Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

It's high time we cease purchasing bottled water. In many cases, bottled water is merely tap water in disguise.

Your assumption is correct. And I have no intention of defining junk food, because this should be quite obvious. Now, I would like to state my case and attack my opponents. It is quite useless to ban junk food in schools as it truly wouldn't solve our problem at all. First off, there seems to be an issue with youth and rebellion. I know. I am young. If schools were to stop selling junk food, many students would indeed bring junk food to school. And so you say parents will be able to monitor what their children are eating. While this is true to an extent, it is also true that many children get an allowance. They could still buy these high sugar and fat goodies from a convenience store without their parents finding out. So nothing will be solved by not selling these goods at school because they would still have them available. Next my opponent says: "And really, what do you need junk food at school for, there are plenty of healthy alternatives which are just as tasty!" Getting a thousand America children and teens to believe that would be difficult. Getting them all to try it would be darn near impossible. Yes, there are healthy, delicious alternatives. But a generation raised on these snacks we have as of now will, for the most part, not be willing to try these alternatives out. My opponent may say I am being ridiculous or closed-minded about today's youth. I would like everyone out there to think for a moment about the children and teens you know. Rarely do teens listen to authority. Rarely do children skip a chance to stuff their face with sugar. Children and teens would go out of their way to get these snacks if they weren't in schools. And so, I stand on the Con side of this resolution. Thank you.

Alright, one last thanks to Con for a riveting debate. Let's start out by looking at Con's specific regulations. I'm glad that Con specified some of these though, admittedly, he spends little time elucidating what adhering to the 7 major statutes means. I will assume, however, that this will increase inspection practices, and that they will be required to disclose what chemicals are in their fracking fluids. These are still insufficient. Cementing the wells won't work either, since cement can still crack over time,[42] not to mention that the list of problems include “poor thread connections, corrosion, thermal stress cracking, and other causes” that aren't addressed by this.[43] Nor will the basic issues be addressed, such as leakage through soil (due to its basic porous properties), the process of contaminating that soil, and of creating fractures that can cause earthquakes, all of which are dropped and inherent to fracking. Distance from water sources can only do so much as well. It doesn't really address the issue that hundreds of millions of gallons of water are contaminated by the practice when it's done safely.[8] Con wants examples of regulations failing. Here's a few. In Pennsylvania alone, there have been 3,331 violations of regulations in place since 2009.[44] Con doesn't suggest that they cannot dispose of their water through disposal wells, a regulated practice that can also easily contaminate groundwater.[45] Even if Con is right that this will make each individual fracking practice better, regulations will just force an increase in the number of drilling sites and rate of fracking, as it has in Colorado, increasing the harms.[46] Contamination by accident is sufficient, since it also won't be solved by regulation.[47, 48] Only a ban effectively prevents these. Onto the key issues of the debate. 1. Air pollution a. CO2 Con drops my point that oil is also dredged up through fracking, and that it comes with volatile gas infusions that make it highly explosive.[25] This challenges his CO2 benefit, but more importantly, it presents a large safety concern. It also mitigates any economic benefit he seeks to get, due to the costs required to use it. Even if there's some reduction in CO2 emissions, it's far lower than Con initially cited. It's also low impact, considering that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.[26] b. Methane I already showed how Con's sources on methane leakage were faulty. The sole links he provides either don't address methane leaks (his 3 and 19), or are too short term, biased, and selective (his 8). Con has not defended any of his links. My links stand uncontested, and don't suffer from any of these problems. Con seems to believe that all he has to do is present a source that disagrees with mine in order to show uncertainty, but this is absurd. Con needs sufficient doubt to throw all of my evidence into uncertainty, and he has not presented anything that would do so. The best he's done is show that emissions may be 0.5% less than a dangerous threshold he himself admits exists. That means the best case scenario is one where the benefit is minimal and uncertain, whereas the worst includes 60 tons of methane per hour rising into the atmosphere from each well.[49] c. Health Con dropped my argument that health risks come from just being close to drilling sites, which aren't solved by any of Con's regulations.[23] 2. Water pollution a. Through fracking Con drops my point that contamination has already occurred in 4 states with present regulations, and provides no warrants that his regulations will solve.[35] He drops my argument that the EPA, which would be the agency in charge of this regulation, is a terrible regulator, and misses obvious contaminants.[36] He also drops that certain contaminants will always leech into the soil, remaining after recycling the water.[37] b. Through disposal Con doesn't seek to ban disposal wells, which, as I mentioned earlier, can easily contaminate groundwater. Even if recycling is made mandatory, the practice doesn't solve for the harms. He ignores the fact that wastewater is still generated from recycling, and that that wastewater is highly concentrated with toxins.[34] He drops that the recycling process leaves behind highly concentrated radioactive solids that also require disposal.[33] Con drops my point that abandoned wells lead to massive methane leaks, which none of his regulations solves for.[19] Each of these show failures with his case that don't exist in mine. 3. Earthquakes Con drops this entire contention. By itself, this is sufficient reason to vote Pro. Look to my [8], which shows how the process works and is integral to fracking. The safety and economic harms of earthquakes are immense, and the fact that this has gone unaddressed is just baffling. Economically,, it forces huge insurance boosts on local peoples.[50] On a human level, it destroys homes and kills people.[51] Environmentally, those quakes can easily release pockets of methane, allowing all of it to escape into the atmosphere. In other words, it's a huge, diverse harm with a wide area of effect. 4. Economic harms a. Local economies These harms are most certainly topical. This is analysis of one of the many impacts the process of fracking. Whether my opponent views it as important or not is irrelevant to its topicality. All I have to prove is that it's reason enough for a legislative ban. First off, the ability for towns to ban fracking only exists in New York.[52] Con is not requiring this nationwide. Second, if towns could choose whether a fracking company comes in or not, it just means they accepted the risk. That doesn't mean the harm is any less a harm. Third, at best, this just means they are capable of escaping the harms if they have enough foresight. Fracking companies represent quite a big influx of money into numerous towns, making it difficult to refuse them.[53] There's incentive there to ignore the long term harms. Fourth, Con can't have it both ways. If all towns ban fracking, then effectively the process is banned, making it equivalent to my case. If some towns ban fracking, other towns will still be harmed as I described. Con drops the links to the spread of ghost towns and shut downs of local businesses.[38] Con also drops the point about stealing water from local businesses, further contributing to their closure.[17] So Con never contests the harms at all, only trying to mitigate them by saying that towns have agency. At most, that's a lower likelihood of a terrible impact that only he has. b. Short vs. long term Con makes the unwarranted claim “shale gas is a bridge from really crappy coal to really good green stuff.” He drops all of my warrants and evidence, which show that having a fossil fuel that is a cheap and easy source of energy keeps us dependent on fossil fuels for longer. There's no reason to believe that, with this around, we are going to treat green energy as worthy of more resources. I've shown, with copious amounts of evidence,[10, 11, 25, 40] how natural gas has changed our perception of green energy. Whether things can “change overnight” is irrelevant. I'm not saying that they will, though his lack of response to my cost points is glaring, since it suggests that it is an entirely affordable process. But that transition has only slowed down in the presence of a cheap and easy source of fuel. Our increased need for more energy is a reason to pursue renewable energy with more fervor, not double down on a limited source. Con states that bans will badly affect the economy. First, those increases to taxes and harms to GDP are able to be absorbed, even if they do happen. A state can still continue to function, unlike the small towns. Second, it's based on a set of assumptions that make it the worst-case scenario rather than the actual likely outcome.[54] Third, this assumes that no energy industry would come to replace it. The green energy sector would skyrocket in the absence of this alternative, and as it's already accelerating, this would be a big deal.[55] Considering job growth nationwide was up 38,600 in one quarter in 2013, this surge in growth could easily outdistance any drop from fracking.[56] Conclusion: I've shown that the environmental, health, and economic harms of fracking are too large to allow this practice to continue. Each is enough by itself to warrant a ban on fracking. I've shown that Con's alternative strategy of regulating the industry is insufficient, and that the harms of a ban are minimal at worst. The best he can do is present minimal doubt with faulty evidence, and then claim that it detracts from a solid, uncontested set of evidence. Don't believe this audacious, unwarranted claim. Vote Pro. 42.http://newyork.sierraclub.org...43.http://www.pnas.org...44.http://stateimpact.npr.org...45.http://www.texastribune.org...46.http://ecowatch.com...47.http://fracking.einnews.com...48.http://www.sciencedaily.com...49.http://www.sltrib.com...50.http://www.bizjournals.com...51.http://www.dallasnews.com...52.http://truth-out.org...53.http://articles.chicagotribune.com...54.http://www.denverpost.com...55.http://www.worldwatch.org...56.http://theenergycollective.com...

