Question: Is it Safe to Vape with Electronic Cigarettes?

Should electronic cigarettes and vaping devices be subject to regulation? I never stated that I'm fine with "youth" becoming addicted to e-cigarettes. I'm simply indifferent. It's not just the nicotine, but also other dangerous substances that are present. You provided instances of why they're harmful, without any references. I'm just saying that there should be no regulations because it will be completely ineffective and time-consuming. Juul, for example, is a good way to start vaping, a teen pastime that gives the impression of smoking cigarettes while containing harmful substances similar to cigarettes. "Traditional cigarettes contain a list of chemicals that are proven harmful, and e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals." Therefore, there is a lower percentage of chemicals in e-cigarettes compared to traditional cigarettes. http://www.center4research.org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/

I agree it will kill you, but this argument is about taste not toxic chemicals

I would like to start by clarifying my usage of the word choice. It is a smokers choice weather to smoke or not, weather it be in public or private. As for the person walking behind me who innocently has to breath in the smoke well he also has a choice. There is no reason he cant move or stop and let said smoker get more in front of him so he can have clean air. It seems inappropriate to tell someone they cant smoke because it harms someone else when someone else can easily make the choice to remove them selves from the situation if they see it as a threat to their body. rebuttal 1... While I agree with the opposition that there is a vast amount of money spent dealing with the negative consequences of smoking, banning cigarettes would still in fact ruin economies. Maybe larger ones might be able to survive the economic stress this would cause, but weaker economies around the world would have a much greater chance at crumbling. Also on the top of jobs my opponent stated and I quote: "On the topic of jobs, would it not be commendable for a government to stop people from making death dealing drugs and instead move them into a job or career where they could actually benefit their nation and contribute to the strain placed upon their hospitals." First off cigarettes are not classified as a drug. Second off and in my opinion more importantly, I do not believe it is the government's place to "move" any person into a job/career that the had no intention on taking up in the first place. I am aware that my opponent is not from America but that is a core fundamental of America. It is no place for the government to "move" anyone into doing anything they do not desire to do. rebuttal 2... my opponent stated "The economic aspect is dealt with in Rebuttal 1 but I would like to make the point as to whether money is more important than 6 million human lives a year." I would like to first state that money is not more important then human life, however if the economy were to collapse due to banning smoking. then we would face new issues. such as poverty, starvation, and homelessness just to name a few this would cause a much greater strain on our hospital's then smoking. Also by banning cigarettes your creating a black market effect on them as was the case during Prohibition. Which in turn would cause a great strain on are law enforcement industries as well as our courthouses. So in turn if you were to take the 6 million deaths a year and compare this to the amounts of death that could happen to everyone, not just those who choose to smoke. I have to ask is it worth taking a chance and possibly endangering hundreds of millions of lives? rebuttal 3... My opponent states "Tobacco contains a compound called nicotine. This compound is what causes the addiction and tobacco companies have devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that this compound is properly diffused into your body" Sounds pretty nasty right? However after stating this my opponent then goes on to contradict himself by stating " it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans..." However by the oppositions own admission states tobacco companies devised a method of using toilet bowl cleaner to ensure that the compound called nicotine is properly diffused into your body. So yes it does matter if humans add their own chemicals. perhaps there should be tighter regulations and more of a watchful eye on these companies, however calling for a ban on cigarettes in general is not the answer, and as I stated in rebuttal 2, could just lead to more problems. rebuttal 4... my opponent states "I'm not sure if my opponent didn't read the statistic that 600,000 non smokers die from smoke each year or just doesn't care but there is no light side to something that is the leading cause of preventable death in the world" First of I would like to stress that I absolutely do care that many people die each year due to second hand smoke. however as I previously had pointed out, it is within their control to rid themselves of that exposer if they deem it to be dangerous to their body's. Further more I would like to point out that smoking is not the leading cause of preventable death in the world, that in fact would be heart disease. and before anyone jumps on that statement saying that it is not preventable I would like to point out that a majority of people that die of heart disease each year are statistically overweight and not in great health. which is absolutely preventable by eating well and exercising. Furthermore I do not think it is up to the opposition to suggest alternative methods for stress reliving. I brought this point up because smoking is a legal way one can achieve this. My opponent also states that " that the total cost a year on killing yourself would be ï¿½5110. I leave it to you to think of what else could be done with that money" which in turn I would like to state as I have before already. that It is not up to the government or any other person on how anyone decides to spend their money. This debate is not about how much money one spends on smoking each year, or as my opponent stated how much it would cost to "kill yourself." Very few people know how they are going to die. someone can smoke for 90 years and get hit by a bus. Smoking did not kill them. so that argument is invalid, and would like to ask my opponent to stick to the debate at hand. re-cap of points made in my rebuttal's... 1. smoking does not always kill a smoker, nor does it always kill a second hand smoker 2. It is not the government's job to make choices for us the people. 3. there should be tighter regulations and a more watchful eye on the tobacco industry.

Conclusion Gas cars have the advantage of being around a lot longer and have been tested a lot longer for safety. When people are shopping for new cars, safety is number one on their list to look out for. With electric cars they aren't the safest cars around and can make people think twice about purchasing them. Expenses I know shopping for a new can be expensive but if you know how to shop car with the best unities you can save some money. The car doesn't have to be $30,000 dollars to get great benefits from it you can get a reasonable well working car for just $13,000. If you can buy a new car that has great gas mileage you can save thousands of dollars year round. Another great benefit that will save you money is that some car dealerships give free oil changes every few months which save money a good amount of money. Maintenance Electric cars do require maintenance, maybe not as often but they still need it. With electric cars it can be more costly because they supplies that electric cars needs are different from gas cars so most mechanics only deal with gas cars. Since gas cars have been around longer mostly mechanic only specialize with gas cars and not electric. It's hard to find a mechanics where you live that also looks after electric cars. In the future I'm sure there will be a lot more auto shops that will deal with electric cars but for now there aren't that many. Safety Since electric cars a new to the market, gas cars a much safer to be driving on the road today. This especially, is a serious issue for person who is driving the car has an infant in the backseat. Safety comes first when you, your families and friends life are on the line. Distance A very important matter when it comes to drive is how far you are able to go. You a security blanket when you are driving on a road trip or have long commute hours every day to know that you can fill up your tank at any time if your tank gets low. There are more gas stations are every corner then there is charging units for smart cars. Driving a smart car is risky when you have to drive for long amounts of the day. Environment In a way electric cars still do harm the environment with their very toxic batteries. Yes, electric cars don't run on gas but people fail to see that these batteries in these cars can affect the environment badly if they aren't disposed of properly. Since, now there isn't really a safe way to get rid of these batteries carefully now isn't a good time to buy these cars. Maybe in the future when there are more people who are educated with these types of cars like mechanics, when there are more electric charging stations available, and more HOV lanes available in more states, have higher safety ratings and a safe way to dispose of these batteries then these cars can be a truly good way to help the environment. However, now just isn't the right time to have these on the road because in the end are they really doing more good than harm?

Now you are off on another subject. The title is Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke. What part of that do you not comprehend??? I never said it was healthy and as I said in the first round I don't think others should be responsible for our poor health choices. If I want to kill myself with poor choices that is my right. My eating BBQ ribs everyday does not effect the rest of the world! Bill Clinton had two stents inserted into one of his coronary arteries in February of 2010 because he loves ribs and that was on taxpayer dollars. Who complained about that? GOD gave us freedom of choice. Is the American government above GOD? How do they have the right to decide things for us???

