contaminated with salt and urine
- In a forest
- At sea
- In space
- While jogging outdoors and sweating profusely

Other reasons bottled water is necessary and more convenient than tap water:
- In your bedroom when you're too tired to get up for water
- If you're a little person and can't reach the sink or water fountain
- Outside because you're homeless

Bottled water should not be banned because, in certain situations, it is healthier, safer, less subject to government interference, more accessible, and won't ignite like tap water can. (For the record, the opponent conceded all previous arguments in round 2.)

I choose "Smoking should Not be Banned" as the topic. I alter it to "Smoking in public places including shops, clubs etc. should be banned". I am pro. DEFINITIONPublic places: A public space is a space that is generally open and accessible to people including places where people can enter if they pay. Smoking: the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes (including e-cigarettes)Banned: prohibited. ARGUMENTSmoking causes many cancer and disease, a main one is cardiovascular disease, which is the disease of the heart or blood vessels. That can cause hypertension, kidney failure etc. Smoking accelerates the hardening of arteries and blood clots are 2-4 times more likely to develop in smokers than non-smokers. Smoking also causes cancer, so much that 90% of lung cancer is due to smoking. If you smoke, the risk of contracting mouth cancer is four times higher than for a non-smoker. There are also many other health risks caused by smoking. [1][1] . http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...

For the final round, Pro has elected not to add any new points, but to examine some that I have made and refute them. However, I have some conflicting opinions. "The government should be allowed to outlaw something if it harms the body. " I wish you had elaborated on this idea, because that in and of itself would make an interesting debate. As I explained in Round 1, I believe that the government has no business protecting people from themselves. Everyone has a right to make unhealthy decisions that will very likely harm them. It may not be smart to smoke two packs a day, but that is the choice you are free to make in a free, democratic, First World society. Now, you could argue that the government should protect us from ourselves, and many people do believe that. But since Pro failed to explain her logic behind the above, I see no reason to give any further justification for my viewpoint. ". .. my debate is that there should be strict laws against smoking. Notice that I made laws plural. "With this quote, Pro appears to have added an entirely new dimension to this debate. Never before has she mentioned that multiple laws should be passed. Only in this final round has she "made laws plural". Disappointingly, I was unable to hear what laws Pro had in mind, since she brought this up so late in the debate. Pro also tries to refute my environmental argument with a few hasty generalizations and no backing from sources of any kind. She appears to be hinting that cigarette butts ought to be treated as litter, which I agree with, but this has little to do with the argument of whether or not smoking should be legal. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

To conclude: Point One: Harm and Environment Smoking should be ban, or at least, be discouraged as it harms the health of other people. Eliminating smoking in our culture can help to increase people's health. Imagine a non smoking community, how lovely it would be. Imagine if your future children or your children (if you have) will not be engaged in smoking, that will be a benefit, too. Smoking is not something an individual will look for if he/she does not see it in his/her environment. Its something more on influence, so, if you have a community or a family of non smoker, definitely, smoking won't be part of that person's life. Smoking is more deadly than alcohol, in fact, alcohol has more benefits than smoking cigarette. Alcohol: When taken moderately, you can have the benefits Cigarette: The moment you smoke, the moment you'll receive its deadly toxins little by little. Even when its for first and last, and worse, when you become addicted to it. 2) Banning smoking won't kill Freedom Banning smoking will only help as it discourages people not to smoke, which would mean, for healthy benefits. The presented argument on Round 2 of mine will show the negative effects of smoking, and if you avoid smoking, then, you are saved from those negative effects. As also said, smoking is not something a non smoker would just look for, rather, by influence. If people won't even love or embrace smoking in their life, then, the next generation will eventually won't embrace it, too. 3) Money loss or Innovation? Unemployment or Opportunity? To ban smoking means to look for an alternative use of tobacco in such a way it would be useful. If banning of cigarettes would be implemented, then factories of cigarettes will be encouraged to find alternative - well, the government can help if they want to. Thanks and God bless to all! :)

If someone abstains from alcohol, that's fine, nobody is going to force him or her to drink. However, some teetotallers have a problem with other people enjoying alcoholic drinks, probably because they feel they are missing out some fun. These envious prudes disguise their jealousy of the enhanced social lives that most drinkers enjoy and pretend to be concerned about public health issues in order to get the consumption of intoxicating beverages banned by law. If anti-alcohol campaigners wish to live in a society where alcohol is prohibited there are plenty of countries they could move to. They include: Afghanistan; Iran; Libya; Mauritania; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia and Yemen all of which ban the consumption of alcohol. But that's not good enough for some of these spiteful, priggish teetotallers. No, they want to force people in their own countries to sit at home sewing or making model aeroplanes instead of going out and having fun. That's right, they want everybody else to stay at home and drink hot chocolate while listening to gramophone records, just like they do. Unbelievably, over the years these stuffed shirts have had considerable success in forcing their will on their fellow citizens. For example, due to fierce objections from anti-alcohol residents, the conservative seaside town of Frinton-on-Sea on the East Coast of England didn't get its first pub until 2000 and it is still the only one in the whole town to this day! http://www.independent.co.uk... But this is nothing compared to the success of the temperance movement in America where alcohol is banned or severely restricted in many parts of the country. To give you some idea about how repressive alcohol legislation is there, here are some examples of the more draconian anti-drinking laws in the United States: UTAH There are no ordinary drinking establishments in Utah; full alcohol service is available only to dues-paying members of private social clubs and a limited number of restaurants. It's illegal in Utah to advertise drink prices, alcohol brands, to show a "drinking scene," to promote happy hour, to advertise free food, or for restaurants to furnish alcohol beverage lists unless a customer specifically requests one. MISSISSIPPI Almost one-half of the counties in Mississippi are "dry" with their own prohibition against the production, advertising, sale, distribution, or transportation of alcoholic beverages within their boundaries. KANSAS An Attorney General of Kansas issued the legal opinion that drinking on an airliner was forbidden by state law while the plane was in airspace over "dry" Kansas. He said: "Kansas goes all the way up and all the way down." TEXAS Of Texas' 254 counties, 79 are still completely dry. Furthermore, Texas state law prohibits taking more than three sips of beer at a time while standing and the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a recipe for making beer that can be used at home. CALIFORNIA An award-winning adaptation of Little Red Riding Hood was withdrawn from a recommended reading list by the school board in Culver City, California, simply because the heroine had included a bottle of wine in the basket she brought to her grandmother. NEBRASKA Nebraska state law prohibits bars from selling beer unless they are simultaneously brewing a kettle of soup. KENTUCKY Bourbon takes its name from Bourbon County in Kentucky, where a Baptist minister first produced it in 1789. Nevertheless, a person can be sent to jail for five years for merely sending a bottle of beer, wine or spirits as a gift to a friend in Kentucky. Yes, even if it's a bottle of bourbon. ALASKA There are 83 dry towns and villages in Alaska. In addition, Fairbanks is a dry town for moose. Apparently moose can't hold their booze so it is illegal to give them alcoholic drinks. http://www2.potsdam.edu... Now, please take a moment to review this old picture of women from the temperance movement threatening to withhold sexual favours from men who drink: http://incredimazing.com... Although I don't suppose the men of the day were unduly concerned about not getting a snog off one of those old munters, this is the sort of protest that the anti-alcohol campaigners should confine themselves to. To lobby lawmakers to restrict the freedom of responsible adult citizens to drink alcohol is an attempt to restrict their freedom of choice. That said, the kind of harsh and repressive anti-alcohol legislation temperence campaigners are seeking does have its place of course, and that place is an authoritarian country that is subject to Shari'a Law. In conclusion, if anti-alcohol campaigners cannot put up with their fellow citizens enjoying an occasional drink they should shut up and move to Saudi Arabia. Thank you.

Ok. So it would be impossible to make people use less water. What are we supposed to do, have police officers going into peoples houses and saying "you're going to jail because you had a 30 minute shower". Anyways, we have all the water out in the sea that is just wasted.