"There may be an impact made by banning junk food in schools but it would be so ridiculously minuscule there would be no point in doing so.". So you admit that there will at least be a "miniscule" change ? Then how is it pointless ? What is there to gain by keeping junk food in schools ? If we go on your theory that EVERY SINGLE STUDENT will go and buy food rom the convenince store, then at least we would be boosting the economy. So let us summarise : My theory on the result of banning junk food - Decrease in child obesity Your theory : Miniscule decrease in obesity and greater cashflow in the economy Not ban junk food: Obesity rate unchanged. Economy unchanged. Thanks for the debate, you have shown great potential and perhaps will one day be able to hold your own against the elite debaters of world.

You say that cigarretes should not be advertised because cigarretes kill people. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a report stating that every year in the U.S. more than 40,000 people die in automobile crashes. http://www.foxnews.com... This is equivilant to a plane full of people crashing every day. But surely you would not suggest that car commercials should be banned. After all they do pretty much the same things as cigarrete adds. They show cars and trucks as a good thing, as a source of happiness and joy. These car ads could attract children to try and drive and those children could potentially be hurt or even killed. This is the same thing as cigarrete ads. They are ads for a dangerous product which children should not be using. But it is up to parents to educate their children about the dangers of cigarretes. Every person over the age of eighteen has the right to smoke a cigarrete if they please and every person with a license has the right to drive a car if they please. Banning cigarrete ads will not make children automatically decide that cigarretes are bad. It should be left to parents to teach their children about the dangers of cigarretes.

I believe tobacco smoking should be banned to whatever extent is necessary. This would not include a person smoking in the privacy of their own home and not in the presence of children or anyone not wishing to be exposed to the smoke. Simply put, the ban I propose makes tobacco smoking illegal around children or anyone who does not wish to be smoked around. Con's argument may focus on particulars, I don't require that she argue for 100% legalization including around infants or anything. So long as, by and large, tobacco legalization is being argued for. Rules: 1. The first round will be used to agree to the rules and definitions. If there are any disagreements on either, they can be discussed in the Comments section before Con agrees to the debate, so they can be changed. 2. The remaining rounds will be used to debate. 3. Excessively semantic arguments should be avoided.

Full Resolution: Junk Food should be banned from schools My side: Pro What is Junk Food? Junk food: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar Examples: pizza, donuts, fast food, hamburgers, sausages, hot dogs, cakes, frosting, etc. . http://philmaffetone.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://kimberlysnyder.com... . http://bembu.com... . https://in.answers.yahoo.com... Rules1. No forfeiting: if you forfeit, it is a loss of conduct. 2. First round is mainly acceptance, and the rest is arguments, rebuttals, and defense. The 3rd round can have additional arguments, though the second round is for most arguments. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals and defense. 3. The Burden of Proof is mainly on Pro. Con has a slight burden.