DEATHSI just want to make this point very, very clear.As Proctor states [3]:"The cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilisation. Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. ... [A] billion could perish in our century unless we reverse course. Even if present rates of consumption drop steadily to zero by 2100, we will still have about 300 million tobacco deaths this century."Consider that: 1,000,000,000 dead people. Most estimates of nuclear war put the deathtoll at maybe 500,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 dead people. Stopping cigarette consumption is equivalent to preventing a nuclear war.REDUCING SMOKINGConsider that smokefree policies have reduced smoking, even though they're limited to just the premises of a building [1][2]. If smokefree policies work at a local level, why shouldn't they work at a larger level?LIBERTYAs Proctor states [3]:"The primary reason for abolition, however, is that smokers themselves dislike the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human liberties. Abolition would also help cigarette makers fulfil their repeated promises to ‘cease production’ if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm. .... The freedom objection is weak, however, given how people actually experience addiction. Most smokers ‘enjoy’ smoking only in the sense that it relieves the pains of withdrawal; they need nicotine to feel normal. People who say they enjoy cigarettes are rather rare—so rare that the industry used to call them ‘enjoyers’. Surveys show that most smokers want to quit but cannot; they also regret having started. Tobacco industry executives have long grasped the point: Imperial Tobacco's Robert Bexon in 1984 confided to his Canadian cotobacconists that ‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week’. American cigarette makers have been quietly celebrating addiction since the 1950s, when one expressed how ‘fortunate for us’ it was that cigarettes ‘are a habit they can't break’. Cigarette smoking itself, though, is less an expression of freedom than the robbery of it. And so long as we allow the companies to cast themselves as defenders of liberty, the table is unfairly tilted. We have to recognise that smoking compromises freedom, and that retiring cigarettes would enlarge human liberties."A ban helps smokers quit; most smokers *want* to quit. We thus both increase liberty and prevent harm at the same time.CRIME & ILLEGAL SMOKINGAs Proctor states [3]:"Another objection commonly raised to any call for a ban is that this will encourage smuggling, or even organised crime. But that is rather like blaming theft on fat wallets. Smuggling is already rampant in the cigarette world, as a result of pricing disparities and the tolerance of contraband or even its encouragement by cigarette manufacturers. Luk Joossens and Rob Cunningham have shown how cigarette manufacturers have used smuggling to undermine monopolies or gain entry into new markets or evade taxation. And demand for contraband should diminish, once the addicted overcome their addiction—a situation very different from prohibition of alcohol, where drinking was a more recreational drug. And of course, even a ban on the sale of cigarettes will not eliminate all smoking—nor should that be our goal, since people should still be free to grow their own for personal use. Possession should not be criminalised; the goal should only be a ban on sales. Enforcement, therefore, should be a trivial matter, as is proper in a liberal society."ECONOMYCon states: "The second thing is the economy would go down. They would give up more than 150 billion dollars which is a lot. So we would not be in the best state. Sorry for this being so short."As Proctor states [3]:"Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would ... effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation."Ending cigarette consumption is literally better than ending war, in terms of lives and money saved.As the New South Wales Dept. of Health states:Cigarette smoking costs "$2.9408" billion dollars in New South Wales, population 7.439 million. If we assume constant levels of cost across the world, then smoking would cost roughly 2.9 *trillion* dollars, per year.It's worth the tiny loss of profit, because of the gains from health, productivity, and elsewhere.[1] http://www.cdc.gov...[2] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...[3] http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com...[4] http://www.health.nsw.gov.au...

The brain scans that were done were done in the 70's were done on monkeys who were strapped to a gas mask and pumped with 63 joints, no oxygen was passed through, they were losing brain cells not because of the chemicals but because of lac of oxygen, they were passing out. And yes lung damage may occur over the years but its only from breathing in the heated smoke, and is nothing compared to the damages caused by tobacco, and addiction is non exsistant, sure it might suck without it for a wile but look at the withdraws from tabacco and liq, its no where close to them. the reason so many people are in rehab because of it is because the process is out of this world, if your caught with it, you go to court and have two choices, jail, or rehab, the answer is very obvious. And what you described as a burnout is not right, a burnout is almost like a hang over, it lasts for maybe a half a day and your just tiered, making it seem like your un-attentive and un- caring. But there is no way it lasts you in the long run, look at all the very successful people who smoked since they were 10 and became something big, they didn't get there by chance. And are you aware of hemp? Hemp is a all in one amazing cheap product that will nearly save our economy. Hemp can be grown anywhere, and has thousands of uses. It is the strongest rope, it can be easly turned into fuel, and can be made into paper, the first document of the deceleration of Independence was made on hemp paper, its just stupid to keep cannabis illleagle. And cannabis, i do not consider a drug, its a herb. And by people saying people do stupid stuff when their high on pot is completely true, but not to the existent of injury, when people are high on pot they are not on high speed chases or running around with guns like drunks or hard drugs do to you, when your high on pot, you just want to relax, people dont get angry when they are high and they dont get sad, they just relax and let it take its curse, its almost impossible to explain. No one can ever give the country a straight answer on why it is illeagle, in the early 19th century it was illeagle because it was said that all the tribal people and African Americans smoked it making them violent, then during Vietnam it was made illeagle for the complete opposite reason, it was said to make people nicer and that our enemies will use it against us. I mean its proven to be non threatening to your life, there is little to no withdraw, thousands of things we can do with it other then getting high. I dont have to get into the medical uses of it cause those are already in use and not one problem has occurred yet. Im not a hippie, im a 26 year old collage graduate making 114,000 a year with a beautiful wife and 2 kids i love to death.............and i smoke pot. I just dont see why we keep on pushing this law, we spend millions in law enforcement to stop a drug that has caused no problems to people but the law against it, in my opinion we just drop it and go after the real drugs, like crack PCP ect, and maybe start thinking what people are doing, keeping the two most toxic addicting substances (tobacco, liq) leagle, and the most effective, non threatning herb on the other side of the law. The only thing that makes scence is that it makes no scene at all. And P.S. I typed this high

Pro's rebut would be on two points, mainly: 1) Causing bad things = ban? 2) Individual choice 3) Money losing From my own point of view, 1) Many causes things, but should we ban it? Well, Con has a point: Cars causes dangers, still, we should not ban it, or factories causes biological harm, yet, they are not ban. I say is that, those are things that when weighed, both positive and negative are equal. And in cases of cars, car accidents can be avoided through discipline or by different manner, cars cannot be blamed by accidents. In terms of harmful gas emitted, scientists are looking for ways to lessen such harm like by using water as gas. Factories have discipline as well, though sad to say, sometimes, they don't abide on it. Cigarettes, however, kills many little by little. I have raised a question though I don't challenge Pro to answer it, so its ok if he does not. What causes cigarette addiction? Well, I don't believe that own choice would, rather, usually, via influence. If people will learn not to smoke, the next generation, probably, smoking would be eliminated even without banning. However, for some people, smoking is "cool", which therefore, pushes them to do so. Banning and educating people about smoking can help. No freedom is being harassed. 2) Individual choice Seems that, I had answered it on the first point. Well, to clear and make details, cigarette smoking is more on influence rather than simply choice. Normally, people won't smoke if they aren't influenced by smokers, unless curiosity pops their mind to do so. As to relate to health, smoking gives harm, which calls for ban. If people will learn not to smoke, they can save huge part in their life. 3) Money losing Banning cigarette would not mean money loss. As a person engage in business, I can say that more opportunities can come if cigarette would be wipe out from the market. People will learn to seek new opportunities rather than selling cigarettes in the market which kills people. To go back and clarify all my points: 1) Everything can be harmful, but we need to learn what is useful. Cars can cause harm, but it is useful. Cigarettes, on the other hand, has many negatives which calls for ban. 2) People do not smoke out of individual choice, rather on influence or curiosity. I haven't seen a non smoker who bought a cigarette because suddenly, he/she wants to. 3) Opportunities will arise if cigarette smoking can be ban. Who knows? We can find new ways is using tabacco. Innovation of tabacco products that may even give more benefits instead of turning it into cigarettes.