Thanks once again to Snowbunny for this debate! I would like to take this chance to restate that the response time for this debate is a shortened 48 hours, instead of the usual 72 hours.INTROThe question were are considering is simple and straightforward: should the government prohibit the use of recreational tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, and chew. Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people; the whole purpose of laws that restrict the consumption of dangerous drugs is that these laws have public utility. Consider the potential harms that drugs pose to individuals, and then consider if they were more widely available. It would pose a significant public health risk to the country.I will assert that if the benefits of a smoking ban outweigh the harms, then, as has been done with other substances, tobacco products should be restricted and prohibited. Any such ban should be phased in gradually, for reasons I will address later, but the ban should nonetheless go forward.THE HARMS OF TOBACCOP1. Health Risks to Smokers"Smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer. It causes cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia...Smoking also causes heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm (a balloon-like bulge in an artery in the chest), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), asthma, hip fractures, and cataracts. Smokers are at higher risk of developing pneumonia and other airway infections...A pregnant smoker is at higher risk of having her baby born too early and with an abnormally low birth weight. A woman who smokes during or after pregnancy increases her infant’s risk of death from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)...Men who smoke are at greater risk of erectile dysfunction." [1]There are also less severe, but still harmful, health effects of smoking. "'One of the chief and significant causes of premature aging of the face is smoking'...Skin changes, like leathery skin and deep wrinkling, are more likely in people who are regular smokers. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, smoking leads to biochemical changes in the body that speed the aging process. For example, smoking deprives the living skin tissue of oxygen by causing constriction of the blood vessels. As a result, blood doesn't get to your organs as easily, and that includes the skin. Another classic smoker giveaway is tar staining of the hands and skin from holding cigarettes." [2] Additionally, "smoking increases the chances of impotence dramatically for men by affecting blood vessels, including those that must dilate in order for an erection to occur." [2] Loss of breath is another common side-effect. "Many smokers report a diminished ability over time to comfortably do things as simple as climbing a set of stairs or enjoying sports activities they once easily took part in such as volleyball or jogging." [2] Smoking increases our susceptibility to minor illnesses like the cold and the flu as well. "Tiny hairs called cilia that line the respiratory tract, including the trachea and bronchial tubes, are designed to protect us from infection...One of the toxic effects of cigarette smoke is that it paralyzes the cilia, thereby destroying this core protective mechanism." [2]Just by quitting smoking, one can greatly increase one's life expectancy and expected quality of life. A person who quits at 30, for instance, reduce their chance of premature death due to tobacco use by 90%. Similarly, quitting at age 50 can reduce that chance by around 50%. [1]P2. Economic Costs to Smokers"[T]he average cost is about $5 per pack, and in some states it can be as high as $10 per pack, including federal and state taxes." [2] For users who are addicted, this is an ongoing, chronic, involuntary expense that becomes as essential as buying food. For poor families, a addiction to cigarettes can present a huge problem, one that might entail trade-offs between necessities or lead to crime in order to fund the addiction."Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion a year in medical costs and another $97 billion a year from lost productivity." [3]P3. Health Risks to Non-smokers"The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. An estimated 88 million nonsmoking Americans, including 54% of children aged 3–11 years, are exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the same poisons in cigarette smoke as smokers." [3]"Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults...Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke...The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent...Exposure to secondhand smoke may increase the risk of heart disease by an estimated 25 to 30 percent...Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk of having a baby with low birth weight...Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of SIDS, ear infections, colds, pneumonia, bronchitis, and more severe asthma. Being exposed to secondhand smoke slows the growth of children’s lungs and can cause them to cough, wheeze, and feel breathless." [1]"Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 die of heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory tract infections." [3] "Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause 50,000 deaths every year. It's no wonder: More than 4,500 separate chemicals are found in a puff of tobacco smoke, and more than 40 of those are known carcinogens." [2]ConclusionThe ultimate, harmful impacts of tobacco are clear. They increase risks for illnesses at all levels of severity, and, even if used as directed, they lead to death and disease. "Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46.6 million U.S. adults smoke." [3]IMPLEMENTATIONI would phase in a tobacco prohibition over a 25 year period. Years 1-5 I would allow sales of tobacco to people over 21, and allow tobacco companies begin to shut down production and prepare for the ban. Years 6-15 I would allow sales of tobacco to users who could demonstrate that they were clinically addicted to tobacco and needed to continue to purchase the product to avoid withdrawal. I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just to give those people an alternative to smoking. Sales to everyone else would cease, and hefty fines would be imposed on those found in possession of illegal tobacco products. After five fines, a 6 month jail sentence could be levied. Years 16-20 would see the continuation of tobacco sale to the already addicted as well as the subsidization of withdrawal programs. The number of fines before a jail sentence would be reduces to three, and only select pharmacies would be authorized to sell tobacco--it could no longer be sold at grocery or convenience stores. Years 21-25 would see the discontinuation of all sales. Ideally, subsidized programs to reduce addiction would be continued well past that time frame. I would have tobacco then classified as a Schedule III Substance, with all the incumbent rules and penalties for possessing such a substance fully imposed. [4]SOURCES1 - http://www.cancer.gov...2 - http://www.webmd.com...3 - http://www.cdc.gov...4 - http://www.dea.gov...Thanks! And with that, I turn the floor over to Con...http://www.youtube.com...;

The non-smoker must move because there is absolutely no legal reason that the smoker has to move, therefore if he is not comfortable with the conditions of his environment then he must decide for himself weather to remedy the situation or not. I would also like to state that it is not the governments job to decide what any person does for a living. And furthermore it is not fair to assume that people don't want these jobs as my opponent stated. That is a opinion and not a fact some people do want those jobs. and The government should not be allowed to tell them no. As for the point about family's in third world countries. where that is their only job. These are not countries where a family has an option to walk down the street and file for unemployment or go to school. these are countries where the government rules with a fist. and if they lost their job they would lose everything. It is sad but it is true. I would hope my opponent can realize that there are bad places like this in the world and by taking away the one source of income it would lead to many deaths of innocent family's. as for the argument that it would cause a black market effect. I would like to point out that there is a market for everything that is not legal. Weather it be human trafficking, sex slaves, drugs, or any other countless thing that is outlawed. It is still available to those who seek it. And I I believe that banning smoking would lead to an increase in violence and create problems throughout the rest of our government such as tieing up court systems to increased taxes on everyone to pay for more protection from law enforcement. As for the fact of my opponent contradicting himself I would like to say that I give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not understand that the two statements I quoted him saying directly contradict one another. I have shown him how and why that was a contradiction and have explained that to the best of my ability. As for regulating this industry I agree that it has failed before however that does not mean it wont work. As for my opponents argument that a hard working mother should not be allowed to smoke at home. I would like to point out two things. 1. my opponent has compared smoking around a child to pouring alcohol in the child's bottle. One of those things is highly ill-leagel and the mother would get arrested for child endangerment, smoking around the child is not ill-leagel and while it can be harmful it is ultimately the mothers decision to do so or not. I would also like to point out that there is no plausible way for the government to keep tabs on everyone in America to make sure they are not smoking around children. It is absurd and just cannot happen. Summary of main arguments. and points proved. 1. .. the banning of smoking would cause economics around the world to crumble and lead to death and devastation. 2. .. adult smokers and adult second hand smokers have a choice. 3. .. In many third world countries this is a family's only source of income and may die without these jobs. 4. .. the banning of smoking would create domestic problems with court systems, law enforcement, hospitals, and black markets. 5. .. smoking does have some positive side effects as proved by my opponents own reference site.

Tobacco should be banned entirely. Dave Ramsey doesn't smoke and neither should we.