Thanks, Con. Re: A person can do what they choose with their own body. Con begins, "Although a person should be able to do whatever he chooses, the ban on financial incentives are placed for the good of everyone." This is a contradictory statement. Con cannot say that a person should be able to do whatever they choose, but then say that they shouldn't be able to a second later. Further Con never explains how or why this is or the good of everyone. I also contend that it's not for the good of the willing buyer and seller. If I wish to sell a kidney for a million dollars, then Con cannot say "it's for my own good" that the government prohibits this transaction. The individual should be able to make personal decisions about their own body that do not inflict upon the rights of others. Con also says that most donors receive less than they deserve. Of course value is subjective and the donor should receive whatever amount they are willing to sell their organs for. Con also contends that offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. I fail to see why this is a problem and in fact view it as a positive. This is an option (for those who are willing) to make money and help save lives simultaneously. Personally, even though I definitely could us the money, I would not be willing to sell my organs unless for a substantial amount of money. If this could really help me, Con is only hurting me - and the recipient - by prohibiting this. So far, Con hasn't proven that a person should not be able to do what they please with their own person. Re: We sell blood, bone marrow, etc, so why not organs? Con writes, "Should something like blood [and a kidney] be treated the same? ... With a kidney, the extraction process has a chance to damage the patient's life forever." First, it doesn't matter if one process is more dangerous than another. Patients choose to have plastic surgery for shallow reasons despite the risks, even causing some to die [1]. If those risky procedures are still available, this type of surgery should be an option too. Second, Con completely ignored the most paramount aspect of this contention. In the last round I pointed out that people CREATE life for money (egg and sperm donation), though Con is suggesting we shouldn't be able to SAVE lives for money. Con must justify this hypocrisy. Re: Transplants are safe and effective. Con provides a statistic from the L.A. Times; however, upon searching the web I could not locate the source. I'd like Con to please provide a link or cited source proving his statistic. Nevertheless, his criticisms are as follows: First, that transplants are not too safe and fail 60% of the time. This general figure does not apply to all kinds of transplants. According to the Mayo Clinic, a liver transplants carries a risk to the donor's life of less than 1 percent, and it's just just 0.03 for a kidney [2]. Moreover, this procedure is just as risky as surrogate motherhood and yet that is legally available for purchase. Furthermore, this only suggests that organ donating is not successful -- not that it shouldn't be available for money. Once again, a buyer and consumer are responsible for understanding the risks of a particular trade. The potential danger only increases the value of the procedure. Second, Con mentions that 92% of families who chose not to donate their loved one's organs said that financial incentives would not have persuaded them to do so. This is completely and utterly irrelevant and in fact and in fact a contention in my favor. As I explained in the last round, those who are morally opposed to this procedure or who do not think it is worth the risk will simply not participate in these kinds of transactions. It's no different than saying those who are against abortions should not seek them, or those who don't like Cheese Doodles do not have to buy them. Re: Money will sway people from donating. Con provides a scenario in which one does not donate their kidney to a family member because they choose to sell it for money instead. I see no problem with this. In both situations, someone in need of a kidney receives a kidney. Just because the family member doesn't get it doesn't make the act any less helpful. Re: People can us the money to pay for funerals and other expenses. Here Con did not respond to the concept of funerals one iota. Instead he suggested that a market for organs would arise, to which I would completely agree and argue as a good thing. I'll use this opportunity to expand on why a market for organs would be helpful... In Takes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts Are Morally Imperative, author James Taylor advocates using markets to increase the supply of organs available for transplantation [3]. In a 2004 journal article, economist Alex Tabarrok argues that allowing organ sales, and elimination of organ donor lists will increase supply, lower costs and diminish social anxiety towards organ markets [4]. The Economist argued that if 0.06% of Americans between 19 and 65 were to sell one kidney, the national waiting list would disappear - which is exactly what happened in Iran [5]. Again, why is saving lives a bad thing? Next, Con attempts to defend his own contentions. He begins by saying that financial incentives for donors would insult those who donated strictly out of humanitarian concern. I don't see why. I pointed out in the last round that those donating out of the goodness of their heart should not be upset that other people are donating for different reasons. While one's motives might be more selfish than another's, the original donor made the decision to give for free and that was good deed they should stand behind. They lose nothing from legalizing this policy. Con's next argument is that I have no evidence that incentives will increase the number of donors. However, Con himself completely contradicted his own argument a few paragraphs earlier. In point D, he wrote - and I quote - "Money will not sway people who are firm in their belief that it is wrong, but it will convince a lot of people to donate." Further there is indeed evidence that incentives will definitely drastically increase the number of available kidneys as evidenced by the Iranian example and the laws of supply and demand. Con writes, "You said that organ regeneration is not an option." I actually said it wasn't an option in all or many procedures, which is why we need to seriously consider financial incentives for people in need. If you were dying, and somebody wasn't willing to give you their kidney but agreed to sell it to you, wouldn't you want the option to establish this trade legally? Con's final point is at if assumed consent is applied, it will disregard the need for organ donation. This is completely false. First, many people will likely choose to take away consent for religious or moral reasons. Second, this completely disregards my point that this can benefit those who are willing and who wish to sell an organ while they are alive. In conclusion of this round, my opponent hasn't proven that organ donation is unethical or more dangerous than other legalized procedures (for money). Meanwhile, I've proven my proposal as both practical, effective and morally superior, as it respects an individual's personal freedoms. Thank you. [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.aynrand.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://econjwatch.org... [5] http://www.economist.com...

From the outset I would like to dismantle the attempt at defining smoking by my opponent. They claim that smoking is a "choice" made by someone. Well, when someone is walking behind a smoker and they inhale the sidestream smoke, they are not making the choice of inhaling the tobacco smoke, rather they are just naturally breathing and this tobacco smoke just happens to be polluting the air space at that time. Secondly, you do not inhale tobacco, you inhale the smoke from burning tobacco. Rebuttal 1 -- My opponent makes the bold statement that if tobacco were to be banned, it would result in economic problems. Firstly, the contribution of tobacco money to the economy of a nation is grossly overstated. Whilst, a few billions of dollars may be brought in each year from various exports and taxes; this shrinks in size when compared with the $200 billion dollars lost a year dealing with the negative consequences of tobacco. (1) 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. Rebuttal 2 -- 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. Moreover, the cultivation of tobacco can be economically detrimental to developing countries. When resources are put into tobacco production they are taken away from food production. Large amounts of firewood that could be used domestically for fuel and heating are instead used for the curing of tobacco. Rebuttal 3 -- 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. As mentioned above, the most destructive of all ingredients in a cigarette is tar; and by the way, tar is naturally there, it is produced by the burning of tobacco. My opponent claims that it is the manufacturers fault for placing of of these chemicals in tobacco. As I have shown the two most problematic of chemicals are already there in tobacco. Moreover, it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans, the fact of the matter remains that cigarettes contain these things and will cause great damage. My opponent makes the valid claim that we should not put a ban on something that is not itself harmful. I accept this position but what is being debated here is not the banning of tobacco, but the banning of cigarettes, pipes and cigars. In short, the smoking of tobacco. Tobacco is a plant found naturally on 5 different continents. It would impossible to ban this plant. But it's harmful use should be banned. Rebuttal 4 -- "The lighter side of smoking." 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. The long perpetuated myth that smoking relieves stress can be simply destroyed. When a smoker begins smoking they lay the foundations of a nicotine dependence. Soon enough, their brain tells them that they need more of this nicotine to sustain themselves. It is during periods of no cigarette consumption that tension begins to build up. Once lighting up, the cells are fed their nicotine and it is this that leads to the feeling of relaxation. Basically, it is just a placebo effect. You tell yourself that you will feel more relaxed and therefore feel more relaxed after smoking. If someone wants to relieve stress then why not go for a walk, or listen to relaxation music instead of breathing in these 4000 nasty chemicals. Furthermore, my opponent seems to think that the cost of smoking to your health is not too important. Smoking also costs a person a great deal amount of money a day. A 20 pack of cigarettes costs around ï¿½7 here in the UK. Now, if someone was to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, this would be ï¿½14 a day. Now multiplying that by 365 means 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. Rebuttal 5 -- The idea of personal choice is important but I would like to make a comparison here to elucidate the reason as to why smoking should be banned. If a company produces food that is poisonous or another company makes a car that has safety defects, these products are removed immediately. Since all tobacco products are highly poisonous and lethal, they should be taken off the market. Moreover, governments should intervene when someone is seeking to harm themselves. It is the role of a government to take care of its citizens and ensure their safety is a top priority. Allowing their citizens to kill themselves would mean a government which neglects its people and overlooks the importance of a healthy nation. In order to address the situation created by my opponent of an old woman isolated from society choosing to smoke I would suggest that it would be wrong for the family of this woman to leave her alone as if she doesn't matter. Now the fact that people would be visiting her would now mean that her smoking would damage their health and therefore should be rightly banned. Further point 1 -- Briefly mentioned above in Rebuttals 1 and 2 were the negative economic aspects of smoking. The cost to a health service is colossal and one of the reasons why hospitals struggle to cope. Smoking related diseases account for over 20% of all hospital issues and if this were to be cut, them more time would be placed on other pertinent issues. Further point 2 -- In a poll conducted in the UK, 70% of respondents claimed that wanted to quit smoking. Restrictions will aid them in their quest to rid themselves of this problem and is surely a benevolent act on the part of a government.