I will start off with rebuttals. And I'd like to point out that my opponent didn't refute any of my arguments in the previous round.Rebuttals1. It's important to remember that vaccine manufacturers fund the research on vaccines. Therefor vaccine researchers are less likely to be honest about their findings. There is a conflict of interest. Vaccine manufactures also spend 100million dollars a year on advertisements. That's more than any other industry including the oil industry.My opponent states that because vaccine manafacturers fund the research on vaccines, they're less likely to be honest about their findings. This isn't solid evidence that they lied about anything, and until there is, this isn't a valid point. My opponent also states that vaccine manufacturers spend 100 million dollars a year on advertisments. My opponent provided no sources to prove this, so this point is also invalid until there is a source to prove it.2. It's also important to note that there is little science on the molecular cellular level about vaccines.I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to say here. Because the molecular biology is the mainly deals with the interactions of various systems inside a cell. Also, the "molecular cellular level" isn't an actual thing. Living organisms are classified into different levels, starting at the molecular level, THEN the cellular level, and then tissue, organ, and system level. I'd like my opponent to better clarify what they mean by "molecular cellular level" in the next round.3. The vaccines we have did not go through a 4 year clinical trial but a 16 month trial. This was very irresponsible and dangerous.My opponent does not provide any evidence for this. And they also don't give any reason as to HOW this was "very irresponsible and dangerous."3. Mercury and aluminum both cause brain damage. Eating aluminum is less likely to cause brain damage because it is excreted quickly. But aluminum is vaccines is made to stick around. Aluminum in vaccines causes brain damage. Vaccines also contain mercury.Again, my opponent provides NO SOURCES. Specifically, ALUMINUM SALTS are used in vaccines, they are non-toxic, and there is no evidence that these are related to any health effects[1]. As for mercury, specifically in vaccines, they use thimerosal, and that contains very low doses of mercury. These have not been linked to any bad side effects, but still, in 1999, vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal levels should be reduced, but only as a PRECAUTIONARY measure[2.]4. Chris shaw a pediatrician did an experiment with mice, giving them aluminum and mercury. The test found that after receiving the mercury the mice became more irritable and suffered cognitive and physical damage. No one had debunked dr Shaws study. If he is wrong than the pro vaccine doctors should be able to debunk it but they.a won't because can't.My opponent provides very little detail on this, and no sources. They do not give any link to Chris Shaw's study, and the best I found from an internet search was a biased source conducting an interview with him, that provided no information at all. Obviously, high doses of aluminum and mercury are dangerous, but vaccine manufacturers use aluminum in very low doses, following standards set by the World Health Organization, and mercury is being phased out only as a precautionary measure, as it was used safely for 100 years in vaccines. 5. Vaccines affect everyone differently. However the vaccine industry acts as of it is a one size fits all matter, as if all people will react to vaccines the same way. Children who get autism from vaccines are more allergic than children who don't get autism from it.The amount of people who have had negative side effects is very small, and they are isolated cases, which have proven no link between vaccines and diseases. My opponent says children who get autism from vaccines are more allergic than children who don't, and she doesn't provide any sources, again. This point is invalid until there is a legitimate source provided.4. It is common knowledge that mercury and aluminum cause brain damage and yes autism. Both mercury and aluminum are found inside of vaccines. It was in July of 1999 that the American association of pediatrics and vaccine manufacturers made a statement saying that Mercury should be lessened of eliminated from vaccines. The amount of mercury put in vaccines was reduced but not eliminated.My opponent keeps saying the same thing over and over again. And, as I said before, the lessening of mercury from vaccines is just a precautionary measure, because the low doses haven't been linked to any diseases for many years.5. In the film "a greater good" a little boy named Jordan king is featured. Jordan was a happy healthy baby. Than he was vaccinated. His family noticed that he became more irritable, began to walk on his toes and that he would jump up and down and flap his hands when excited but in a strange way. He also became unable to speak. John Green Jordan's doctor tested him for mercury and found that Jordan had very high levels of mercury. His parents tested the pant in their house, the saw dust in the basement but found no mercury. It is undeniable that the mercury had come from the vaccines he was given. Jordan along with 5,600 other people in the omnibius autism proceedings that examined the link between vaccine snake autism in 2001My opponent provides no sources for this story again, it's just a film. My opponent doesn't even provide a link to John Green's research, or Jordan's case. Until there is a valid source for this, this is an invalid point.6.!Many vaccine Injuries have resulted in law suits. One such case includes graham vs Wyeth lab and resulted in 15 million dollars being payed to the Grahams to make up for a severe vaccine injury. Than there's Johnson vs american cynamind ended up resulting in the Johnson's winning 18 million dollars. 7. There are so many vaccine injuries that a program called the vaccine compensation program fund was set up. Every time you receive a vaccine you pay a 75 cent tax that will go to a family who has been affected by a vaccine injury.My opponent again, provides no sources, not for the case, or for the tax. But of course there's a vaccine compensation program, because there will always be isolated cases in which a person is harmed, but these cases aren't solid evidence of a link between vaccines and diseases.For point 8, my opponent references that film, and again, provides no sources. This is another isolated case, and is no solid evidence for vaccines.10. The full study was out one the translational nuerodegeneration site and is called "mmr vaccine timing and autism in young African American boys reanalysis of cdc study". This study was retracted in 2014 [3.] It obviously had major flaws in the research, which is why it was retracted. So this point is invalid. ConclusionMy opponent provided NO SOURCES to prove any of her points. Instead, she referenced isolated cases, and one study that was later retracted. Isolated cases cannot be counted as solid evidence. And the one study was retracted, which shows there was major problems in the research against vaccines. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I still seek to understand why the non smoker is compelled to move from an area where someone is smoking? For what reason must the non smoker move? Secondly, I didn't define free as my opponent claims, instead I said that it would be good for governments to free their citizens from making cigarettes. This means that these people can now search for a job that they want, without any input from the government unless asked for. There is nothing forceful about that. Moreover, the claim that butchers should be forced out by using the same logic is nonsense. What study has demonstrated that meat causes death? ? How many studies have conclusively proved that smoking leads to death in a myriad of manners. It is the other aspects of a persons life, or rather their lacking of exercise which leads to an unhealthy body. Therefore, butchers can keep their jobs as they supply food, whilst those making cigarettes produce products of death. Furthermore, the idea that the only job a poor family can have is growing tobacco is not true. Although it is a very sad situation in societies other than our owns where there are no jobs to go around, I would suggest that some sort of provision be made available by the government for that family until they can find a suitable source of income. Plus, I hope my opponent would agree that terminating the contracting of green tobacco sickness is a good thing. As mentioned previously, a ban on tobacco would be very different from alcohol. What I believe would be essential if such a predicament were to arise would be proper law enforcement. Strict punishments and tighter regulations would mean that the events of the 1920's are not repeated and instead people can live in peace without having to die from second hand smoke. Just to clarify this idea of contradiction, I am going to make clear this point again. Whether my opponent fails to understand the simple chemistry behind the process, or it is the semantics which have caused his confusion, I will now elucidate that there was no contradiction in what I said. Diffusion: The passive movement of particles along a concentration gradient. For example, from an area of high concentration to low concentration. Firstly, nicotine can perfectly diffuse through the human body without any external aid. Secondly, tobacco companies have added toilet bowl cleaner in order to increase this rate of diffusion and therefore increase the rate of consumption of cigarettes, meaning that the consumer purchases more. This means that the toilet bowl cleaner doesn't change the reactions that would take place, it just makes them occur faster. Next, tar is ALREADY NATURALLY found in cigarettes and is called by many health professions "the most dangerous chemical in cigarettes". Therefore, when I say that "it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals (toilet bowl cleaner) are added by humans", I am making a direct reference to the fact that although the toilet bowl cleaner aggravates the effects of smoking, the two most dangerous compounds are already found in tobacco naturally, without any human interference. Additionally, how many industries can one name that have had tight regulations placed upon them but have failed to act correctly. The media in the UK had regulations strapped to them and still hacked the phone of a dead teenage girl in the search of a story to print. If my opponent truly believes that an industry out to make money will sincerely listen to regulations if they haven't already, then they are naive to say the least. So because a mother works hard, that means she can poison her children? If I work hard, does that mean I can pour alcohol into my child's milk? Furthermore, 50% of all smokers die from a tobacco related disease. The idea that for a few to have pleasure, a lot should die is disgusting. The idea that smoking is a choice is combated through the fact that nicotine is an addictive drug. This means that after a while, smoking is no longer down to choice, but chemical compulsion. Thus, the volition of the person has been removed and they can only continue until killing themselves, someone else, or quitting. If legislation banning smoking were to exist, these people could be saved. Summary of main arguments: 1)Smoking kills 6 million people a year. 2)600,000 of those do not smoke. 3)It contributes to the continued impoverishment of the world's poor. 4)It places a huge strain on a nations healthcare system. 5)Smoking is not a real choice, but chemical compulsion. Vote to stop 6 million deaths. Vote to stop money being wasted on preventable diseases.

????What? That whole thing seemed suspiciously copy pasted; and almost irrelevant. Regardless, you provided no sources. Also, you ignored my points. Public smoking bans are good. But total? No. It can't & won't be enforced.BTW, guns have little relevance here.Stop the dealers?How?"Smoking is bad, but karma will do it's thing."


Question: Are electronic cigarettes a safe alternative for vaping?