Okay. Pro just forfeited this round. Also this is an one day debate which is so short, so I won' have much time for arguments. ArgumentsI will just write my arguments in this round not the rebuttal because there is no time. Please do not count that as an dropped argument. 1. First of all, this argument is based on selling and buying organs and why we should not allow it. Okay this is my first argument. My first argument is that the poor will only do hard work. Do you think that the rich will sell or buy organs even thought they are rich? No! They can get better healthcare and alerady has a lot of money. Then who will sell these organs? Of course the poor will sell these organs to get money. The poor can’t buy these organs because of no money, so they need to take out there own organs which is bad First of all it is just bad for your health. Would you really think you will have no problem with one kidney. There will be some damage in your body so you might get serious injuries for getting these organs. As I said poor can’t buy but can sell. They will sell but who will buy these organs when they can have healthcare? The poor will just have bad health and have no money the same as the beginning. 2. No help "The global organ shortage has spawned illegal and unregulated organ markets. The World Health Organization estimates that five to ten per cent of all kidneys transplanted annually – perhaps 63,000 in total – are obtained in the organ bazaars of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. Thus, we face a dual tragedy: on one side, thousands of patients who die each year waiting for a kidney; on the other, a human rights fiasco in which corrupt brokers deceive indigent donors about the nature of surgery, cheat them out of payment and ignore their post-surgical needs. Altruistic appeals to organ donation have not yielded enough organs for transplantation. Not all developed countries have made the most use of posthumous donation, and of course they should. Unfortunately, much of the world transplant establishment – including the World Health Organization, the Transplantation Society and the World Medical Association – focuses exclusively on obliterating organ trafficking. While at face value this may seem reasonable, in reality it is a lethally one-sided prescription, because trying to stamp out underground markets either drives corruption further underground or causes it to flourish elsewhere. Government-sponsored compensation of healthy individuals who are willing to give one of their kidneys to save the life of a dying stranger is the best short-term solution. " Okay this is what it said in an article. First of all there is no help. They can’t buy organs and will just die. I think that this is no much help whatever you do. It is all the same if we do this act or not which just makes everything useless. Therefore, the resolution is negotiated. Please respond Pro.

I am pro smoking ban. Smoking Ban: "A national ban on smoking"Ban: "to prohibit, forbid, or bar;"Smoking: this debate rest on cigarette smoking. National: The United States of America. Before you accept, let me know if you want to narrow the debate topic, or format etc.


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Water: A Scarce Commodity

Water resources, a vital commodity, are unfortunately distributed unevenly across the globe. This uneven distribution, coupled with wasteful consumption patterns, necessitates careful consideration of how we use and manage water. The question of whether bottled water should be banned arises in the context of these challenges. Should we continue to allow the production and sale of bottled water when it contributes to environmental degradation and exacerbates water scarcity in some regions? The debate around bottled water touches on issues of resource allocation, environmental impact, and public health.

"I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable."You make it sound as if alcohol can be used as a form of medicine. My argument is not that alcohol can be used as a medicine, but that drinking it moderately can come with some small benefits. Simply, my stance is summed up in one word: moderation. If used in moderation, then alcohol can comes with some benefits."Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."People end up on the floor as a result of overuse of alcohol. I have stated quite clearly that I support the use of alcohol in moderation. Should we limit the rights of the responsible just because some abuse their rights to drink? No. "If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "A person can love beer, wine, liquor, etc. without becoming an alcoholic. A man or woman may love a drink, but drink in moderation. This is not to say that they will miss the drink - they may miss it very much. So your argument stating that those who drink alcohol in moderation will not miss it once it is banned is largely false. Second, my point about drunk drivers is a whole other argument. Under the current system, alcoholics are free to drink to at home or ask a manager in a restaurant to drive them home. Under a Prohibition system, however, alcoholics must go to illegal speakeasies and other such bars in search of a drink. They will become drunk, and must return home. My point is that, currently, alcoholics can drink in an area where they don't have to drive home. But, under Prohibition, alcoholics would have to go out, on the streets, in search of alcohol. There is no denying, that even in the best of systems, some alcohol would still remain or be smuggled in this nation. Marijuana is illegal but still is used by quite a few people. Meth is illegal but is still used by a quite a few people. Alcohol would be illegal, but quite a few people would still drink because of the formation of black markets. "Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alcohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares."This was just an example. I wanted to show how silly it is to limit the rights of of responsible citizens because a few abuse their rights. You say that knives have far more purposed than alcohol - true, but alcohol is a very lucrative industry. I am simply trying to point out that, while knives have more conventional purposes, the alcohol industry has a quite few purposes in the economy. "If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen."Even in the best of situations, agents could never completely banish alcohol. We spent millions, billions, on the War on Drugs, and people still smoked and drank and did whatever else. Our police force keeps a careful eye on the use of marijuana and other such drugs, yet it is still heavily prevalent in society. And, alcohol is much more used than drugs such as weed. It would impossible to completely banish it; and with this small amount, a black market would form, and the want would increase for alcohol. Folks would pay more for it - that it why weed is so expensive. It is a prediction, too - you cannot base your entire stance on it. No matter how many agents are in working and how many laws are put into place, alcohol cannot be banished. Making alcohol illegal would cause the opposite to occur - a black market would form, and the want and price for alcohol would increase. "You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol."I did not say little to no alcohol. I said a moderate amount or no alcohol. And just because I made this statement does not invalidate the fact that the alcohol industry generates "more than $65 billion a year in revenue and spends more than $1 billion a year on advertising." (http://www.health20-20.org...) Also, just to confirm this fact - "About a third of Americans choose not to drink at all, a third drink moderately, and about a third drink regularly. Ten percent of the drinking-age population consumes over 60 percent of the alcohol."Pulled from that website. You cannot deny that the alcohol industry makes lots of money, and its collapse could result in finical troubles. "Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source.""The tobacco industry consists of several different companies, all of which make different amounts of money. The highest ranking tobacco company in the Fortune 500, Philip Morris International, reports a yearly revenue of $27,208,000,000. The second-highest ranking tobacco company, Altria Group, makes $16,892,000,000 of revenue each year." Pulled from http://www.ask.com....... Both industries are important to our economy. Just because the tobacco industry makes more does not mean that the billions that the alcohol industry makes it worth nothing. Both are important to our economy, and provide jobs; their ruin could ruin the economy."If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweigh the cost involved."No, alcoholics frequented speakeasies. Just because it was illegal doesn't mean they couldn't get it. And that is what would occur today, if it were enforced. Alcohol cannot be banished entirely, and the option of smuggling it in still exists. A black market would form. That is what has happened to drugs such as marijuana and meth. And these drugs have been under heavy scrutiny by the government and the police, but still continue to be heavily prevalent in society."Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it."I agree - however, my argument was that alcohol is moderation is not bad for you, that it can offer some potential health benefits. "I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict."People handle things in different ways. While some can be responsible with alcohol, some can not. My argument proves this. We should protect the rights of those who handle them responsibly. Those who cannot hold them responsibly are the ones we should punish - not the ones who do no wrong. "Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero."Marijuana is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Meth is illegal. Many people are addicted to it. Making alcohol illegal will not drop the number of alcoholics. It will simply set up a black market, where the price is determined by the want of the drug. Voters - vote for the debater which offered the more statistics. Vote for the debater which offered fact rather than opinion. Vote for the debater who's argument is not based on emotion but rather fact. Vote for the debater which offered the more logiical, and sensible, argument.Best of luck to my opponent. May the voters decide who ultimelty won.

Pro uses the argument that "Criminals will have Guns and We Will All Be Damsels in Distress" Pros first argument is that there were 680 accidental deaths related to guns in 2008. Children had died. Let me show you how little that number is compared to many things that are legal in America. 13,846 people died from Alcohol abuse and drunk driving in 2008. But alcohol is perfectly legal. About 438,000 Americans die per year from smoking where 50,000 of them is from second hand smoking. But smoking is legal. Very well legal and regulated. To say that we need to take someone's gun away because it might kill someone is like saying that we need to cut everyone tounges out because someone might yell "fire" in a movie theatre. Pro cannot proof that Gun Prohibition would prevent these Criminals from having guns and/or using them violently. There are many things that are prohibited such as drugs, free online music, littering, and etc. The point is that people still do those things, even though they are illegal. So how do we know that Gun Prohibition would be any different? Prohibition of something doesn't stop the use of it. In his third argument rebutting my "We Need to be able to form a Militia to Battle our Tyrannical Government" He brings a logical argument. My argument is that I would rather have guns than not have guns in a situation like that. If we are in a police state we need every bit of resource to protect ourselves from Tyranny. http://www.alcoholalert.com... http://digghealth.com...