Junk food means unhealthy food or food that tastes good but is high in calories and little in nutrition and obviously junk food should be banned in the school because it is not nutritious and does not give any positive effect in our body. If the students will keep on eating junk foods of course it has a bad side effects in their body which can affect their studies and also to their health. that's why the school must not tolerate the selling of junk foods inside the campus or school.

I would like to point out that as a high school student, I know the teen mind better than my twenty three year old opponent and therefor know what teens are more likely to do. While my opponent argues that it would become inconvenient to the students to stop at stores, this simply isn't so, for in several cities I've been to, and several cities my friends and family live in, there is a CONVENIENCE store right next to the school. So I fail to see how this would be inconvenient. There may be an impact made by banning junk food in schools but it would be so ridiculously minuscule there would be no point in doing so.


Question: Should the Sale of Packaged Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water ought to be prohibited.

I appreciate your acknowledgment, and to clarify, I'm advocating for the prohibition of bottled water sales in supermarkets, convenience stores, and similar establishments. This is why this debate falls under the societal category. Tap water is readily available, yet bottled water companies manipulate consumers into believing that their product is superior "spring water" sourced from pristine mountain locations like Mt. Fuji. I'm not discussing bottled water as a solution for countries facing water crises; rather, I'm focusing on the exorbitantly priced supermarket bottles that can cost up to $2. It's a scam, folks! Why would anyone purchase it? You're essentially throwing your money away on water that's likely no better than tap water, which is stored in harmful plastic containers. Let me pose a question: If you could get Beer, Coca-Cola, or fruit juice from your tap for 3 cents per liter, would you still buy it at the store? I'm guessing that 99% of people would say no.

For my next two points, we don't need fish because if every fish in the ocean and seas died, we could take out all the water and make land for generations to come for humans. This is useful because everyone knows that humans are going to overpopulate. We could of also found MH-370 if there wasn't water. For my second point, if you eat fish, they have 70,000 bones in one single fish. The non boned fish however costs way more money. Good luck in refuting theawesomeguy!

Okay pro, thanks for the opening argument. Here's why I don't think we should ban smoking: 1. Smoking is a right of the individual. A right is something that you own, it is not synonymous to just or acceptable. Since you owned the cigarettes that you brought from your local stores, you can smoke them. If you smoke while you're pregnant, that's your responsibility. 2. The tobacco industry will suffer immensely from the ban, causing many other businesses to crumble. When the tobacco industry dies off because of the ban, it shall cause investors to crumble too. This will also cause food industries to die off. Remember, tobacco is made from planting, vegetables and food are also made from planting. These two industries are really close together. 3. If you make smoking illegal, then people will get it illegally. It doesn't matter if you enforce this ban with punishments, just look at meth for gods sake. Most of all, more violence will come out of this ban. Look at the Mexican cartel, they smuggle weed into our country because its banned. Now they're gonna smuggle smokes. Some slick rebuttals for ya: 1. You describe how many people die because of smoking. It does not matter how many people die from smoking. It is not my problem. Just because it was their choice and they did not take responsibility for their actions does not mean someone else shouldn't smoke. 2. You describe how bad smoking is. Irrelevant. 3. No, I haven't. 4. Oh it's addictive? So? Again, it's the smokers choice that they are smoking. 5. You go into the cost of smoking. Yes, it's quite expensive. Wanna know why? Because the government taxes the living HELL out of this product to discourage people from buying it because it's bad for your health. Maybe if these liberals just REALIZE that they don't get to make other people's decision then people wouldn't hate them as much. 6. Yadadada, more data about cost of smokes. 7. You're harming the people around you. Look at my alternative coming right about now: Instead of banning smoking altogether, there should be places where you can smoke and cannot smoke. This is the best alternative because smokes wouldn't become black market material, and it doesn't interfere with peoples lives as much.

I am for more desalination plants in California. The first round is just to accept rules. The rules are simple. 1) Use regular English writing when arguing, and no cussing 2) The first round is just for accepting rules If the person breaks rules, they forfeit the debate. I hope to have clean debate with whoever.

You chose to rebut only the part of my argument that was concerning the side effects of smoking. That's sad. In fact, I have not only proved that second hand smoke is harmful and the payment of cigarettes is destruction to people's lives and to some families too [1], but also how smoking is basically suicide and homicide (do we want that for our country? ), how many kids smoke underage and that is illegal (why not ban it altogether? ), all the traits to how smoking is bad for your health (why would we let people fall into this trap and then die early because of a leaf? ), how people who start smoking always become addicted and drug addictions are never good, how 70% all smokers want to quit and only 7% can (why not ban it if most users regret their choice of trying a cig? ), how something that looks 'good' is not always 'right,' etc. etc. You only chose to try to rebut a fifth of my argument. By the way your sources aren't showing up. I will use common sense and sources in my rebuttals: "So you are claiming the feeling from smoking is being wrongly interpreted by the body, I don't think so, you are experiencing the chemicals in the cigarette such as dopamine [2] that helps control the brains pleasure centre, this is no illusion, it is physically happening to the body. Also, as I've said before people are aware of the risks, its not your place to determine what they should or should not do about their bodies. " Exactly: if people are aware of the risk, why should we let them go ahead and ruin themselves? It like secret suicide. Because it started off as a trend (in the early 1900s until it was condemned in the '80s) but it has stayed an option for people who don't believe smoking is actually that bad for you. Smoking doesn't relieve stress in any way, that is a myth. [2] If I was going to pull a Mr. Incredible and try to save someone from attempting suicide, would you let me? Same concept. "Is this really a reason to ban smoking, that is poor. " I was giving reasons why smoking should not be allowed. .. "As for asthma, the fact that second hand smoke can trigger attacks is not reason enough to justify banning cigarettes overall, people should be more wildly educated about these facts, this is the way to really solve problems not just banning everything. " Smoking just makes other people miserable, that's all. As I said, it not only triggers asthma attacks but is bad for anyone who breathes the smoke in. It's really useless for you to try and refute the health related arguments of mine. Please don't even. You CANNOT compare video games, or even caffeine, to the drug called tobacco! It is such a lame way to say smoking should not be banned (your summary was literally comparing video games to smoking). Nevertheless I will rebut: "Video games, like smoking are very addictive. Video games, like smoking can have negative health effects if you become addicted. " What are these negative health effects, staring at a screen too long therefore slight worsening of eyesight? I think you should debate whether video games cause violence or not. That would be a better suit for you. Do video games cost money for every level as smoking does for every pack? Do video games make your lungs fail you? Do video games hurt others as well? No no and no. It is not a good comparison in any slightest way. You act like smoking is the most innocent thing one could do. Looking forward to the last round. It would be nice to have a rebuttal for the videos I posted, too. SOURCES [1] . http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com... [2] . http://www.answers.com...