The use of e-cigarettes in public spaces should be regulated similarly to traditional tobacco products, prohibiting their use in areas where smoking is not allowed. Are e-cigarettes truly a safer alternative, or are they merely a high-tech method to introduce a new generation to the addictive grip of nicotine? The answer remains uncertain, as research on the effects of e-cigarettes has not kept pace with their rapid rise in popularity. However, the era of e-cigarettes is already upon us, with the industry flourishing and on track to surpass the sales of tobacco products within the next decade. The number of teenagers and young adolescents using these devices doubled between 2011 and 2012, underscoring the urgency to better understand these products. Preliminary evidence suggests that e-cigarettes might indeed be safer than conventional cigarettes; the primary health risk from tobacco is the smoke produced, and e-cigarettes do not combust, emitting significantly lower levels of harmful chemicals compared to traditional cigarettes. However, the composition of e-cigarettes can vary widely. "E-cigarettes may pose fewer health risks than regular cigarettes," says Drummond. "But we still lack comprehensive knowledge about their long-term health impacts and the effects of secondhand exposure." E-cigarettes have ignited a heated debate among health professionals, all of whom share the goal of reducing the health consequences of tobacco use, but differ in their perspectives on whether e-cigarettes exacerbate or mitigate the problem. Critics argue that nicotine's addictive nature could turn e-cigarettes into a "gateway drug," potentially leading non-smokers and minors to start using tobacco products. They also express concern that manufacturers, armed with substantial advertising budgets and endorsements from celebrities, could reignite the popularity of smoking, reversing the progress made in recent decades to reduce smoking rates. Conversely, some experts see potential benefits for current smokers. "Ideally, smokers should quit entirely," explains Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. "But if quitting is not feasible, e-cigarettes could be a significantly safer option. They offer a less harmful alternative." Siegel likens the substitution of tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users transitioning to the pain reliever methadone: while the replacement is not without risks, it is undeniably safer. Some proponents believe that e-cigarettes could aid in smoking cessation, similar to nicotine gum. However, research has not yet definitively proven this hypothesis. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence that e-cigarettes are either entirely safe or inherently harmful.

Firstly, regarding passive smoking. This is why smoking in public places is already illegal, it is not a reason to completely make cigars illegal if smoked privately with other consenting smokers."If a smoker wanted to still smoke he could still move to a different country to live in." It is unfair to command a smoker to move countries simply because they want to smoke a cigar as opposed to a cigarette, it is also a violation of personal liberty and disrespecting that many living in USA may want their heritage respected and valued as part of society."If adults also smoke they make there[their] house more unpleasant making them anti-social." Smoking in front of children is already illegal and advised against. This is actually a form of child abuse (to smoke in their face). This is why most parents smoke outside in the back garden for house or balcony for apartment to avoid choking their children, this is also not a reason to make cigars illegal.

I'm not sure if you are joking or not but if you aren't please propose a genuine case in round two.The argument that it's a waste of money fails because nearly every single luxury item is a waste of money if we don't believe in the benefits of emotional pleasure. You would have to disprove the entire performing arts and all pleasure-based being abolished to prove it to be a waste of money.Cigars do not cause cancer, over-using them does. this is the consumer's issue and there is therapy for those addicted to any form of nicotine (this opening up in demand for therapy jobs decreases unemployment by increasing demand for them).Cigars are also extremely important to many Caribbean cultures and are almost as sacred as the shisha is to the Arabs, beer is to the Germans and wine is to the french. Whilst it does harm health we have to respect different people's beliefs before outright declaring something illegal for no apparent reason.

In this response, I will point out my opponent's error in judgement and understanding of my position. =>Con is mistaken, my proposals not simply about "protecting the weak and innocent". I'm not sure I ever mentioned "weak", although children and infants are defenseless. The entire point of my proposal is for the government to protect the right of it's citizens to choose a healthier life, and to protect their right to life itself. " The government is entitled to protecting the right's of citizens, which is why I have put forward the idea for a moderate ban. Through this, I will show how we can phase out tobacco users, protect the innocent and protect everyone's rights. =>Again, when put this way, things are skewed. This is not a matter of purity vs. liberty. It is a case of rights to health & life of the majority AND the defenseless vs. minor property and personal rights of the minority. Even more simply put, it is vital liberty rights of the majority and defenseless vs. minor liberty rights of the minority. We are not just balancing minority and majority but the weight of these specific small liberties must also be balanced. Which is the greater affront to one's liberty, the theft of one's health, or the loss of a cigarette? If we are honest with ourselves, it is the former. " How is balance skewed? Regardless of the "weight", one's rights are extremely important, and it is the government's job to protect them. 20.6% of adult Americans smoke cigarettes, and 19.5% of High School students smoke cigarettes [1]. Although this is the minority, they still deserve to have their rights represented, and with respect. Would you be willing to look an adult or teenager in the face and say, "Look, you're smoking so your rights, in this case, are less than mine. I'm the victim. " =>"My opponent is true that perspective is important. However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents deaths, and only ones attributed to second-hand smoke (not third-hand smoke). Furthermore, let's compare smoking to something a little more similar. If my opponent's argument were to be applied to, say, domestic violence, which caused only 31,000 deaths in twenty years, then domestic violence should be fine in private households. [1] That second-hand smoke causes less death than other problems is irrelevant. It's an injustice either way. " "However, the viewpoint she has presented makes second-hand smoking seem harmless because it only presents death. ." is an absurd statement. First of all, how can something be harmless when it causes deaths? And if smoking only causes deaths, which it invariably does, how is that not enough cause to change something? Even without listing other deformities and diseases secondhand smoke causes, it is still presented as dangerous within my post and to say otherwise is a lie. What I had done was to show that there are other causes of deaths that could easily be banned, but have not been. Also, comparing secondhand smoke to domestic violence is, once again, unfair. You seem to forget the importance of intent. If I were purposely blowing smoke in the face of my spouse or child, this is abuse and could be persecuted. If I am smoking within my house while watching TV and my kid walks through, I am not trying to kill my offspring. I am smoking. .. for the purpose of smoking. There's no intent to hurt, so why treat it like I'm committing a heinous crime? =>"My opponent's comparison makes little sense. Smoking a cigarette is similar to eating fast food, true, but eating fast food does not harm anyone but the person eating it. Why would we abolish fast food for causing health problems when, and this is the key part, it doesn't cause any health problems against anyone's will? ." Eating fast food actually can hurt others and here's how. I'm hungry and decide to take my family out to McDonald's. Now I'm contributing to my child's chance of obesity while also showing unhealthy eating habits. Parents are currently being prosecuted for life threatening negligent behavior, so my comparison still stands [2]. In regards to the automobile industry comparison, no objection was made so I assume it still stands. =>"I repeat: small freedoms must be compromised for greater, more vital freedoms. To do the *opposite* would be to disrespect our values of freedom. And that is what my opponent proposes: to value the privileges of the few over the freedoms of the many. " I believe that Thomas Jefferson said it more eloquently than I ever could, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. " It's not that I value the majority any less, I just happen to disagree that because there are more people on your side, that you are automatically correct. Your rights shouldn't "weigh" any more or less than a smoker. =>"I do not propose we storm into anyone's house. In fact, imagine this acceptable scenario: in addition to preventing new smokers, the government either encourages or requires smoking to occur in "smoke clubs", so long as they are not parents or children's workers. " Is that not what I proposed with "Smoking areas" that are furnished by the government? =>"My opponent proposes an education campaign. While this could be a great idea, I ask her to make a convincing case that an education campaign on third-hand smoke would be effective, especially on addicts. " What is the scariest thought for a mother? That her child can be hurt by her. And if businesses were to hear that third-hand smoke harms people, which will open them to lawsuits by angry costumers, than they are sure to impose new restrictions as well. 68.6% of businesses already have smoke-free policies [1], and I intend to add onto that by spreading the knowledge and scaring the other 31.4%. =>"When stabbing someone on private property, not only does that violate a federal law. .. " This is arguing that something should not ever be illegal because it is not currently illegal. " I am not! Otherwise I wouldn't be arguing for a ban at all! I'm merely showing that your comparison is unfair since you are comparing an illegal action to a (currently) legal one. Have I ever said that smoking should be completely legal? No, because I'm trying to restrict it as well! =>"Does a police officer, seeing a stabbing about to occur, check to make sure the stabber doesn't mean to hurt anyone before he stops it? And if the stabber's intents aren't malicious, should he allow it to occur? " Once again, you are purposely saying absurd statements to discredit my stance. By protocol, the police officer should arrest him and take him to the local precinct. He is not responsible for finding intent, only the detectives and lawyers are, so your scenario will not happen and is negated. Conclusion: My opponent has disregarded my position in favor of discrediting me with unfair accusations and comparisons. Also, no rights should ever outweigh another simply because they are the majority's. I believe that would fall under the phrase, "The Tyranny of the Majority". Also, because I stated it hurts only babies and infants does not make it any less of a concern. In your earlier post, you had implied that anyone could be hurt by third-hand smoke, and I simply discredited that notion. We must stop smoking through constant education and more restrictions and continued tax on packs of cigarettes. We have to limit second-hand smoke with designated smoking areas. And we should limit third-hand smoke through education and worker restrictions. Sources: . http://www.tobaccofreekids.org... . http://www.usatoday.com...