In this debate I will taking the position that smoking should be banned, whilst my opponent will be assuming the position that smoking should remain legal. Round 1 will consist of opening arguments solely and any definitions either side wishes to post. Round 2 will be for rebuttals and any further arguments. Round 3 will be for defences and further rebuttals. Round 4 will be for a summary of arguments and conclusion with final point. Round 1: Smoking - The inhalation of the smoke of the burning of tobacco encased in a cigarettes, pipes or cigars. (1) Point 1 -- There can be no doubt that smoking is harmful to ones health. Each year, nearly 6 million people die from tobacco, with 600,000 of those people non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. One person dies every 6 seconds from a tobacco related illness (2) and the American Cancer Society has stated that more people die from smoking than AIDS, car crashes, alcohol, drug abuse, fires, suicides and murders combined each year. This startling fact should not come as a surprise to anyone who understand the effects that the some 4,000 chemicals in a typical cigarette have in the human body. Tar is a sticky black substance that forms deposits inside the lungs of those who inhale the smoke, causing lung cancer and a myriad of respiratory diseases. Carbon monoxide is a compound that reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells leading to respiratory problems and can also damage the linings of the arteries, allowing fat to build up inside them, leading to a potential heart attack. These are just 2 of the other 200 "toxic" chemicals found in tobacco smoke. (3) Smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Moreover, smoking accounts for 14% of premature deaths and 10% of all infant deaths. It is clear from this evidence that smoking is extremely harmful to the human body and a responsibility of governments is to protect its people from harmful things. It is for this reason that cocaine, rape and speeding are all illegal and if the same logic was to be applied to this subject than tobacco products would join that group. Point 2 -- As briefly alluded to in some of the statistics above, smoking doesn't just effect smokes, it also affects those around them too. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to inhaling someone else's tobacco smoke. Why do they have to die? Moreover, 28% of children who died in 2004, had deaths attributable to second hand smoke. Is it fair for someone who wants to remain healthy, to have to share the street with a smoker who has no regard for the problems that their disgusting "habit" causes. If the claim to personal freedom is made, then why is the claim of non smokers being ignored? Point 3 -- Smoking also leads to impoverishment of those in lower income countries. 80% of smokers live in middle to lower income countries where the health care is at best, inadequate and therefore they carry the greatest burden. (4) In families from countries that fall into this category, children are sent out to work on the tobacco in order to gain money for the family. They are exposing themselves to the risk of contracting green tobacco sickness which is caused by absorbing the nicotine through the wet leaves. Additionally, the plethora of deaths caused by smoking means that families are left without a means to provide an income and this leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle as a direct effect of smoking. All the while, the CEO's of these multinational tobacco companies are living green of the billions that they are making from this sickening trade. If political leaders condemn the actions of Mubarak and Gaddafi, then they are guilty of first degree hypocrisy if they do not include Michael Szymanczyk in the same breath. I wish my opponent all the best in this debate. References: (1) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) - http://www.who.int... (3) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (4) - http://www.who.int...

I have numerous reasons why we shouldn't smoke, here are the reasons : Point 1 : The negative effects of smoking on the smoker Smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. Some of those health problems are heart attack, stroke, and lung cancer. Those diseases are caused by the 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette smoke that cause problems to human cells. [1] Around 6 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco. [2] Smoking also costs the smoker's beauty, because : 1. Smoking ages you. 2. Smoking depletes the collagen in your skin. 3. Smoking thins the skin. 4. Smoking can alter your body shape. [3] Smoking costs the smoker's money. He/she will have to pay : 1. The cigarette smoke itself. One packet of 25 cigarettes costs around $14 and the price keeps rising. 2. The hospital bills for later when you're sick because of smoking. 3. The dentist bill so that your teeth could be cleaned professionally. 4. The cleaning bills for your house, car, and clothes that will stink of cigarette smoke. 5. The redecorating fees. Smoking can make you redecorate more often because smoking inside your house discolors the paint and wallpapers. [4] Smoking can lower your IQ, too. [5] Lastly, smoking can create fires. Every year, almost 1,000 smokers and non-smokers are killed in home fires caused by cigarettes and other smoking materials. [6] Point 2 : The negative effects of smoking on non-smokers Passive smoking is as dangerous as smoking itself. Smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. One third of those are children. [7] Smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. [8] Smoking can also influence children to smoke. [9] Point 3 : The negative effects of smoking on the environment Smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Just to produce 300 cigarettes, one tree is wasted. Energy and water are also wasted for the production of cigarettes. [10] Conclusion Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA because it causes negative effects on the smoker, non-smokers, and the environment. 1. . http://uk.prweb.com... 2. . http://www.inforesearchlab.com... 3. . http://www.ivillage.co.uk... 4. . http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... 5. . http://doctor.ndtv.com... 6. . http://www.usfa.fema.gov... 7. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... 8. . http://www.babycenter.com... 9. . http://www.redorbit.com... 10. . http://smoking.ygoy.com...

Before I forfeit this round, let me explain to you why I should be voted instead of con. I know that johnjohn12 is actually online right now and is just chickening out simply because he/she cannot argue back. Perhaps if you were prepared and knew that your opponent was this intelligent, perhaps you would not have backed out and not debated with me. Like I said before, you have the following errors preventing you from winning this debate even if you made rebuttals: -Too short of an argument that is also too vague -Does not take a stance or any position; simply remains neutral -Lacks thesis, arguments, introduction, etc. -Topic is too general and pro is unclear of what to say -Policy was not specified as a ban or prevention law With that said, should you have fixed or prevented these errors, you would have won. But because you have made these errors and forfeited each round after that due to fear of loss of debate, you are going to lose this debate whether you like it or not. You have a 0% chance of winning, while I have a 100% chance of winning, even if I am offending you and pointing out your debating flaws. A least I have provided a thesis, stance, arguments, rebuttals, logic and reasoning, conduct, and good spelling/grammar, while opponent failed to provide any of that.