Thanks for your even slicker rebuttals. 1. Your data proves that smokers have tried to quit or want to quit. While it's true that they have tried to quit, they shouldn't have smoked in the first place. To support this, there is even warning labels on cigarette packets. 2. Why was describing how bad smoking is irrelevant? That's because most people know that smoking is bad. In fact, we continue to raise the risk of smoking even today. The American Health society is not stopping anytime soon. 3. Oh god did I spit out my coffee when I read this. You compare the dangers of smoking to the dangers of guns. You tell me that it's the governments duty to help the citizens. While I hate diving into politics, I see it necessary for the debate. Guns do not kill, people use guns to kill. The government takes them away because they see all those shootings. Did you know that if you take people's guns away, not only are you being a thief but you're taking what defends them from criminals? And if you do take away guns then criminals will just get them illegally and shoot the defenseless citizens? Smoking is dangerous. People regretting that they smoked goes back to 1. How bad smoking is goes back to number two. 4. Back to the government eh? While there is debate on what the government is suppose to do, most people believe that the government is meant to help people by taking money from other people, to regulate and provide welfare. That is not the governments job, the government is here to acknowledge our rights. The charities are here to help the people, the only difference is that donating to a charity is voluntary. 5. You criticize me for bringing in my political views but at the same time you do too. That is okay, because debating about banning cigarettes is also taking about government and if they are allowed to ban and regulate and if it is okay. Now you say that it doesn't matter that cigarettes are expensive, what matters is they bring a burden to a middle class family. That made me spit out my coffee once again. The more expensive a product is, the more financial burden it brings. Do not try to run away from my rebuttal, cigarettes are expensive because the government taxes them a lot and that matters. And the government deciding for me or else the country is a mess? What's wrong with freedom as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others? 6. Yes, I saw no point in refuting something that I already refuted. Cost of smoking? Stop the government from taxes them and they won't cost as much. 7. Of course you can smoke in your house. 4th amendment, anyone? Time to DEFEND 1. The government taking away out rights is wrong. Voting about tobacco? What does this have to do with anything? 2. Alright, the tobacco company is a 2 trillion dollar industry. That would not cause the country an economic collapse if we ban smoking, that would cause the world economy to collapse. 3. Not going to cause a big difference if we ban smoking? Are you serious? You even tell me that if 60% of smokers want to quit, they will quit if we ban smoking. No, nicotine is an addiction. It does not go away that easily. And for the 40% that wants to keep smoking? You tell me that only 20% are realistically going to commit crimes to get smokes. Where did you get that from? Regardless, people are still going to get arrested for buying a product in a different way because it has been banned. And the cartel not being more dangerous if they start smuggling more drugs? ... What the hell? If the cartel starts smuggling more drugs, then they will get more profits. The more profits, they more weapons they get. And you're telling me they won't get more violent? Too much.

When you say audited, I assume you mean addicted. Yes, why it is true people could get addicted to drugs, that has nothing to do with why stores should selling drugs. Also, you refer to beer as a drug, when in fact beer is not a drug, it is a substance. Yes, there may be some corrupt stores selling illegal drugs, but you can't really help that unless you close the store down entirely, which would have far more consequences than benefits. I wish I had more to argue against, but my opponent has given me no solid facts as of why drugs should stop being sold in stores. I honestly can't tell if this is a troll debate, or pro has no idea what they are talking about.

With many thanks to my opponent for his considered response, I should like to address his contentions as follows: Contention 1- Avoids Price Gouging Say you and your partner go to a cabaret show such as the Moulin Rouge in Paris and you are seated at a table near the stage. Whilst you are savouring your foie gras with candied figs and sipping your Dom Pï¿½rignon champagne you notice the couple on the adjacent table have brought with them a bargain bucket of chicken and a bottle of Pepsi from KFC which they proceed to devour without the inconvenience of cutlery, crockery or glassware. What would you expect the management to do? Chuck them out, obviously! They may have paid for their tickets to see the show but that doesn't entitle them to scoff their own grub while the other guests have paid handsomely to dine on the haute cuisine provided by the establishment. The same principle applies to many sporting events, the organisers supplement their income from the money received from food outlets and that helps them keep the ticket prices down. Contention 2- Allow Bottled Water MLB games don't usually last longer than 3 hours and a human can survive 3 days without water. No problem there as far as I can see. Contention 3- Everyone Else is Doing It may be the case that other ballparks allow fans to bring their own food in but, in many cases, their ticket prices are higher. That's to make up for the lost income from food concessions. If you don't mind not eating or drinking for a couple of hours or so, two adults and two kids can watch the game from the outfield deck for a total of only $16.00. (1) So, ballparks that charge more for their tickets effectively dictate that fans that can manage to go a few hours without burying their snouts in the trough are subsidising those fans that feel they cannot enjoy themselves unless they are continually shovelling food down their necks. Contention 4- The Economy $7 for a beer does seem a bit steep and, I agree, many people will find it difficult to justify this expenditure given the current economic climate. The trick, though, is to swing by Macky D's first, pig out on Big Mac's and fries, then go to the pub and down half a dozen pints of the old lunatic broth. Then you won't feel hungry and will be satisfied with only three or four beers from the bar in the ballpark, thus making a huge saving In conclusion, the Houston Astro's are benefiting their fans by keeping ticket prices low, which is only made possible by not allowing people to bring food into the ballpark from outside. Thank you. (1) http://houston.astros.mlb.com...

I accept. I will be arguing that tobacco should not be banned due to an individual's right to choose what to put into their body. If anything, tobacco should be regulated due to second hand smoke issues, but not completely banned.Please state your case.

I think chocolate milk shouldn't be sold.