I will just begin countering my opponent. Counter 1: Harm Con continuously discussed that cigarette is harmful but he never was able to connect that premise to this motion, discussing if there is a legitimate excuse to completely ban cigarette. I will point out how harm that Con talked about does not equal to legal reasons to ban cigarette. Firstly, the harm that my opponent is talking about is surely exaggerated and radical. As I have mentioned, researches shows on average, smoking habit only can shorten one’s life for about ten years. It is also a truth that it takes a long time for habitual smoker to have recognizable vulnerability to diseases. It takes about 40 years for one to finally have him/her life threatened by cigarette. Secondly, reasons for “death by cigarette” also include a lot of other factors such as exercising habit, dietary habit, lifestyle and etc. There is so much more than smoking habit. Cigarette is a scapegoat in this situation. What my opponent is doing here is similar to blaming Ford for all deaths caused on road by Ford cars, blaming Heineken for murders and rapes committed by criminals under the influence of alcohol. Thirdly, the addition of cigarette is drastically different than that of illegal drugs. Though cigarette might be addictive, the addiction is controllable. My opponent’s argument that smoking is no longer a choice will only work in case like cocaine where addiction simply cannot be quit without help. As to cigarette, it is very possible to quit with strong. Indeed there are countless cases where smokers succeed in quitting. It is just that it is hard. When it is so possible to quit on your own, how can one ever claim smokers are no longer smoking on their own volition? The fact that many people fail to quit smoking does not prove anything on my opponent’s premise that smoking is no longer people’s will. Just because many people fail to quit, it does not prove the extremely addictive nature of an object. Many fail losing weight but it does not mean overeating is addictive. There is a reason why gambling, alcohol, game and cigarette are legal when cocaine, heroin and ecstasy are illegal. The essence is the strength of addiction. Those things that are legal can be quitted by one’s volition whereas illegal drugs cannot be quitted without external help. Bottom line, my opponent’s claim that addictive nature of cigarette means that smokers are no longer exercising freedom to smoke falls completely flat. Do you ever see a smoker running desperately to 7/11 to buy a pack of cigarette and suck on them crazily, like how a drug addict might? Smokers are definitely choosing to smoke. Counter 2: Individual Choice On matter regarding individual freedom, Con argued since cigarette is so harmful and it is also addictive, tyrannical actions such as total ban of cigarette is justifiable. Both premises that Con’s idea forms on are inaccurate. Firstly, Con argued since cigarette is causing so much death for no reason, it should be banned. Nevertheless, Con failed to show exactly how cigarette is so bad and as bad as other drugs like cocaine. The truth is cigarette is not nearly as bad as drugs categorized as illegal. As I have explained, deaths due to cigarette are highly inflated and inaccurate. But not only that, cigarette usually causes far-future harms. It’s usually senior citizens that die indirectly by smoking. A string of time is taken for one’s continued smoking habit to cause serious harm. By the time cigarette normally affects one’s health substantially; one is most likely already at the age facing death. Research shows cigarette shortens about 10 years of one’s life. That much of harm is not nearly bad as other illegal drugs. Secondly, Con also argued about smoker’s harming the community and how nonsmokers have the right to not be hurt by cigarette smoke. That is exactly why smoking is already prohibited in some public places. I do not see any more intrusion of freedom (stopping them to smoke on streets) justifiable in any means. Smokers are already in situation where they can no longer harm others. Then are we saying we should ban cars since they emit pollutants? On the side note of my opponent discussing that smokers are the reason why nonsmoker will smoke, I consider that as totally irreverent. Nonsmokers in fact do start smoking out of curiosity but the reason why they smoke does not matter in discussing this motion, if there is practical and moral imperative of banning cigarette. Counter 3: Economic Benefits Con marginalized loss of the cigarette industry. However, it is not a minute loss. What else can be said about individuals losing their work and their company that they built their entire lives? And the reason for doing such thing is because smoking contributes in causing disease? Then should we shut all the alcohol companies down because crimes happen under intoxication? Are we saying we should destroy car industry since traffic accidents cause so much accident? How about someone who caused car accident after drinking? We ban both alcohol and car? That is what exactly statement “cigarette should be banned” is analogous to. Just because of its secondary effect that it contributes in causing, existence of cigarette as a whole is being blamed. We know cigarette is not nearly harmful as illegal drugs and it is not the job of government to decide the benefit of smoking. Just like game, it might not have any what my opponent might view was a benefit. But it is part of a hobby and a recreational activity that people should be given right to enjoy. Cocaine and cigarette is different by far. We are not saying we should keep something so dangerous like cocaine in the market. Can any government forbid one’s hobby of drinking until late in the night when it is obvious that hobby is harmful? No. Government has its limit though they have duty to protect its nations. Cigarette does not meet the standard of illegal drugs as I repeat so many times. Then why should we ban it? I await for my opponent’s next round.

It's true that not all people may regard the risks as smoking as vital to their understanding, or even care about the risks. But because those risks are present, it's imperative that one not take a risk that knowingly is purposely fatal to their health. When debating topics such as these it's important to universalize. Yes, everyone is different, but when debating what could be considered an ethical or moral dilemma, one must take into account everyone, not just one person or themselves. The categorical imperative is certainly not a universally accepted set of moral or legal standards. However, I feel it important to discuss a matter such as cigarette smoking through the eyes of an imperative that prides itself of attempting to create maxims that will be accepted by everyone as a maxim that should be willed. Even according to Samuel Pufendorf, humans are created with duties: two of these duties being duties toward others and duties toward oneself. Smoking cigarettes violates both of these duties. According to Pufendorf, we have a duty toward others. Smoking near someone and subjecting them to second hand smoke is almost as dangerous as smoking a cigarette itself. About thirty four hundred non smoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing in second hand smoke. This in turn violates Pufendorf's notion of duty toward others. In a sense, one can be guilty of taking another's life if that person dies from second hand smoke of their cigarette. Knowing this, one should not smoke cigarettes. Also enforced by Pufendorf are the duties toward oneself. He explicitly even says "No person could give himself live…it seems that man by no means vested with such a power over his own life as that he may put an end to it when he pleases." Smoking cigarettes can be likened to committing suicide because A. One knows that smoking can cause lung cancer and other fatal diseases, which in return causes B. Death. By one willingly smoking cigarettes, they willingly defy duties to themselves, for they are in a sense killing themselves. It may be a slow death, but the eventual painful death will be committed by their own volition. Again, I'm not suggesting that Pufendorf's notion of duties be considered universal moral or legal law, but instead a reference as to how smoking is not an action a person should partake in. http://www.cancer.org...

I just want to apologize again for round two. "Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people" Their job is to also protect the freedoms and rights of its people. My opponent, it, arguing that because smoking can be dangerous to the smokers it should be banned. Yes, it can be dangerous, but it should not be banned. People should be taught about the risks, but banning it won't make everyone stop. The people should be able to make the choices that they want to do. My opponent also brought up the idea that if tobacco products are banned that basically the spending would go down. Yes, some people will stop buying which will cause it to go down, but not everyone will stop. They will find a way to buy or make it even if it's banned, like during the prohibition of alcohol. They said in their implementation they said "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." How would they be able to prove they are clinically addicted. They also said "I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just give those people an alternative to smoking." What sort of alternatives would give to the people? The war on smoking is almost as useless as the war on marijuana, except it's not as ridiculous. My opponent wants to ban smoking, and if we do that history will repeat itself. Even though states are starting to legalize marijuana, its still illegal in a lot of states. The ban has not stopped people from smoking it. There was the prohibition which later failed. http://www.history.com...