Examples from the U.S.Couple fined for holding bible studies in their own home. (1)Kid's lemonades stands shut down across the country. (2)Louisiana church given Cease and Desist order for handing out free waters. (3)Incarceration for collecting rainwater on one's own property. (4 + 5)Police raid raw-milk-selling shops with guns drawn. (6 + 7)In the United States it is illegal to sell natural cures for cancer – even if they work. (8-11)Feeding the homeless made illegal across the U.S. (12) "In Philadelphia, local religious groups are feeding the homeless even though the city has banned this practice except in confined locations. Homeless advocates say the city wants the homeless run out of tourist areas. While a judge tries to figure it all out, poverty experts say it’s just part of a trend to crack down on panhandling, sleeping in public places and other facets of homelessness. "The tension in Philadelphia began when the mayor announced a ban on the outdoor feeding of the homeless. According to press reports, Michael Nutter has numerous reasons for the ban: he wanted to prevent food-borne illness; he wanted to protect city parklands from damage; and he said he wanted to help charitable agencies reach the homeless more easily. He argued that if religious and other groups could only provide food indoors, homeless folks could also get physical and mental health treatment in the same place they got food. "But four charities sued to city to block implementation of the ban. They accuse the mayor of wanting to clear homeless people out of Benjamin Franklin Parkway, home to tourist attractions like the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Rodin Museum and the newly relocated Barnes Museum with its crowd-pleasing works of art. The leader of Chosen 300 Ministries, Pastor Brian Jenkins, told NBC10 News in Philadelphia that he has a calling to feed the homeless. A judge blocked enforcement of the ban for 120 days, but when that block was lifted on July 14, Pastor Jenkins was back ladling out the soup on public streets, threatening to defy the law if it is enacted." http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org..., Mary Jo Draper, Feeding Homeless People Illegal? We’ll Break the Law or Change It, Advocates Say"Last year the city council of Houston, Texas, passed a law making it illegal to feed the homeless within the city without the permission of property owners. "Yes, in the land of six-guns, cattle rustling and Enron, handing a sandwich to a homeless person in a city park or serving a bowl of soup in a rented storefront can earn you a $500 fine. Some charitable organizations, financially unable to risk the fines, have relocated outside the city. "Last week, Houston police ticketed a homeless man for trying to feed himself by fishing a donut from a trash bin in a public park. "James Kelly, a nine-year Navy veteran, was issued a citation for violating a peculiar law on the books since 1942, and amended as recently as 2002, that makes it illegal to “remove any contents of any bin, bag or other container that has been placed for collection of garbage, trash or recyclable materials.” http://www.dailykos.com... Richard Riss, In Houston It's Illegal to Feed the Homeless and for the Homeless to Feed ThemselvesI respectfully request my opponent to enlighten both the audience and myself as to why this legislation is acceptable, and as to why individuals have no right to disobey such moronic, unethical decrees.The Security FallacyAnd since we're on Raw Milk anyhow..."For example, in the raw milk case that my opponent has pointed out, the prohibition of distribution of raw milk is to ensure the security of person.[2] Every person not only has the right to liberty, but also the right to security, and allowing raw milk to be sold clearly threatens such security."Logic dictates that, if we were to treat raw milk this way (which has been widely consumed for centuries,) we must also treat tobacco, sodapop, caffeine, toothpicks, swimming pools, firearms, anything and everything pointy or heavy -- really anything consisting of matter in the same fashion. If only for the individual's safety."Threats and harms, again, may not necessarily be direct but could in fact be indirect. Furthermore, just because a person hasn't harmed a person yet by breaking a law, does not mean there will not be consequences later on. By prohibiting certain activities, the government seeks to significantly reduce the risk of this happening.""In the U.S., the FDA estimates that there is one case of listeriosis linked to raw-milk cheese for every 55 million servings eaten." -James Andrews, Food Safety NewsRaw milk has health risks. So does pasteurized milk. So does water. And... anything and everything on the planet, in the solar system, in all of the known universe. I'll refrain on citing a source for this obvious observation. Quite apparently, raw milk is no more detrimental to the individual than cigarettes or alcohol.If individuals are not free to make stupid decisions (raw milk is certainly not one,) are they free at all?Enough of the Examples, on to Philosophy"Laws were made in order to reflect the values and attitudes of society. As society is continually changing, so too is the legal system. If one were to look back a few centuries, the practice of witchburning was actually recognised by the legal system."Exactly. Those who resisted those laws had no right to do so?"While those laws may seem horrid now, they may have been seen as perfectly acceptable by society at the time."Exactly! Exactly, exactly, exactly!"Pro did not recognise the dangers of raw milk, so if he 'Disobeyed this Bad Law,' he could have seriously threatened someone's health and wellbeing, all the while thinking that he has the 'right' to sell the milk."But I do have the right to sell raw milk. A voluntary exchange of a service/product for another product, service, or currency does not violate any individual's rights, whether it be alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, a coffee mug, or sex. What one does not have the right to do is use force and/or threats of force in order to stop such a voluntary, peaceful exchange.Voluntary, my dear Watson. Voluntary.1. http://abcnews.go.com...2.http://www.forbes.com...3. http://radio.foxnews.com...4. http://www.naturalnews.com...5. http://www.cnsnews.com... 6. http://www.myfoxny.com...7. http://www.naturalnews.com... <-- Timeline of raids.8. http://articles.mercola.com... 9.http://www.todayinaltmed.com...10. http://www.naturalnews.com...11. http://www.amazon.com... <-- Good read.12. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

Unfortunately my opponent has been on but has not posted an argument. I will post a simple argument against this resolution (it will technically be a strawman, since my opponent did not make an argument, it is my only chance at making this debate something). 1) Fast food does not cause obesity or disease (or death for that matter), too much of it does. Despite what many may want you to believe, your body needs fat, and carbs, and salt, and most everything else (there are actually very few things that you actually shouldn't have ANY of). The important thing is having the proper balance and amount of all those things (and that balance depends entirely upon the activity of your life style). 2) Fast food does not need to be unhealthy. There is no requirement that fast food must be "unhealthy" in the traditional sense. In fact, McDonald's sells apple slices, scrambled eggs, milk, and a number of other "healthy" options [1][2]. 3) Regulation is better than outright banning, if any action is needed at all. Flat out bans on minor thing (and even medium level things) have a history of not working out so well. Sure Prohibition did lower alcohol consumption in the US [3], but we know that other side effects sprouted up that we at least on par with the problem, if not significantly worse (I assume no source is needed for this?). Regulation allows for a narrow scalpel, rather than a wide hatchet to deal with an issue. It allows to restrict just enough to correct or less an issue without completely removing the option for people that still want it. Such regulations can be the posting of nutrition amounts (which has been done, though they can be made more readily available), limiting portion sizes per meal, requiring "healthy" options without restricting the "unhealthy," or even subsidizing places that specialize on only healthy options. I hope my opponent comes back for the last round. Thank you, [1] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [2] http://pbdietitian.hubpages.com... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

