Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

The distribution of bottled water ought to be prohibited. Prohibition is justified because the production of plastic bottles consumes substantial quantities of oil, which is a valuable resource. Moreover, consuming water from plastic containers is detrimental to one's health as the plastic can leach into the water, imparting an unpleasant plastic flavor. Regular consumers of bottled water might become accustomed to this taste, but it does not make it any less harmful. Additionally, purchasing bottled water is essentially throwing money away, given that tap water is a viable and often safer alternative.

I see your point but if we could bring in our own snacks, which wouldn't then get caught, then no trespassing which would result our problem or even at least sign a petition and lower the prices.

This new government proposal has the goal of encouraging students to make healthier choices, by not exposing them to unhealthy ads in their school enviroments. In this article on NBC NEWS, they explain the goals of this proposal. http://www.nbcnews.com... According to the CDC, the precentage of overweight students in US public schools has grown since 2003. http://www.cdc.gov... The proposal of eliminating unheathy drink and food advertisements in schools will expose students to make healthier decisions inside and outside of schools. According to this website, making junk foods available is associated with weight gain. http://www.nber.org... With this proposal, it will help many students lead a better and healthier lifestyle by encouraging them to by healthy foods.

In this debate, I will be defending two arguments in support of the proposition that the government ought to ban smoking in public places: Firstly, I will attempt to show the objective harms of smoking and then show how a ban on smoking in public places can help to improve public health and the environment. 1. Smoking is objectively harmfulThis is a relatively uncontroversial proposition in regards to the medical and scientific community. Decades of research has shown the harms of smoking to the individual smoker. Indeed, according to the Center for Disease Control, cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths earch year and more people die of smoking-related deaths than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, vehicle accidents, and fire-arm related incidents combined (1). The smoker causes more harm than just individual damage. Secondhand smoke kills around 3,000 adults each year. According to the Surgeon General, "living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30%. " (2) According to HHS, laws banning smoking in public places help improve worker and customer health. (2) In addition to the public health crisis, smoking also is harmful to the environment. According to a report in Tobacco Control, air pollution by cigarettes are 10 times greater than that from cars and fossil fuels (3). 2. Smoking bans are effective means in reducing smokingResearch has shown that smoking bans in public areas are one of the most effective means of reducing smoking and improving public health. For example, when New York passed a comprehensive law to prohibit smoking in indoor areas of workplaces, restaurants, and bars, they found that there was an 8% reduction in hospital admissions and also found a 56 million dollar savings in hospital costs. (4)The BBC reports (5), "Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry. "Smoking bans are one of the most effective policies in reducing smoking. ConclusionIn summary, smoking is objectively harmful both to the smoker and to the people and environment around them. The government is justified in banning smoking in public places. The right to have a healthy, clean, and safe environment trumps the right for the smoker to smoke. _______1. (. https://www.cdc.gov...) 2. (. http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov...) 3. (. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...) 4. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) 5. (. http://www.bbc.com...)