Alright, I'll give you my reasons why cigarettes should be illegal. First off let us examine the FDA, Food and Drug administration. They are the people responsible for regulating products that come into the United States and deciding whether or not they are healthy. In the past they have stopped products with to much metal content, dangerous additives, dangerous supplements, health hazards in general. You argue that since some people know of the health risk therefor it is fair game however it can be seen of the American public, through the FDA, that some health risks are too great to be legal. Which brings me to my first point, "Cigarettes are proven to be highly addictive, as well as a cause of multiple types of cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, birth defects (which include mental and physical disability) and emphysema." -This coming from Wiki through the CDC and Science Weekly. How do we as a society allow such an entity to exist in its current form? This is a product commonly found with over 100 additives in it that cause these harmful effects, is their no way to regulate some of those additives and decrease the effects? Profit > Life? Onto my second point, it causes birth defects. Even if I agreed with your freedom of choice idea this defeats it. While I don't mind abortion all that much because the baby will never know this world birth defects are quite a different story. To retard, or mentally disable a human being in some way for all of life is simply abhorrent. My third point, second hand smoke. This is once again one of those times when people don't have the choice. Now its dependent on whether someone happens to be smoking around you or not. The symptoms: -Cancer -Ear infections -Throat infections -Nose infections -heart disease -lung problems -asthma -premature birth -allergies -SIDS, Sudden infant death syndrome. Babies occasionally die. -Worsens Bronchitis -Increased risk of Tuberc -Risk of Crohn's disease. -Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children -Wiki I rest my third point on the fact that its the 3rd leading cause of preventable death. My fourth point. We are a society that disallows suicide on a moral level because it is akin to self murder. Yet we as a society allow smoking, in essence a slow and sometimes painful suicide for monetary profit. This is wrong. My fifth point. Cigarette butts are the number one most littered item in the world. They are not biodegradable. "In the 2006 International Coastal Cleanup, cigarettes and cigarette butts constituted 24.7% of the total collected garbage, over twice as much as any other category" - Wiki And with that I suppose I will rest my case for now. I stand open for my opponents rebuttal.

This is not a debate, this is a battle of morality. Smoking kills 443,000 people per year(more than alcohol, drugs, murder, suicides, and HIV). The family smoking and tobacco prevention act keeps the truth of smoking out, without it cigarette businesses would hide the truth. In 2000 The supreme court put bans on cigarette companies sponsoring sports or entertainment, advertising within 1000 feet of schools, bans on free samples, and selling pacages of less than 20. Would you put those bans on something that"s not dangerous. you want to repeal what's keeping many minors and adults safe. I don"t think so. 'About Tobacco Laws and Regulations Why is tobacco control important? Tobacco control programs aim to reduce disease, disability, and death related to tobacco use. A comprehensive approach"one that includes educational, clinical, regulatory, economic, and social strategies"has been established as the best way to eliminate the negative health and economic effects of tobacco use. What is the difference between a law and a regulation? Federal laws, like the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), are passed by Congress and signed by the president. These laws are usually enforced through executive branch agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Laws can also be enacted at the state and local level to protect public health and make tobacco products less affordable, less accessible, and less attractive. For example, states may pass smoke-free indoor air laws and cigarette price increases, which have been proven to reduce cigarette use, prevent youth from starting to smoke, and encourage people to try to quit. The executive branch, when authorized by Congress, enacts Federal regulations. States can also introduce regulations. Most regulations are developed by a government agency with public input. For example, FDA issues tobacco-related regulations under authority provided by the Tobacco Control Act through a notice and comment rulemaking process. This process allows for public input before FDA issues the final regulation.' from https://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... they said it well. I was raised on a truth that smoking is dangerous and letting that danger near children with advertising is a generally bad idea.

Electronic equipment used in health care often contains hazardous substances that can harm human health: from chlorinated plastics in cable wiring, to lead in cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, to brominated flame retardants in computers and mercury in LCD displays. Improper disposal of electronic equipment poses a significant threat to public health and the global environment. When electronic products are incinerated or dumped in a landfill, they can release heavy metals and other hazardous substances that contaminate groundwater and pollute the air. Some hazardous e-waste is being exported to developing countries that are less equipped to handle the hazardous materials " even though, in many cases this export violates international law, as well as domestic laws in the importing countries. See Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (pdf). As a large volume buyer, the health care sector has the power to shift the electronics market toward greener practices through its purchasing choices. Health Care Without Harm is collaborating with health care systems to promote healthier purchasing and disposal practices as a means to improve public health and protect the global environment.

I agree it will kill you, but this argument is about taste not toxic chemicals


Question: Should Individuals be Permitted to Engage in Insider Trading?

A completely unregulated market without government involvement would negatively impact the U.S. economy.

The argument is: A completely unregulated market without government involvement would negatively impact the U.S. economy. To illustrate this, I will provide three examples where government intervention is necessary to maintain economic stability: patents, insider trading, and market externalities.

1. Patents: The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the authority to issue patents and copyrights for a limited time. This is an intervention into the free market as it restricts competitors from entering the market. However, in the absence of such regulations, there would be less incentive for companies to develop new pharmaceuticals. Patents have been instrumental in driving innovation, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, by providing a period of exclusive economic benefit to the patent holder. Without patents, the incentive to develop new drugs would significantly decrease, harming the economy.

2. Insider Trading: Federal laws prohibit the use of "insider information" for trading purposes. Although the rules surrounding insider trading are complex, they generally prevent individuals with non-public information from using it to buy or sell stocks. This is an intervention into the free market, as a truly free market would allow individuals to use any available information for trading. However, if insider trading were permitted, investors would lose confidence in the stock market. Most investors rely on publicly available information to make investment decisions, assuming that the market price reflects all available information. If insiders can profit from secret information, it creates an uneven playing field, leading to potential losses for outsiders. This could result in a loss of trust in the system and a decrease in investment, which would harm the economy.

3. Market Externalities: Market externalities refer to costs imposed on individuals other than the beneficiaries. For instance, a company that disposes of toxic waste in a river benefits from cheap waste disposal, while people downstream suffer the consequences. The federal government currently regulates interstate waterways to prevent toxic waste dumping. This is an intervention into the free market, as a truly free market would not prohibit companies from maximizing profits. However, if market externalities were left unregulated, it would lead to a decrease in productivity. Companies may engage in activities that harm common resources, such as polluting rivers, public fields, and the atmosphere. This is efficient for companies as they do not bear the full cost of waste disposal, but it results in more pollution than optimal. Extreme levels of pollution could permanently damage natural resources, significantly harming the economy.

Conclusion: While some argue for a completely unregulated market,

Thank you for the opportunity. However, I disagree with your argument on several points. Your first claim is that corporate failures are not a social cost. This proposition assumes that SOX was designed to prevent corporate failures, but such is not the case. Corporations can fail for a number of reasons aside from fraud and shady bookkeeping practices. Failing to adapt to a changing market is one example. (http://www.utvi.com...). SOX does not insinuate itself into marketing decisions or product development. It merely says, if you're going to do business in this country, you're going to do it honestly and fairly... or else. However, even assuming the intention of SOX is to somehow stabilize corporations from collapse, the failure of a corporation through deceit and fraudulent practices most certainly exacts a social cost beyond investors and employees. Notwithstanding, to minimize investors and employees as a "select group" within society belies the large number of individuals who are employed by Corporate America. In 2007, 63% of the American public comprised the civilian labor force in this country. (http://www.census.gov...). I'd venture to say that a large portion of the population works for Corporate America in some capacity or another - a number in the tens of millions. Those people make up the employees and investors whom you say are the "very select group" that corporate failures affect. Whether you define "costs" in financial or moral terms, the effects of the insidious type of corporate failure marked by Enron and the like, have rippling effects not only throughout a large part of our county, but the world as well. On top of the financial effects of losing one's job or investments, the feeling that one can't trust one's employer or business partner to act with integrity and fairness stifles growth, prosperity and career aspirations within the workforce. Further, it tarnishes the image of Corporate America in the eyes of the nation and the world. Such a pessimistic view also negatively influences domestic and international economic stability. When you state "[t]he public does not really suffer from organizational collapses in anything but the short term," you admit that there is some social cost that reaches beyond just investors and employees. However, the current economic climate, which is predicted to last for a substantial period, should tell you that corporate instability can have long-ranging effects both in terms of time and scope. Factories and homes don't get sold, and people don't get new jobs as easily as you write it. Your second claims posits that investors can police their own investments. I agree. However, they can only do so to a certain extent. The natural structure of a corporation involves a dissemination of certain information that goes from top to bottom. Information that the average investor has limited to no involvement in gathering, analyzing, compiling, or presenting. Those tasks are entrusted to a select few, such as top-level executives, board members and accountants. If the information is false and misleading, should the investor be held at fault for relying on the fraudulent actions of those people? Moreover, should the crooks be let off with a mere slap on the wrist and an empty wallet? People lose their life savings, their pensions, their kids' college funds. People lose their dreams because of these greedy, selfish liars. You point to Aksia's work in the Madoff case of to show that investors have resources available to them to monitor their investments. However, the availability of resources is not the issue. Aksia became suspicious because of the three-person accounting firm and the "high degree of secrecy" surrounding the trading of the feeder funds. Based on those "red-flags," Aksia advised its clients not to invest. (http://www.bloomberg.com...). Nothing in their work revealed the depth of the deception Madoff employed. The only thing the Madoff case proved is that people are going to act irresponsibly despite the law, and its relevance with respect to SOX is minimal at best. SOX does not protect investments as you state. In sum, it provides for auditor regulation, executive accountability, independent oversight, timely and accurate dissemination of information and stricter penalties. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). SOX won't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it does make it harder for them to get away with it. When it comes to corporate fraud, it's not the incompetent people that are at fault, but the greedy ones. I agree that corporations should stand or fall on the strength its ideas and leaders, and if someone isn't smart enough to get his money out when the ship is sinking, then tough on him. However, I do have a problem with liars and crooks. There are too many tragedies in the past decade to ignore the problem and let Corporate America to its own devices. Perhaps there may be some flaws in SOX in its current state, but not enough to repeal it. Changes and amendments can be made over time, just like any law can be altered or created to adjust to the current social climate. Even the document upon which our nation is founded can be changed if the people so choose it. The benefits of accountability and integrity that SOX exacts from Corporate America ring true to the values that many Americans hold, and outweigh any minor imperfections it may have at present. That said, I respectfully disagree with your position on the issue.

it should beallowed yes debate me is difficult to change my mind my guy lolyes xdxdxdxdxdxdxdxd

Let me start by thanking you for letting me debate you today. This is a very interesting concept to me, as I am still in high school, so I would be able to properly defend it to the best of my ability. Let the best man win, good luck and good sportsmanship!