I will now refute each of the points that Pro has brought up, and give my reasons as to why smoking should not be totally outlawed. My rebuttal is divided into four main points: 1. Civil rights 2. Exaggerated harm 3. Hurts the economy 4. Smoking will not stop 1. Civil rights First and foremost, I will not deny that smoking is harmful to one's health. 6 million deaths per year worldwide are related to tobacco use, out of an estimated over 1 billion people that use it. [1] However, just because an act can be perceived as harmful to the individual doesn't mean that the government has any right to prohibit this act by law. Think of the obesity epidemic, for example. Over 300 thousand deaths per year in the United States are directly linked with overeating. [2] Using the same logic you applied, should the government ban McDonald's and legally require that everyone get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day? Most people say no. While it's smart to both get exercise and avoid smoking, the rights of the individual allow them to make a choice of whether or not to do harm to their body. The government has no business infringing upon them. However, I understand that inhaling secondhand smoke is slightly dangerous to one's health, though significantly less, and people have the right to breathe clean air on public property. Therefore, I would not be opposed to regulating smoking in some public places. Many people are confused as to what constitutes "public property", so here is the proper definition: "property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. " [3] These places are funded and maintained by taxes, and include schools, playgrounds, courthouses, post offices, and so on. Restaurants, bars, and stores are privately owned and operated, and the individual who owns them has the right to decide whether or not smoking is allowed on their property. Pro is calling for a universal ban on smoking, and while I agree that some places should not allow it, there is no reason for the government to ban it absolutely. If a bar owner wishes to allow smoking in his establishment, and his patrons are consenting adults who know the risks of secondhand smoke, I see nothing criminal or illegal about that.2. Exaggerated harmWhile there is no question about the individual self-harm of smoking, Pro makes some exaggerations about its ramifications on society and the environment. "Your cat is twice as likely to get cancer if the owner smokes. " While it is true that pets can be affected by secondhand tobacco smoke, pets are regarded by law to be property. The owner can do what they please around their pet, so long as they refrain from breaking the law, especially animal cruelty. And while the ASPCA recommends that smokers "take it outside" to avoid harming their pets, there is no legal backing for this, [4] and no reason why human rights should be infringed upon for the sake of animal life. "Smoking is VERY bad for the environment. If people stopped smoking, 28 percent of sand litter would disappear. " Smoking doesn't help the environment, but calling it "VERY bad" is a gross exaggeration. Food wrappers, plastic bottles, and aluminum cans also account for much of "sand litter", as Pro and NationSwell call beach garbage. Littering is already a criminal offense; there is no reason for further enforcement. Using that as a reason for a smoking ban would also justify the banning of potato chips, soda, and bottled water. Besides, a little trash on the beach poses very little harm to the planet's well-being, so urgency is not a factor here. Anyway, only 30% of cigarette butts are tossed away as waste. One British company, Stanelco, is attempting to create cigarette butts made of food grade starch, a biodegradable material found in potatoes and rice, and it decomposes within two months. [5] Should these efforts succeed, butt pollution will no longer be an issue. "600 million trees would be saved annually, and less pesticides would be in the air. " Over six times that amount of trees are used to make regular paper each year. [6] And this amount combined with all other deforestation doesn't even come close to the over 3 trillion trees alive on our planet. Even so, trees only account for less than 30% of oxygen produced on the Earth, being dwarfed by phytoplankton and seaweed. [7] Coming back to the main point, losing 600 million trees a year isn't as much of a problem as Pro would have us believe. Cigarettes do not contain "pesticides". A pesticide is defined as "a chemical or biological substance designed to kill or retard the growth of pests that damage or interfere with the growth of . .. vegetation desired by humans. " [8] Cigarettes are not created with the purpose of killing pests. The word you may be looking for is "toxins", of which cigarettes have plenty. However, these toxins relatively harmless on an environmental scale. Smoking only releases trace amounts of pollution into the air, and they dissipate quickly. According to Web MD, the bulk of the harm caused by smoking is to the smoker's lungs (obviously), and should the smoking take place indoors, the lungs of those around them. [9] Smoking is a threat to the body; it is no serious threat to the environment. 3. Hurts the economy I will introduce a new point that Pro has not touched upon. The very high excise taxes on cigarette cartons (also known as the "sin tax") produces money for the federal and state government. In the year 2010, this tax brought in $15.5 billion in revenue, which went to fund an expansion of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program. [10] State and federal governments rely heavily on this money, and if smoking were banned, they would look for the revenue elsewhere. I would rather place the burden of taxation upon smokers, alcoholics, and gamblers than anyone's income. 4. Smoking will not stop Lastly, I argue that even a total ban on smoking will not stop the practice. Whenever a drug is banned in history, circulation of the drug does not falter; it only becomes more difficult to acquire. Take the Prohibition era, where alcohol was rendered illegal, yet one could find a speakeasy in every town, thousands in New York City alone. Speakeasies produced and sold alcohol, and were often overlooked by the police. In 2009, 1.4 million pounds of marijuana were seized while being smuggled over the US border, which pales in comparison to the estimated 7 million which made it over undetected. [11] Given that 20 percent of Americans are smokers and most of them are addicted [10], there is simply no chance that they will all obey the law and quit smoking cold turkey. All a smoking ban would do is populate prisons with decent people who happen to enjoy nicotine. "If cociane [sic] is illegal, then why should smoking not be? " Cocaine is massively more harmful to the individual than nicotine. It is a strong stimulant which causes dependent addiction and can lead to strokes, blood infections, and cardiac death after only a few years of using it. So, to protect people from themselves, the government renders it illegal. However, I don't follow your logic as to why the illegal status of cocaine should automatically lead to the same status for smoking, which is far less dangerous. If anything, I would argue the opposite: if smoking is legal, then why should cocaine not be? But that is a different story, and unrelated to the present debate. In conclusion, a smoking ban would not work and should not be put in place because it would violate human rights, harm the economy, and fail to hinder the prevalence of smoking anyway. Also, smoking is not as damaging to the environment as Pro claims, and while it damages the bodies of smokers, the government has no right to infringe upon that choice. I now await Pro's rebuttal for Round 2. SOURCES: 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . https://www.wvdhhr.org... 3. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 4. . http://healthypets.mercola.com... 5. . http://www.treehugger.com... 6. . http://www.ecology.com... 7. . http://www.ecology.com... 8. . http://www.businessdictionary.com... 9. . http://www.webmd.com... 10. . http://dailycaller.com... 11. . http://www.nbcnews.com...


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water should be prohibited from sale.
My points: Among all the solid arguments I present, the opponent only addresses one out of fifteen examples, focusing on joggers. It's true that people survived without bottled water... but they also survived without smartphones, which are now indispensable to many. The opponent's points: 1. "These two brands are essentially filtered tap water," which makes them safer than tap water. "Bottled water is highly profitable for companies entering the market, in terms of price versus production cost, it outshines Big Oil." I don't understand why a product should be banned because savvy businessmen can create businesses and jobs to meet the demand for portable bottled water. Should computers be banned because they generate substantial profits? Of course not. It's not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand that can generate huge profits, and the opponent hasn't explained why it should be banned. 2. "Public safety groups correctly highlight that many municipal water systems are aging and there are hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established." This actually supports my argument that bottled water can be perceived as healthier than tap water. 3. It's true that bottled water creates waste, but I'm curious why the blame is placed on the water bottles rather than people. It's the consumers who throw them away instead of recycling them, and the blame should be on them, not the product. Anyone who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle instead of recycling it knows it's their own fault. However, the opponent is trying to blame the water bottle, which is absurd. 4. "Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety." Again, the opponent provides me with great arguments. "Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources." Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can afford to pay $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they can't do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy. "The requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes." So, the opponent admits that tap water can be very costly to society. Let's compare: Bottle of water = $2 Tap water that

So let me break it down.. You guys are fat.No offense.. Face it america has an issue with obesity. Now there isn't any way to adress that issue whilst still allowing pupils to purchase junk food at school. Sure you might say "well the kids will bring junk food from home" , and even if that is the case it will be an improvement over the current situation whereby the kids can buy whatever unhealthy foods they want at school without a parent or caregiver's knowledge. Now, the reason for this change being an improvement is that bringing food from home will allow the parents to monitor what their children are eating, and hopefully they can be responsible enough to disallow their kids from eating "junk" food in excess. In theory, this will greatly decrease the amount of unhealthy foods that children eat, and can go a great way to sorting out the issue with child obesity. And really, what do you need junk food at school for, there are plenty of healthy alternatives which are just as tasty! Frankly obesity is not acceptable in today's society. And as long as schools continue to sell food to the pupils then it will continue. Also, if you want come out and say "well define junk food" and "what would they ban and not ban", just don't. Use your brain and you know whether something is junk food or not - yes a deep fried chocolate bar is in fact not good for you.. Oh yeah, me being in NZ, i assume you mean by "banning" junk food, you mean that the school isn't allowed to sell it to pupils - if I'm wrong in assuming that then just argue against my "incorrect" assumption to be fair..