(Introduction) Aha, my favorite part of debating. The rebuttal! Let’s start: (Rebuttals) “Examples of places to poop could be on the sidewalk, in the street, very close to someone, in a bottle you found in the gutter, in the gutter, down someone's chimney, on a parked car hood, a homeless man's face.” “very close to someone”- This makes the chance of someone catching a disease a lot higher. Also, seriously, who wants someone doing their business right beside you? “in the gutter”- You know people have to clean the gutters right? So even if you pick it up, people are still going to touch your urine or feces. If you are infected with ANY diseases we mentioned, you just passed on a disease to another person. “on a parked car hood”- I guess you don’t realize that a car is a private property. So if we went by the resolution, that would not be allowed. A car hood is not public property! “a homeless man’s face”- Again, no person is anyone’s property then themselves’. So again you could not do your business on anyones face because that is not a public area. Also, just ew. What do you have against homeless people? “Home Depot has those toilets on display you know” I presume that you imply going to the washroom in these toilets? Well, good luck bud, there ain’t no plumbing. Also, some of those toilets don’t come with seats. Or maybe it is just a seat. “Not everyone would poop or pee in public, only a handful of people would want to do that anyway.” Okay, I will split this into two parts. a) Still, there would be more people than there are now. especially in first world countries, where almost no one does their business where it is illegal. More people would be doing it if it was legal. b) Why would only a “handful” be doing this? It is too tempting! No need to pay for bathrooms and toilets! But the thing that people don’t know that it is deadly to do this. “Man pees on plant outside in say new york city. He whips his dong out and is fully erect. A family walk by him. In that family there is a mother and a father, and a small 8 year old girl. She sees the man's large penis. The man sees that little girls reaction and turns to gives her a better look, then the father decks him in the face. The mother cries and holds the child. This is why it should be legal.” Wait, you are pro right? You just said that, through this quote, it is too revealing, promotes violence because of this, and is saying it is basically live stripper club. Then you say this is why it should be legal? Pardon me, but holy crap that is a reason against doing your business in public, not for it! “If you step on a spot on a concrete path with a shoe, death is not going to be 90% If you don't have a foot” What? I think I get what you are trying to say, but it makes no sense. “that person might be homeless, they do not give to society and no one will care if they are gone.” How do you know that no one will care that they are gone? Do remember that sometimes entire families may be homeless and if one family member dies then I am sure that his/her family members would care a lot? Or is it that their opinions do not matter because they are homeless? Even so, If I had a family member that was homeless and had just died, I would care a great deal! “If they are not homeless, then there would be a law that says you need to wear shoes around pooping areas.” Really? If public defecating and urinating was allowed would that make you the lawmaker in the country? This point does not help your argument. “Like smoking areas in parks, there can be pooping areas (with little blue baggies). Where shoe in public is a good idea anyway.” If defecating and urinating in public was allowed, then there would be no need for special areas, now would there? Also, some people may not realize that there are special zones for defecating and they may end up walking in a persons fecal matter! Now, a lot of people don’t pick up dog feces, why would that make human feces any different? “Someone could be walking on a gravel road and pick up a worm that digs into their foot. I could source that type of worm that does that but naww” What does that have to do with this debate? The debate is “Urinating and defecating in public should be allowed as long as you clean it up” This part of your argument has nothing to do with the debate “Anything could happen to your feets when you walk barefoot. This Ebola could lower the population significantly. We have been saving the weak and fat from mother nature for years. Letting nature kill us off to control our stupidly overgrown population is not something that we do not allow. We have about 7 billion people on earth as of 2013. We need less humans on this planet.” A) anything happening to your feet just supports our previous argument, even wearing shoes may not be enough to protect your feet. B) EXACTLY! Defecating in public can spread Ebola. C) You want to allow a whole bunch of INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE??? Allowing that is basically genocide! While yes, this planet is getting more and more crowded, I am sure that there are more peaceful ways to control overpopulation. But the fact that you find it okay that innocent people should die, is repulsing! I don’t care if you are trolling or not, but the death of innocent people IS NOT OKAY. “I recommend watching the movie Rampage.” What does that have to do with this debate? You have said so much useless garbage throughout this debate, why is that? “People have always pee-pee'ed outside for generations and it has not affected anything.” Please refer that to my previous argument. https://docs.google.com... “Ok, and when I need to clean up my fathers pile of dead babies, I use a pitchfork. I do not think congress wants to use your work.” How is this related to our topic at all? What the heck? “guess its rebuttal time. I don't know what rebuttals are, but I will still try to make them” I guess it is too late, but rebuttals are what I am doing right now. “It is ok for people to die from diseases caused by the dropping left by people in public. Thin out the herd I say.” Ok, I am going to copy and paste what I said previously: You want to allow a whole bunch of INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE??? Allowing that is basically genocide! While yes, this planet is getting more and more crowded, I am sure that there are more peaceful ways to control overpopulation. But the fact that you find it okay that innocent people should die, is repulsing! I don’t care if you are trolling or not, but the death of innocent people IS NOT OKAY. “The only way to keep out poop out of the environment is to destroy it, bury it, shoot it into space, or tell it to leave.” Again, some random crap (excuse the pun) that makes next-to-no sense in this debate. “For the wildlife that die off, that will not affect us that much. We will have more than enough plants to go around to make soylet.” Are you kidding me! As humans, we eat lot’s and lot’s and lot’s of wildlife. It is what keeps us going. We can’t just start killing them, because we need them as food for our growing population! “The freedom we will get will be worth all of the damage. A lot of jobs could be made for disinfecting areas. Imagine the riots!” Again, that goes against your whole side. You WANT RIOTS?????? Jeez! You cold-blooded troll. (Conclusion) Thank you for this debate, despite how trolling vs serious it was. And VOTE CON! WHY WE HAVE WON! -We had better arguments -We refuted all your points. -You troll while we actually made sufficient and realistic points -We credited in total 14 sources while you credited 2. Those 2 where both trolly-ish things -We had better spelling and grammar. DDD

My opponent's initial argument is certainly an idea, but it's not a solution. It hinges on the statement that banning smoking in public areas will reduce the number of smokers in the world and increase overall health of the human population. While everyone needs to agree that smoking is unhealthy, the carcinogenic properties of tar mutating DNA to drastically increase one's chances of cancer, the former part of the argument is not a tenable position. This is because banning smoking in public areas will not reduce the number of smokers, for a variety of reasons. This comes done to something statisticians learned during the prohibition (USA, '20-'33), and many countries still witness around the decision to legalize or not legalize drugs of many kinds: if someone wants something enough, prevent them from doing it. In fact, in many cases it will happen more. This, however, would be a valid argument towards banning smoking entirely- if we're talking about just banning it in public areas then there is even less of an argument to have, because smokers will just smoke in non-public areas. The only change we would see is smokers moving indoors, which is much, much more hazardous for health (imagine the families, especially children, of these smokers). There are many solutions to smoking and smoking addictions, but banning it from happening and telling addicted people "you just can't do this anymore" is definitely not one of them.

Good, and thanks for accepting. So here's my main argument: Well, as you and i will know cigarettes have devastating effects on people, however once people start, the cannot stop, becasue of the nicotine in cigarettes. I'm not going to go into all the effects of cigarettes, however I'm sure you will know that effects include lung infections/cancer and lots of other diseases. Since you live in America, here is some more information, to back up my sources. The 1982 United States Surgeon General"s report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality [death] in the United States." This statement is as true today as it was then. Also tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Because cigarette smoking and tobacco use are acquired behaviors; activities that people choose to do About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 443,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined. You might say well, if a person chooses to smoke, then they can. They can make there own choices, and if they want to potentially be a victim of a fatal disease, that's fine. However there are two things wrong with this statement. The first thing wrong with this statement, is that as you will know there is passive smoking. If one person decides to smoke, there kids or friends could easily start smoking by peer pressure, or by breathing in smoke from a near-by persons cigarette. (passive smoking) The second wrong thing with this statement is the fact that deaths and illnesses due to smoking are costing our health system, the NHS, an extraordinary amount of money. Here is the first paragraph from and article from the independent, written in 2009. Smoking costs the NHS more than "5 billion a year - up to five times the previously accepted figure, researchers have revealed. Now, in out country today, smoking has been banned in public places, however, everywhere else they are still allowed. I think that is smoking was banned in our country, it would save many lives, it would save lots of money, and it would make our country a cleaner place. Even though you might say that some people just can't stop i'm sure if it was illegal and they were confiscated if they were seen smoking, then eventually they would stop and slowly smoking would come down to the level of illegal drugs in the present day. Finally i would like to say, that i think since cigarettes are actually a drug, they should, if they were made illegal, should be treated in the same way as illegal drugs and the same punishment.


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water ought to be prohibited.

1) The oil utilized in the production of plastic bottles is a highly refined form of crude oil, which is also used in various other products such as clothing, shampoo, food packaging, household items, CDs, and computers. If one argues that plastic water bottles should be banned primarily because they contain oil, then, by that same logic, all the aforementioned products should also be banned based solely on their oil content. It's important to note that the oil used in the plastic is refined numerous times, rendering it completely harmless and posing no significant health threat. (source: http://www.icistrainingsite.com)

2) While it's true that drinking bottled water may sometimes result in a plastic aftertaste, the health benefits of consuming clean water far outweigh this minor inconvenience. Clean water consumption has been linked to numerous health benefits. In contrast, drinking water with a slight plastic aftertaste does not cause any significant health deterioration. (sources: http://www.freedrinkingwater.com, http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com, http://www.lifehack.org)

3) The assertion that purchasing bottled water is a waste of money due to the potential plastic aftertaste doesn't hold water, as the health benefits that come from the water for approximately $3 are almost a bargain.

4) Bottled water serves as the most efficient means of transporting water to regions experiencing severe drought. It is cost-effective and vital, and banning bottled water would lead to the deaths of millions of people, as countries like the US would lose the ability to deliver large quantities of clean drinking water to areas in dire need.

5) The industry surrounding the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is substantial in the US alone, and prohibiting bottled water would result in the loss of a significant number of jobs.