I think I will use this round to argue for just cooperative individualism and save minarchism for the next round. Thus, my rebuttals to my opponent's arguments will not be until rounds 4 and 5. Productivity of worker cooperatives compared to conventional/traditional businesses.It has been found in a study conducted by Ben Craig, of the federal reserve bank of Cleveland, and John Pencavel, of Standford University, that worker cooperatives within the plywood industry are more materially productive than traditional firms[5, pg 124]. The reasons they believe for this are because: 1) "A co-op mitigates the agency cost associated with a corporation's division between ownership and control". Since co-ops are owned by the workers, they are much more likely to be informed about the business decisions than if they weren't owners, thus there is no need to spend extra time from business owners to educate them on this matter.[5, pgs 124-125) 2) Worker co-ops eliminate "the separation of interests between workers and owners."[5 pg 125] As one can imagine, there are many instances in which a conventional firm would be presented with opportunities where they can make a decision that more benefits them and harms the workers. The workers would be opposed to this, and normally what happens in a conventional firm, is that bargaining goes on and this takes up precious time that could be devoted to work. In a co-op, this bargaining would not take place, since worker-owners would likely choose what benefits the majority of the workers, whereas in a traditional business, the owner would choose what only benefits themselves. 3) Workers are able to monitor each other better than in traditional businesses where the monitor is a single manager [5, pgs 125-126]. This makes sense as well, since in co-ops, the workers are the ones who make the decisions of the company, and would be involved in hiring and firing other workers. Co-workers are more often among their co-workers than a manager is, so they would be able to monitor their co-workers more effectively than a manager. This provides incentive for each worker to provide their best work and not laze around. Now, to play part of my opponent, it could be argued that worker co-ops would take longer to make ordinary business decisions and this would negatively impact productivity. I would argue to the contrary, however. Since multiple people are involved in the decision process rather than just one, two, or a few business owners, it means the decision is more likely to be beneficial to the company as a whole, so while it may take longer, it will be a higher quality policy. The evidence I present later in this round will also support this idea, such as how coops are more likely to survive the first 5 years of being in business than traditional firms. Additionally, when a rich person is in charge of the decisions of a business, they are more likely to be dissociated with the majority of people(who are poor and middle class) and so they may make decisions for the business that would only help the minority of people(rich) when a good business would try to appeal to majority of people in order to surviveIt should be noted that in the study, it was found that labor productivity of traditional firms is higher than in coops, however material productivity is usually higher in coops.[4, pg 141] In other words, traditional firms produce more at a lower quality than coops. I would argue that quality should be preferred to quanitity. If you can buy a product that is of higher quality, it will last longer, and over all, you spend less because you don't have to spend on transportation to the stores as much as you would for a lower quality product.How do co-ops and traditional businesses compare for success?Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [5, pg 8] This makes sense for the same reasons I said in the previous topic in the second to last paragraph where I said "additionally, when a rich person..." In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burdin and Andres Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that "average employment and wages in WCs[worker cooperatives] tend to be greater than in CFs[capitalist firms]." [6, pg. 522] The wage being higher definitely makes sense, since in a worker-cooperative, there is no person at the top taking a percentage of the business profits as their own, personal, income. Instead, this income is spread across the workers, which would mean their wages would be higher. It is also the case that capitalist businesses do not have a monopoly on being the only business type that has multi-billion profit turnover. Mondragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country" where, in 2015, they had a revenue of 12.11 billion euros[7] Now, there are many more capitalist firms which have more profit than the world's largest cooperative, this is true, but as I will point out later, there is reason why capitalist businesses are the majority in the world, and this would also mean they will likely have more businesses who are much more succesful than the best worker-coop. Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businessesTraditional businesses are immoral because they have an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. The business owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business. The fact that worker cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few worker cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives above. Essentially, a cooperative gives a level of consent not seen in traditional businesses. A person has to work in order to survive, so the fact that business owners know this mean they can have outrageuous demands on the workers, since they may not have any other option. It often takes many applications to jobs to finally get one, so a person is desperate enough to make a living that they will be forced to put up with a tyrannical business owner. However, if all of the businesses were cooperatives, the worker would have a say in business rules, decisions, etc. Similar to how governments that don't give a consent to the governed are immoral, so are traditional businesses for the same reason. Worker Cooperatives could help end povertyAs established above, worker cooperatives generally have higher wages for their workers. If more businesses were worker cooperatives, this would help end the poverty rate for full-time and part-time workers since their wages would be higher. Sadly, 3% of Americans who work full time are in poverty[10] and 16% of Americans working part-time are in poverty[11]. Those who work full-time should never be in poverty, it's sad that there are even any full-time workers who are. If majority or all businesses were worker cooperatives, this would likely reduce these rates of poverty. Potential argument against cooperatives:"If cooperatives were so much better than traditional businesses, then we should see cooperatives out-competing traditional businesses, but traditional businesses are still the vast majority"While cooperatives are so few and far between, the primary reason is because the system is constructed in such a way that favors capitalist companies. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[9](despite the fact that the ones that do exist are generally more successful than their capitalist counterparts as established above), most governments only ever bail out traditional businesses and almost never cooperatives, cooperatives are not generally set-up to out-compete other companies either[9], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is10], I personally didn't even know what a cooperative was until I was 20, but I could give you a basic idea of what a capitalist business was before I was 10. I think I can safely assume that a vast majority of people have heard of and can define what a traditional/capitalist business is like, so most people shop at those and people looking to create a business probably never thought about making it a cooperative instead of a traditional business since most don't even know what one is. I would also argue that, for those seeking to become business owners if they do know what a coop is, they don't want to make it a coop because they are selfish and don't want to share the business with the workers of that business.Sources:[5] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[6] www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/co-op_economy_2015.pdf [7] http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca... [8] Wikipedia, "Mon dragon Corporation", I don't have a link because this link always messes up[9] [10] http://www.geo.coop... [11] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...