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

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

I would like to ask the question as to how my opponent comes to the conclusion that a smoker gets priority over a non smoker with regards to space on a street. Additionally, if someone was wielding a knife on the street then I would deem it appropriate that this person is told to move as they may cause harm to others. The same is in the case of smoking as this causes great harm to other people. Defence 1 -- I thank my opponent for clarifying the fact that cigarettes themselves are not drugs, but instead are filled with drugs. Without these drugs you would not have a cigarette as there would be nothing to smoke. Secondly, I wish to expound upon what I said earlier with regards to jobs. It is not the right of a government to move somebody into a job that they do not wish to take. I agree with this principle, but what I was trying to say was that, instead of allowing people to make these death dealing products, would it not be commendable for a government to stop this industry and therefore free these people to pursue a more benevolent career and benefit themselves and their society in a manner which doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of people. Defence 2 -- Poverty, starvation and homelessness are not new issues. Rather they are the most pertinent of issues that effect all countries around the world and the tobacco industry aggravates the conditions. As mentioned above, the banning of smoking would mean the children of poor families living in countries like Brazil, China and India, would not have to be forced to go and contract green tobacco sickness as they go an earn a living for their family. Furthermore, how ironic is it that whilst the issues of poverty and starvation are raised, more money is spent on cigarettes, cigars and pipes in the undeveloped world than on food. The Prohibition argument is now used to claim that the what happened during this era would be repeated if cigarettes were to be banned as well. Most smokers are law abiding citizens who if cigarettes were to be banned, would not resort to criminal activities. On the contrary, as mentioned in my argument in Round 2, 70% of smokers said that they want to quit. I truly believe this number to be higher and therefore as argued previously, any ban on smoking would aid these people to stop killing themselves. Moreover, the reason for the opposition which occurred during the 1920's was in part due to the fact that alcohol was part of the American culture and way of life. People go to bars and clubs to have a drink. Not to smoke. You never hear people saying lets go and smoke tonight. Never. But you do hear them saying lets go out and have a drink. The smoking only happens because they are addicted to it. In answer to the question "is it worth taking a chance and possibly endangering hundreds of millions of lives?", I will answer by responding that it is not a chance being taken, but rather a benign and humane move to save hundreds of millions of lives. Defence 3 -- My opponent has claimed that I have contradicted myself. Firstly, the extract quoted was being used to describe what was contained within cigarettes and the fact that the tobacco companies had added toilet bowl cleaner for greater effect. Apparently, I contradict myself by then saying that "it doesn't matter if other harmful chemicals are added by humans...". If instead of jumping with joy at an apparent contradiction, my opponent should have took the time to re read what I had wrote and understand that I was referring to the point I had made earlier that the, "two most problematic of chemicals are already there in tobacco." This means that whether or not humans add any other nasty chemicals, the two most destructive ones are already there naturally, therefore cigarettes are inherently death causing objects. Defence 4 -- My opponent claims that it is within the control of non smokers to determine whether or not they die from second hand smoke. What about the 8 month year old baby who has a mother that smokes. Or the 3 year old toddler? Can they just up sticks and move when their parents light up. Please rethink your logic, it would make any reasonably humane person sick. It is then claimed that heart disease is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. In fact, hypertension is whilst an offshoot of heart disease, it is an established fact that smoking directly contributes to the damage caused by heart disease. Moreover, it is well within my right to suggest alternative methods for stress reliving. I have not enforce it upon anybody have I? I haven't demanded that my methods be accepted. More to the point, I have already demonstrated how the myth about how smoking is a great stress reliever can be destroyed. Just take the time to read it. Defence 5 -- According to my opponent I have strayed from the topic of debate. All I did was supply some figures for consideration of the impact that smoking has on the financial matters of things. It is this side that my opponent seems to be concerned with most readily and therefore I would have assumed that they would have appreciated any $$$ signs from my side.

I am against banning alcohol because it's like coke to me, it makes adults go hyper and feel young it also creates good memories. Come on let's face it you have more fun when you are in a good mood (hyper). Adults are constantly saying how much fun they had that night even if they don't remember half of it. Alcohol is like fizzy pop for adults. It's probably their favourite drink. http://idebate.org...

$10.07 is how much doing this every single day will save you over the year. A year of effort for $10. I thank you for the debate and topic and hope that we can do more debates in the future. Thank you,

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...

PRO has forfeited,because he's forfeited I lack exact information.I believe more and more that this is a joke/troll debate.Nevertheless I will give my argument.Part/Teil 1:I've got no information about which house will ban chocolate. But I assume that it has to be a kindergarten or something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong.Giving chocolate to children is harmful in large amounts. 100g of Milk chocolate contains 2,240 kJ of Energy. Chocolate can have a negative impact on children by: highly increasing the risk of obesity & smaller increases of cardiovascular risks. But this really depends on which Chocolate we're eating. (Chocolate 1=white chocolate, 2= milk chocolate, 3= (pure) plain chocolate)(A = sugarB = cocoa butterC = milk powderD = other ingredientsE = cocoa liquor)The high amount of sugar, could also increase the risk of diabetes.But this does not mean that children should be forbidden from eating chocolate. It only means that they shouldn't consume it every day, but instead on holidays or festivals etc.Part/Teil 2:lt makes no sense to ban chocolate in an institution or building only because there are less than 10 children. Chocolate won't have a less damaging* effect on children only because there are more of them. It depends on the amount of Chocolate (also which type of chocolate) consumed by an individual child.* damaging is meant as increasing the risk of a disease.Sources:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.cacaochocolade.nl...=Thank you.