A: A person can do what they choose with their own body. Pro says I never explained how the ban was placed for the good of everyone. I did, and now I will explain it even further, because, clearly, you didn't understand me the first time around. The ban is placed because not all people are kind and just. Are you so selfish that the only thing you want is to make a million dollars, and stand by while the poor and disadvantaged are preyed upon? We have evidence that the poor are the ones most likely to be exploited. The ban was placed to prevent this from happening. True, some people will lose the chance or making a few thousand bucks, but this will prevent lives from being destroyed by organ traders. Pro also said that exploitation of the poor was not a problem. I quote, "Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem" You are saying that "an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation" is not a problem?! EXPLOITATION IS, MOST CERTAINLY, A PROBLEM!!! Exploitation is defined as: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain. The rich is taking unfair advantage of the poor, for their own and ONLY their own gain. Pro said value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. However, it says, in US News, that most of these people get paid less than they actually wanted, and less than what the deal was. Pro said unable to find my source. You cannot find everything online! Also, apart from my 60% failure evidence, we have evidence from TransplantLiving.org that states that 35% of transplants fail within the first five years. This, on top of the 60% surgery failure, puts organ transplantation at about a 20-30% success rate. THIS IS NOT SAFE! Pro says that my evidence, which said that 92% of America does not want incentives, is irrelevant. You are saying that financial incentives will lessen organ shortages. Obviously, the only way this will happen is if people actually want incentives! I'm saying that 92% DON'T want incentives, meaning that legalizing them will not do much to solve our crisis. PRO said "In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful." You are saying that selling it will be just as helpful as donating it to a friend. This is not true. If this occurred, organs will only go to the wealthiest, instead of going to those who were in line first. Pro just agreed that markets are a good thing. However, I have evidence that states that "the risk of slipping from incentives into a market is too big to take. We've just been though two years of complete economic collapse at the inability to regulate markets because people cut corners, cheat [and] are not forthcoming. And there's no reason to think a market in organs would work any differently." Because we cannot regulate markets properly, they could be dangerous for both the donor and the recipient.

As my opponent began his argument with "should be made illegal in all public places" I was unsure if the argument is being made for a worldwide ban or here in the United States. As we are both located in the United States I will infer that my opponent is referring to the United States as there would be no logical way to make smoking illegal worldwide. As such when referring to his first source, over 443,000 Americans (over 18 percent of all deaths) die because of smoking each year. Secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 of them. [1] Considering that there are over 43,000,000 people in the United States [2] this means that approximately 1% of smokers die each year. Considering the population of the United States is approximately 315,000,000 [3] and 50,000 people die of second hand smoke each year one can see that the percentage is well below half a percent of the population. There is no denying that smoking is bad for a person"s health. However, drinking too much alcohol is bad for a person"s health as is eating too many foods that are high in saturated fat. Although smoking results in a life expectancy approximately 14 years shorter than a nonsmoker, a nonsmoker on average will live to approximately 64 years of age and 70% of cancer is not a result of smoking. [4] In the 1960's approximately 55% of men and 30% of women smoked. These numbers are now down to less than 25% of each category who are smoking today. The numbers are still a bit high but as the younger generation is educated to the dangers these numbers should decline further in the future. [5] I am not debating that smoking is bad for a persons health but making smoking illegal in my humble opinion equates to making alcohol illegal. We all know how that worked out. [1] http://www.inforesearchlab.com... [2]http://www.cdc.gov... [3]http://www.census.gov... [4]http://www.livescience.com... [5]http://www.sharecare.com...

And my answer is this; do boats need 35,979 feet of water to move. I will go back to your recent idea of water treatment plants. It is a good idea. Except with that method you may end up drinking the same water that a hairy man bathed in. Think about it. Would you want to drink the same water that a hairy man bathed in? This is a question for all of the voters. Would you want to drink the same water that a hairy man bathed in. And about a voluntary regulation, what are you going to say " people of California, the is going to be a drought, so volunteer to not use as much water". People know that there is a drought in California. It hadn't rained for over a month. So if people were going to volunteer to not use as much water, they would have a long time ago! And I have two questions for you. 1) Where exactly did Texas get their water for a year and a half? 2) What would Texas had done if the drought stayed. Now you think about what I said Con, ok. " Now I pass the microphone over to you"

Pressed for time but will do my best. Rebuttals will occur in next round.Fluoride is not a medication but in fact is a naturrally occurring mineral in most water supplies. This is not like debating whether to put prozac in the water, it is more like debating whether to put vitamin A in the water supply. We already fortify many common ingredients to prevent deficiencies, whether that be iodine in salt, vitamin D in milk or folic acid to breads and cereals. Federal health officials have determined that the optimal level of fluoridation is .7 parts per million. There are 2 main benefits from having fluoridation at the reccomended level. One benefit is strong healthy bones. The other benefit is to help create healthier teeth, as fluoride prevents tooth decay. Almost every study that comes out shows that water fluoridation saves the community money, we have studies showing that anywhere between 30 and 60 dollars is saved for every dollar invested in fluoridation programs. My one citation at the end of this wil provide the appropriate citations to confirm all these facts. One study shows that children who dran fluoridated water as children ended up having stronger healthier teeth even as much as 40 and 50 years later than children who went without it. According to my source, there is still a major problem with tooth decay in America and it has displayed the following effects:" "Tooth decay is the most common chronic health problem affecting children in the U.S. It is five times more common than asthma. Tooth decay causes problems that often last long into adulthood — affecting kids’ ability to sleep, speak, learn and grow into happy and healthy adults. California children missed 874,000 school days in 2007 due to toothaches or other dental problems. A study of seven Minneapolis-St. Paul hospitals showed that patients made over 10,000 trips to the emergency room because of dental health issues, costing more than $4.7 million. Poor dental health worsens a person’s future job prospects. A 2008 study showed that people who are missing front teeth are viewed as less intelligent and less desirable by employers. In a 2008 study of the armed forces, 52% of new recruits were categorized as Class 3 in “dental readiness” — meaning they had oral health problems that needed urgent attention and would delay overseas deployment" http://ilikemyteeth.org...Anyway sorry about the rushed nature of this, but that is the facts. The main part of my case is the rebuttal phase anyway. Goodluck to pro

No problem. As a road map I'll simply attack Pro's arguments and move on to voting issues. 1. a. Varied sources are advantageous but this argument has no point. Because of the generalization of Americans kids being fat due to school food, thus we are debating upon that. b. http://www.usatoday.com... In the U.S a Big Mac costs $3.59. You claim one of your scratch food costs $4.00. So do the math, which costs more? We are saving at least $.3 per each Big Mac, add that on a big scale and we save a lot compared to a $4.00 school meal. 2. I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll ref-raise, groups can recruit others to their cause through propaganda. Therefore your source is inaccurate. 3. Metabolism is tied into the diabetes and weight issues you've discussed in R3 paragraph 3 to hopefully clarify and refine some arguments. 4. I didn't not claim my source in the issue of food additives, that is a possibility but not for sure. "ADHD has a strong genetic basis in the majority of cases, as a child with ADHD is four times as likely to have had a relative who was also diagnosed with attention deficit disorder." This is the part I was using about. 5. "They probably don't want to show the absence of nutrition." But still they showed it so people are aware, so by buying such food they are aware of the risk. And again food bought and eaten outside of school is not the school's problem. 6. Not a valid source meaning there isn't a website present, this is just another absurd and hypothetical claim. Voters, if you do this pass then I can say Harvard University researchers proved students are less likely to buy food made from scratch in school cafeterias, therefore schools lose income and costumers. Actually it's been proven correct (but not by Harvard :( ): http://www.education.com... 7. Yes, I agree it's very hypothetical. Thus your overstatement is invalid along with other exaggerated arguments...wait that's pretty much all of it. 8. Most of your arguments basically revolve around that source. And because I have already proved it wrong and too costly for schools, it's invalid. And again neither Pro has not destroyed my arguments (otherwise I wouldn't be refuting in sheer shame), nor has he touched on my contentions and its impacts. Voting Issues: 1. Again, Pro has not touched on my own contention, and please don't be confused with rebuttals. Basically S1: junk foods are a large source of income. S2: Fast foods promote business and school. My contention's impacts outweigh Pro's. "S1. Sodas are a source of income. Say a 20oz coke cost $.75 and they sell for $1.25, the profit is .$50. Sodas are bought by the hundreds every day at a high school, so that's...alot. This profit along with profits of chips, candies, etc can go to academics, sports, art, or music programs. The students also enjoy the refreshing snacks. The companies also earns profits and those money can go into humanitarian programs. Ever since CA banned junk food and cutting funding my school district has lost money and began firing staff members, this creates a tougher environment for students and faculties. So by banning junk food causes job loss which then creates and increase in unemployment. Impact: The income of junk food benefits the students. http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com...... states "In 2007, the Company and Foundation spent $6 million to support active, healthy lifestyle programs. S2. Fast food chains a source of income for the school and business. Companies do offer a fraction of the money they earn to the school, thus the school has another source of income for academics. In turn the chains receive a large profit that goes to programs that promote or gives environmental, charity, scholarships, etc. Impact: The income of fast food chains in school cafeterias benefit the students, teachers, and society in general." 2. His arguments revolve around the UC Berkeley source and I have proved it wrong and too costly and basically destroyed Pro's impacts. So this source and Pro's arguments are gone. 3. Pro has not touched or in other words dropped some Con's extended arguments: In R2, "Now R1," "2nd paragraph." In R2. "Now R1," "1st paragraph." Overall in the end Con's impacts and arguments outweigh Pro's arguments. Thus Con has won through cost benefit analysis as our agreed judging criterion. Pro, I hope this last round is worth it. I enjoyed debating this topic. And thanks again for starting this. -Brian Davis P.S No problem, I can understand your situation.