I must clarify for my opponent some basic principles. All of my points are objectively provable, as I will demonstrate. My statement "Actions should not be taken by any individual that do not benefit himself" refers to the fact that the only purpose of life is to survive and pass on our DNA, as has been scientifically proven. our brains are wired around this basic fact. It is non-negotiable that individuals exist selfishly, as there is no other real reason why one would act. I also stated that "a net loss is bad", which apparently my opponent cannot understand/does not believe. The only reason to act in any way is to achieve something (e.g. moving into the kitchen to grab a soda from the refrigerator requires some effort but is rewarded in a self-centered way). I am defining a "net loss" as the opposite of achievement (which would be a net gain). Without a perceived gain in the future as a result of certain actions, individuals do not act upon those actions. Therefore, if you do not gain something from your effort, you have failed. This is objectively proven by my clarification of the self-centered mind. Pro also said "if John Doe enjoys killing people, deriving gratification from the act of taking a life, then the action of killing people would be a 'benefit' and not a 'net loss' to John Doe". However, the act of killing someone is an objectively unbalanced deal that relies on the initiation of force. This fact, as I will demonstrate, proves that it is objectively correct to support morality. The initiation of force is defined as "The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent."1 This means that it is not a voluntary transaction when such immoral actions are made. It is known that man survives because of his possession of reason, which other animals lack. He is able to think further ahead into the future and become self-aware, among other things. Man does not have fur, claws, super speed, flight, super jaws, immense weight, or any other physical weapons that other animals have to defend themselves, he uses his mind to utilize his environment and create what he needs to adapt to his surroundings. Force prevents man from using his reason and therefore surviving. If human beings were to forget about morality, objectively things would become harder for everyone. I know. That sounds like a subjective statement. But it is not, death is objectively bad because the only reason in living is to enjoy life, and death makes it, well, harder, to enjoy life. Also, this point proves that a human life is self-owned. This is because everyone is responsible for their own well-being and the self-centered brain proves this. If every person is self-interested by design, and the only point in living is to enjoy life, then it would follow that a sense of ownership is apparent. If I am responsible for my own life, preserving my life, enjoying my life, and passing on my DNA, and I retain full control of my body, mind, and reason, then I retain ownership over my life. And by living reasonably, I am compelled not to kill or steal or vandalize, because doing so would mean that I would want that to happen to me. And because nobody wants to be killed or have their possessions stolen or vandalized, nobody reasonably kills, as it would violate the laws of reason. Pro said that war and genocide and general human history proves that we do act without regard to morality. However, I can prove there are two separate scenarios. There is the scenario of pure irrational behavior (e.g. mugging someone, breaking into someone's house) and there is the scenario of forced irrational behavior (e.g. going to war). Pure irrational behavior occurs when one's animalistic instincts from long before reason became apart of the modern human mind is greater in a person's mind than their sense of reason, and so they become like an animal, and they do not put their actions into objection. Forced irrational behavior occurs when individuals act as a group and cooperate with the goal of "common good" which results in a "mob mentality". This is a glitch in the system. The human mind is wired as an individual, thinking of himself, and only himself (and immediate family) in a reasonable and objective way. When individuals get together in hopes of increasing survival, safety increases exponentially. This is the idea behind cities. However, this can go wrong when it is taken too far, and people begin acting like animals (apart of a pack or heard, mindlessly following orders from peers). Wars are caused by this, and so are genocides, and everything of that sort. No one goes to war because they hate another individual on the other side because of something that individual did to them. People go to war for their country, race, religion, or other primitive categories that can be defined as "collectivism". When a man possesses reason, he does not do this. It follows that the former is of greater importance in this debate than the latter. If Pro is willing to state that man does not survive because of his possession of reason, he has lost this debate already. Being reasonable means making decisions to serve yourself, but also thinking objectively, and killing another man violates the laws of reason. 1 http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...

President Sarkozy of France, a staunch right-wing capitalist, recently said of the free market economy: ï¿½ L'autorï¿½gulation pour rï¿½gler tous les problï¿½mes, c'est fini. Le laissez-faire, c'est fini. Le marchï¿½ qui a toujours raison, c'est fini. ï¿½ http://www.lefigaro.fr... Which transliterates into English as: "Self-regulation of all problems is finished. The free-market economy is finished. The markets are always right philosophy is finished." You only find out who has been swimming naked when the tide goes out. Given level of incompetence, corruption and greed that the current economic crisis has exposed, it has become apparent that most investment bankers have been financially skinny-dipping for years. Given the enormous cost of their ineptitude to the ordinary taxpayer, the markets should be much more tightly regulated in order to prevent any future reputation of the current fiasco. Even devout capitalists such as President Sarkozy realise that, and governments around the world will, rightly, introduce legislation to put an end to deregulated free markets. Thank you.

Everyone knows illegals are taking jobs. Everyone! You just going to let someone steal from you? It is morally legal to shoot an invader. Everyone knows this. You will lose your rgihts if you infringe on the rights of others! Like the right to property and white kids.'Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate"Uhhhhhhh bro you brought it up!I proved killing undocumented democris moral and should happen.

Hello. This debate is open for a challenger. The resolve is that age discrimination in the workplace should be illegal. I will now start the affirmative constructive stating why it should be illegal. I will first define a couple of words stated in this debate. (1) Age is the length of time during which a being or thing has existed. (2) Discrimination is defined as treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. (3) A workplace is a person's place of employment. This debate is regarding ahe discrimination upon the termination, demotion and hiring of employees for a company. My first contention is that the elderly may be just as capable as the young. Since age is not necessarily an indication of inferior ability or potential, treating a person less favourably purely on the basis of their age is just as unreasonable and unfair as doing so on the basis of his race or religion. It would also be inconsistent with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, which is the base of individual rights. For an example, If a particular elderly worker truly has, say, less concentration or manual strength than a younger worker, and this objectively and reasonably makes him less qualified for the particular job, then employers can still make their decisions based on his relative lack of suitability for the job, not on his age. Age by itself should not be a determinant. My second contention is that businesses are liable to be held accountable in a lawsuit. As a result of someone getting "let go" or demoted from their employer, they are going to try and get the money that they deserve. Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws state that there are lawsuits that can be, and have been started as a result of their termination because of age. The source also states that age rights are protected till the age of 40. An example of this happened in my hometown within the police department. Lt. Gary Honulik brought a cause up to the State of Connecticut Superior Court because he was denied a promotion because the department('s attorneys) stated that he was past the age of retirement, and was not worth the position due to the fact that he could leave at any time. I affirm the resolution that Age discrminination in the workplace (any workplace) should be illegal. For one, the elderly may be just as capable as the young. Another point I brought up, as my second contention, was that businesses are liable to be held accountable in a lawsuit, therefore wasting hard-earned money. I look forward to continuing with this debate. Sources (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com... (4) http://www.idebate.org... (5) http://www.eeoc.gov... (6) http://www.greenwichtime.com...

I believe it is the persons right to decide what they want to do with their body. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't do with our bodies. Our bodies are our own business and if we choose to make this an occupation we should be free to.

Indeed, apparently this debate has come down to the realm of technicalities. "My opponents definition of voting is so one-dimensional." First of all, regardless of how unconventional my Round 1 definition may seem, my arguments are based off of it. I am sure that, in an extremely general sense, "voting" may entail much more. However, I based my Round 1 definition according to the type of voting which has the potential to develop flawed results. The definition I supplied only covers that, and thus I created my definition accordingly. "Voting doesn't always have to based on preference, that's why i gave my own definitions of voting. E.g. Senator Lieberman voted for the Bush Tax Cuts, however he admitted to the press he was personally against them. He admitted that it would help stimulate the economy, BUT HE WAS PERSONALLY AGAINST IT." Indeed, voting DOES NOT always have to be based on preference. HOWEVER, voting always has the POTENTIAL to be based off of individual and arbitrary preference. That is my point; as long as the system of voting allows for the potential to have its voters base their votes upon mere preference, the system can readily produce flawed results. I am arguing, again, that because of this flaw, it should not be used in the United States government to establish federal laws. Of course, though, there may be some instances where congressmen such as Lieberman attempt to vote for the right thing instead of the individually preferable thing. (By the way, I am not saying that Lieberman's decision was logically correct; I am merely saying that this is an example of a politician that did indeed step outside of the lines of the individually preferable, in ATTEMPT to do what was right.) "now with this example in mind, my opponents definition of voting cannot stand. You must look at my definitions." As I said, my definition MUST stand, as, even though it may not fit with every type of considered techniques of voting, my definition only entails the casting of "one's preference for a particular measure or resolution." If this definition of voting were to continually be utilized in the federal government, it would threaten the viability of mutual agreement and shared conclusions to federal debates. Simply because there are those politicians that may step out of the normal boundaries in attempt to do what they consider to be right, there is the potential for any number of the other congressmen to not do the same; hence the flaw. However, irrelevant as they may be to this debate, I will analyze your definitions anyway. The first definition you supplied essentially re-states my definition in a different wording. The second definition you supplied is much more general, and does allow room for mutual agreement, as it does not describe the techniques of the voting process. Still, however, you must abide by the definition I have utilized in this debate, given in my Round 1, as I have initiated the debate, and thus my arguments are based off of the definitions given. Even though my definition given in my Round 1 of voting might not entail every aspect or cover every possible definition of the term, it is still essential to the debate. All other definitions of voting, though perhaps covering more of its dimensions, are currently irrelevant in this particular debate. I have postulated the following throughout the debate: What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular. I have affirmed the resolution: The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States. Therefore, considering that all debates on this site are voted on, it would be correct to vote PRO. Although, since voting has the potential to be flawed, there will be the potential that the vote on this debate will not accurately represent that which is right. However, considering that this debate will be voted on anyway, I ask readers to vote PRO. I have successfully rebutted incoming arguments, as well as having succeeded in vigilantly defending my arguments regarding the initial resolution. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and enthralling discussion was produced. The debate was fun, Oboeman.