Thank you for your response. Smoking and Health Con said, "Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful." But they are not as dangerous as smoking. Smoking should be banned because it can cause more negative things than the activities you mentioned. "Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too." "To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too." You just contradicted yourself. When I said that smoking should be illegal, you said that there are other things that also give negative impact on your money, health, beauty, and the environment, so should be banned to. But then you said this. So considering your previous argument, you didn't give a good reason why smoking should not be banned, and you also pointed why surfing or motorcycling shouldn't be banned if smoking is banned. And to add that, smoking is more dangerous than the things you mentioned earlier. (1) The things you mentioned are less dangerous than smoking. And most of it have some positive impact on us. (2) I agree on freedom of choice. But the government should care for the people's welfare. Sometimes the government have to give boundaries. And this also contradicts your previous argument. Freedom of choice means the government shouldn't ban everything you mentioned. But smoking is bad for many aspects in your life. Smoking and Beauty I said in R2 that smoking should be banned because it causes negative impacts on the smoker, non smoker, and the environment. Coffee just costs you beauty. And I clearly didn't say that anything that causes only one of those negative impacts should be banned too. Smoking and Money Buying a cigarette smoke is a waste of money because it's like buying poison. Other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. Smoking and IQ The things you mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects. Smoking is bad in many aspects. The government should only ban something that have many negative impacts for us. There have been numerous studies which proved that smoking is bad for your IQ. Besides that, smoking often causes anxiety, irritability, and depression on a person.[1] Smoking and Fires Other things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. And smoking do have a few positive impacts I see. Smoking can prevent us from having a few diseases, like Parkinson's. Who wants to increase his/her risks of heart attack and lung cancer so he/she could prevent having some minor disease? Those positive impacts are not great. Smoking and Babies Women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. And Con said that men shouldn't smoke near pregnant women, not banning smoking. But people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. Smoking and Children "Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well." Smoking doesn't just influence children, it can cost numerous other things that is bad. And those things you said is less dangerous than smoking. Smoking and Death Those positive impacts are not so great. It is true smoking can prevent Parkinson's. But it increases the risks of heart attack and lung cancer too. Despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. So they should not be banned, as everything you mentioned. Smoking and Environment Paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. Even Con know it himself. It gives us knowledge, write out our feelings, and much more. And I know crime is a side effect, but the punishment shouldn't be to tough, such as fines. And banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. Smoking and Economy What you just said about that is probably true, but there are hundreds of dollars lost every year because of smoking if we don't count the non smokers. Nobody knows exactly how much money do non smokers take from the government, so it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy. Conclusion Con was trying to refute my argument with other examples. But those examples should not be banned if smoking is banned because of my reasons above. And smoking is not bad because it just costs you money or health. It's because smoking costs you your health, beauty, money, environment, and more. Thank you, Con, for participating in this debate. Because this is my very first debate (online and real life), I hope you can forgive me if I make some mistakes. 1. http://www.chantixsite.net...