I'll make this simple. Let's examine something my opponent said last round. "the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires." However, that is just what my opponent himself is doing. Let's take a look at the facts. The topic does not specify the context of the debate. My opponent's first round was solely GENERAL FACTS about water. At this point in the debate, no specifics had been determined, so the only conflict that made any sense was whether or not it should be banned IN GENERAL. After my round 1, we had 2 rounds where debaters had argued the topic on a general level, and no rounds where anyone was arguing specifically about specifics. However, then my opponent's second round came. He decided that since he could not win the general debate due to overwhelming arguments, he would instead arbitrarily decide at this point what the topic meant. TOO LATE, my friend. The groundwork for this debate had already been set, you cannot suddenly change it into some specific variant. Seeing this, I argued not only against his specific claims, but also against his sudden re-interpretation of the topic. I argued that the topic was stated generally, and that it makes no sense to bind it to one or two specific scenarios, especially scenarios that WEREN'T EVEN HINTED AT in round 1. Then my opponent goes and claims that I can't just go redefining the topic at whim. However, it was not I that started arguing generally. My opponent's very first round was a GENERAL synopsis of the 'effects' of water. HE decided that the debate would be not about a specific scenario, but about the big picture. I have changed nothing. IT is my opponent who has suddenly changed it all up, claiming that one remote scenario proves his case. I will say this the best way I know how: The lack of a quantifier does not allow my opponent to simply pick and choose whichever he so desires. Further, the lack of a quantifier leads to the implication that this is a GENERAL topic. Coupled with the general-ness of my opponent's opening arguments, this becomes more than an implication, it becomes quite apparently the actual intent of the debate. Strapping a SPECIFIC quantifier onto the topic is what my opponent is doing - seems pretty hypocritical. I have already shown why DHMO, water, should NOT be banned in almost every case. Still, I feel the need to respond to the three scenarios my opponent reaffirms in his final round. 1. "DHMO should be banned from mogwai" Like I said last round, Mogwai are FICTIONAL. Therefore, ACTUALLY 'banning' DHMO from them would be pointless, since the only effect would be wasted time and additional pointlessness. Also, consider that 'banning' is not the word that would generally be used here anyway. 2. "DHMO should be banned from witches" Once again, witches do not actually exist. To the extent that they do exist (which is as ordinary, non-magical people), they still require water, like all humans. 3. "DHMO should be banned from torture (specifically, from chinese water torture)" This is completely nonsensical. First off, water does not make torture any worse. Second off, it makes no sense to ban water from being used in chinese water torture, since it's an impossibility to have one without the other. I provide a much more sensible counterplan - simply ban chinese water torture. Even if water was banned from torture (as if torturers care what's banned and what's not), other liquids would be used instead, so no real effect would be had. Though once again, torture involving water is not inherently worse than torture not involving water. These are the three scenarios my opponent affirms in is third round. Here is a transcript of what my opponent said: "NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial: DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches) DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture." It's clear that this is not simply a list of NEW points, it is a combined list of new points AND points my opponent wishes to continue supporting. Thus, it is the full list of my opponent's scenarios as of this final round, and I've just destroyed them, so even by his interpretation of the topic, I have now won (unless one of my rebuttals to the above three points was not good enough). Thank you.

People are considering removing unhealthy food and drink advertisments from public schools. This is including removing advertisements for foods and drinks like Coca-Cola, from billboards, signs, or anywhere else on public school property. I will be debating for this movement. I will also be using evidence to support my claims.

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you on this subject of prohibition. Just wanted to make my opening statements in this round. Alcohol accounts for so many jobs and so much tax revenue in this country, it would be an economical disaster to make it illegal. Another point that I would like to make is that Prohibition was not successful in the 20's with a booming economy and a more conservative populace. How could we enforce it in a nation with an unstable economy and a populace that is much more liberal than 90 years ago?I am going to make many more points. This is just an opening statement. Looking forward to a very controversial debate.

==Addiction== My opponent contends that food and water do not cause people to commit crimes. This is not the case. Man's addiction to food and water can cause him to commit theft and murder. Following my opponent's logic, the solution is to make food and water illegal. Unlike food and water, drugs are not necessary for the individual to survive, and the individual can quit such drugs without dying, so the criminal effect is much less. There are a few important things to note: -Making drugs illegal has not stopped their use. -The effect of making drugs illegal increases crime rate. Making drugs illegal increases the cost of drugs[1], which means that a poor man addicted to coke must pay more for it. The result is an increased desperation, leading to crime. -My opponent's source claiming that drugs make people violent is actually ironic. The violence is due to the Mexican government's crackdown on drugs. So, it is making drugs illegal that causes murder and drug violence, according to my opponent's source[2]. -Making drugs illegal increases the profits for drug dealers[1], encouraging the sale of drugs. ==My Opponent's Crime Proposal== I avoided the drinking and driving argument because there exists a high level of bias towards the issue. If my opponent wants to harp on this issue, then I will point out drunk driving facts. 2007: -503 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes, which was 40 percent of the 1,249 total crash fatalities. [3] -More than 49,600 DUI arrests were recorded by the Secretary of State's office. [3] -Fifty to 75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive. [4] -Between 2002 and 1997, the number of drunk driving trips INCREASED[5], in face of laws attempting to decrease them. -A first time drunk driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times prior to being arrested[6]. From these statistics, we can conlcude two things: -The criminalization of drunk driving has not decreased or discouraged it. -Someone in a drunk driving crash has on average driven drunk 8700 times prior to causing death. And so, drunk driving laws do little to prevent death, contrary to popular belief, while doing much to ruin lives. But that's all besides the point. My opponent is advocating the criminalization of drugs, which I have shown to only make matters worse while punishing innocent civilians. My opponent's crime definition premise is invalid and impractical for the reasons stated last round. ==My Crime Definition Proposal== "Following my opponents flawed logic, murder would be legal. " No, murder would not be legal for the same reason that rape would be illegal: it is coercion. It is a crime because it infringes on another's ability to govern their ability to govern their life and property. By making this illegal, government is protecting the individual's life and liberty. Seeing as that was my opponent's only objection to my proposal, it stands. ==Misc. == My opponent objects to drugs because they cause violence, but as I have shown, making them illegal only increases this violence. My opponent has only warranted his statement that drug use increases crime with a source about how a government drug crackdown killed 33 people, which only further proves my case. ==CONCLUSION== Not only do drug laws do more harm than good, they are an infringement of liberty and the coercive authority of government. Thank you, and vote CON. [1] Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter X [2] . http://www.google.com... [3] . http://www.chicagocaraccidentlawyersblog.com... [4] . http://www.madd.org... [5] . http://www.madd.org... [6] . http://www.madd.org...

I am Con, I believe smoking should be banned, I will state my reasons later. But I must point out how the very fact that this debate is in the health section is in my favor immensely because, obviously, smoking is not good for your health at all therefore there is not much to prove health-wise. Thus my arguments will mostly be rebuttals but I will give reasons why smoking should be banned later, too.