I will now refute each of the points that Pro has brought up, and give my reasons as to why smoking should not be totally outlawed. My rebuttal is divided into four main points: 1. Civil rights 2. Exaggerated harm 3. Hurts the economy 4. Smoking will not stop 1. Civil rights First and foremost, I will not deny that smoking is harmful to one's health. 6 million deaths per year worldwide are related to tobacco use, out of an estimated over 1 billion people that use it. [1] However, just because an act can be perceived as harmful to the individual doesn't mean that the government has any right to prohibit this act by law. Think of the obesity epidemic, for example. Over 300 thousand deaths per year in the United States are directly linked with overeating. [2] Using the same logic you applied, should the government ban McDonald's and legally require that everyone get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day? Most people say no. While it's smart to both get exercise and avoid smoking, the rights of the individual allow them to make a choice of whether or not to do harm to their body. The government has no business infringing upon them. However, I understand that inhaling secondhand smoke is slightly dangerous to one's health, though significantly less, and people have the right to breathe clean air on public property. Therefore, I would not be opposed to regulating smoking in some public places. Many people are confused as to what constitutes "public property", so here is the proper definition: "property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. " [3] These places are funded and maintained by taxes, and include schools, playgrounds, courthouses, post offices, and so on. Restaurants, bars, and stores are privately owned and operated, and the individual who owns them has the right to decide whether or not smoking is allowed on their property. Pro is calling for a universal ban on smoking, and while I agree that some places should not allow it, there is no reason for the government to ban it absolutely. If a bar owner wishes to allow smoking in his establishment, and his patrons are consenting adults who know the risks of secondhand smoke, I see nothing criminal or illegal about that.2. Exaggerated harmWhile there is no question about the individual self-harm of smoking, Pro makes some exaggerations about its ramifications on society and the environment. "Your cat is twice as likely to get cancer if the owner smokes. " While it is true that pets can be affected by secondhand tobacco smoke, pets are regarded by law to be property. The owner can do what they please around their pet, so long as they refrain from breaking the law, especially animal cruelty. And while the ASPCA recommends that smokers "take it outside" to avoid harming their pets, there is no legal backing for this, [4] and no reason why human rights should be infringed upon for the sake of animal life. "Smoking is VERY bad for the environment. If people stopped smoking, 28 percent of sand litter would disappear. " Smoking doesn't help the environment, but calling it "VERY bad" is a gross exaggeration. Food wrappers, plastic bottles, and aluminum cans also account for much of "sand litter", as Pro and NationSwell call beach garbage. Littering is already a criminal offense; there is no reason for further enforcement. Using that as a reason for a smoking ban would also justify the banning of potato chips, soda, and bottled water. Besides, a little trash on the beach poses very little harm to the planet's well-being, so urgency is not a factor here. Anyway, only 30% of cigarette butts are tossed away as waste. One British company, Stanelco, is attempting to create cigarette butts made of food grade starch, a biodegradable material found in potatoes and rice, and it decomposes within two months. [5] Should these efforts succeed, butt pollution will no longer be an issue. "600 million trees would be saved annually, and less pesticides would be in the air. " Over six times that amount of trees are used to make regular paper each year. [6] And this amount combined with all other deforestation doesn't even come close to the over 3 trillion trees alive on our planet. Even so, trees only account for less than 30% of oxygen produced on the Earth, being dwarfed by phytoplankton and seaweed. [7] Coming back to the main point, losing 600 million trees a year isn't as much of a problem as Pro would have us believe. Cigarettes do not contain "pesticides". A pesticide is defined as "a chemical or biological substance designed to kill or retard the growth of pests that damage or interfere with the growth of . .. vegetation desired by humans. " [8] Cigarettes are not created with the purpose of killing pests. The word you may be looking for is "toxins", of which cigarettes have plenty. However, these toxins relatively harmless on an environmental scale. Smoking only releases trace amounts of pollution into the air, and they dissipate quickly. According to Web MD, the bulk of the harm caused by smoking is to the smoker's lungs (obviously), and should the smoking take place indoors, the lungs of those around them. [9] Smoking is a threat to the body; it is no serious threat to the environment. 3. Hurts the economy I will introduce a new point that Pro has not touched upon. The very high excise taxes on cigarette cartons (also known as the "sin tax") produces money for the federal and state government. In the year 2010, this tax brought in $15.5 billion in revenue, which went to fund an expansion of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program. [10] State and federal governments rely heavily on this money, and if smoking were banned, they would look for the revenue elsewhere. I would rather place the burden of taxation upon smokers, alcoholics, and gamblers than anyone's income. 4. Smoking will not stop Lastly, I argue that even a total ban on smoking will not stop the practice. Whenever a drug is banned in history, circulation of the drug does not falter; it only becomes more difficult to acquire. Take the Prohibition era, where alcohol was rendered illegal, yet one could find a speakeasy in every town, thousands in New York City alone. Speakeasies produced and sold alcohol, and were often overlooked by the police. In 2009, 1.4 million pounds of marijuana were seized while being smuggled over the US border, which pales in comparison to the estimated 7 million which made it over undetected. [11] Given that 20 percent of Americans are smokers and most of them are addicted [10], there is simply no chance that they will all obey the law and quit smoking cold turkey. All a smoking ban would do is populate prisons with decent people who happen to enjoy nicotine. "If cociane [sic] is illegal, then why should smoking not be? " Cocaine is massively more harmful to the individual than nicotine. It is a strong stimulant which causes dependent addiction and can lead to strokes, blood infections, and cardiac death after only a few years of using it. So, to protect people from themselves, the government renders it illegal. However, I don't follow your logic as to why the illegal status of cocaine should automatically lead to the same status for smoking, which is far less dangerous. If anything, I would argue the opposite: if smoking is legal, then why should cocaine not be? But that is a different story, and unrelated to the present debate. In conclusion, a smoking ban would not work and should not be put in place because it would violate human rights, harm the economy, and fail to hinder the prevalence of smoking anyway. Also, smoking is not as damaging to the environment as Pro claims, and while it damages the bodies of smokers, the government has no right to infringe upon that choice. I now await Pro's rebuttal for Round 2. SOURCES: 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . https://www.wvdhhr.org... 3. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 4. . http://healthypets.mercola.com... 5. . http://www.treehugger.com... 6. . http://www.ecology.com... 7. . http://www.ecology.com... 8. . http://www.businessdictionary.com... 9. . http://www.webmd.com... 10. . http://dailycaller.com... 11. . http://www.nbcnews.com...

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

When you say audited, I assume you mean addicted. Yes, why it is true people could get addicted to drugs, that has nothing to do with why stores should selling drugs. Also, you refer to beer as a drug, when in fact beer is not a drug, it is a substance. Yes, there may be some corrupt stores selling illegal drugs, but you can't really help that unless you close the store down entirely, which would have far more consequences than benefits. I wish I had more to argue against, but my opponent has given me no solid facts as of why drugs should stop being sold in stores. I honestly can't tell if this is a troll debate, or pro has no idea what they are talking about.

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

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

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.

People have the right to harm their own bodies should they choose to do so.While the government and private entities have the right to place public smoking bans, such as in certain restaurants and bars or on government owned property, the government has no right to prohibit people from using tobacco in private should they choose to do so. There is no legitimate legal basis for preventing people from smoking tobacco in the privacy of their own homes, where the dangers of second-hand smoke are nonexistent. There are plenty of ways that people commit self-harm that are perfectly legal, such as not getting enough sleep, eating too much or too little, getting no exercise, skipping medication, or taking on a high-stress workload. Should the government ban these things too?The answer, of course, is no. If someone wants to harm themselves in the privacy of their own home, nobody has the right to stop them. So to answer the question that Pro posed to me in the second round, yes, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess, just like it should be okay to eat too many fatty foods or skip meals. As long as these actions are done within the privacy of one's home, then these actions can only have consequences on the person doing them.Second-hand smoke is not enough justification to completely ban tobaccoTo completely eliminate the problem that second-hand smoke creates, all that is needed to be done is to put a restriction on where people can smoke. By eliminating the use of tobacco on public property, we in turn eliminate the dangers of second-hand smoke without completely banning tobacco. Like I said earlier, people still have the right to smoke in their homes where their actions harm nobody but themselves.There is absolutely zero justification for a complete tobacco banMy opponent stated that tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. While this is true, the leading cause of preventable death in the world is Hypertension [1], or high levels of stress and high blood pressure. This is usually the result of stress-inducing jobs. Given my opponent's argument so far, I suppose we should ban high-stress jobs too, right? The number two cause of preventable death in the U.S is obesity, so I suppose we should also completely ban all food with high levels of trans fat and sugar.Wrong. As long as an individual is not posing harm to others, they should be free to do whatever they want to themselves. If that means smoking tobacco or eating fatty foods or working a high stress job, then fine. These are all things that you should have the freedom to choose. I have the freedom to choose whether or not to smoke and I choose not to. But as soon as you let the government make that choice for you, then its just getting closer and closer to a nanny state that completely restricts what its citizens can and cannot do."The whole point of this country is if you wanna eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so!" - Ron Swanson, Parks and Recreation [2]To summarizeRisk of self-harm is not a good enough justification for a complete tobacco ban. The threat of second-hand smoke is nonexistent as long as smoking is disallowed in pubic places, which means that a complete ban on tobacco is not required to solve this problem. Every citizen has the right to do what they want with their bodies, and the government or anyone else should not have any say in that whatsoever.Citations:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.imdb.com...

Hello! I understand what you're trying to argue, but what am I suppose to argue? Do students and parents really have the final say for the kind of food and beverages that are sold on campus? If so, please post a link for me to read about it, because it seems like a one sided argument at the moment. I don't think anyone but the schools themselves will argue that junk food should be sold on campus and usually their motives are for financial reasons. I hope you can clarify some of my confusions! Thanks!