Question: Should the Sale of Packaged Water be Prohibited?

The ban on bottled water should not be implemented.

In response to the proposal for a ban on bottled water, it is important to clarify the original resolution, which simply states that bottled water should be banned. However, the argument has shifted multiple times throughout the debate, with the latest assertion being that bottled water is a scam. This claim is unfounded, as the cost of tap water is not negligible, and in some cases, it can pose serious health risks. Furthermore, the infrastructure required to maintain tap water systems is expensive and often outdated, leading to significant costs for taxpayers.

Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of bottled water, it is crucial to consider its benefits. Bottled water is a convenient and portable option that can be purchased for a reasonable price. It provides a safe and pure source of hydration, especially in situations where tap water may be contaminated or inaccessible. The process of bottling water also involves filtration, which can improve its quality and taste compared to tap water.

Moreover, the plastic bottles used for bottled water are not inherently harmful to health, as they undergo rigorous refinement processes. The health benefits of water far outweigh any potential negative effects of a slight plastic aftertaste. Additionally, the ability to transport large quantities of water through plastic bottles is a significant advantage, particularly in areas with limited access to clean water sources.

It is also worth noting that banning bottled water could have adverse economic impacts. The bottled water industry supports numerous jobs, and its elimination could result in job losses and financial hardships for many individuals. Furthermore, the argument that bottled water is simply filtered tap water ignores the fact that tap water systems in many municipalities are aging and in disrepair, making bottled water a safer alternative.

In conclusion, the ban on bottled water should not be pursued. The convenience, safety, and accessibility of bottled water make it a valuable option for consumers. Instead of focusing on banning bottled water, efforts should be directed towards improving tap water systems and ensuring their safety and reliability.

In conclusion, smoking should be illegal. 1. Making smoking illegal protects innocent bystanders from the dangers of second hand smoking. 2. We don't have the time and resources to study the harmful impact of smoking. It's therefore the government's duty to conduct the necessary study and research. And then it's their job to take action in light of their findings.

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

I was a little shocked that instead of denying Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke that your post actually affirms what I have been saying! Government over steps it's bounds way too often. This is supposed to be a country "for the people, by the people." I didn't vote for a ban on soda, less calories in schools or obamacare. I do believe there should be no junk food in schools but if a kid brings their own then let him/her enjoy it. As I noted in the comment section, there are students feeling like they are starving by the end of school and definitely by the end of after school activities. The school lunch program was to ensure ALL students receive some sort of sustenance and nutrition, not pay 25 cents more for less food!!! Thanks michelle! I believe the actual quote was "if the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like it requires a nail" I am not positive but it is a little easier to understand that way. I have worked on so many machines that I have no favorite tool. NDOT's TDM is a bunch of fools. They do not know how to build roads properly, how to have safe and effective egress and their lack of knowledge of how to synchronize traffic light is troubling. The biggest problem with the Las Vegas road system is that too many los angeles engineers moved here and they had warped conceptions on how to handle traffic. They think having to stop at every light prevents speeding but everyone here races to beat the light!?!?! I don't even want to get started on "global warming" and "climate change". It is a lie designed to create more money for the government in taxes and carbon credits PERIOD! Look at Italian/Roman art over the last 2000 years. From the 150 BC to 300 AD they were shown is summer type clothing. From 300 AD to 900 AD they are shown in longer togas and layered clothing. Again from 900 to 1200 hundred the clothing was lighter and shorter. From 1250 to 1400 the clothing was again longer and layered. This was the time of REAL climate change, they had very many floods and droughts. By the mid 1400's clothing became very heavy and rarely recorded weather of the time period, up to the mid 1800's, was almost never over 65 degrees Fahrenheit. In the late 1800's there were temperatures in the 90's and on occasion 100's in the summer. In the 1950's it cooled again and in 1988 a warming trend started. Times change and all things with it. The earth has warmed and cooled for a million years and will do so for about another million. The above dates are approximate and the clothing is not just fashion it shows the climate of the time. If you wish to view a 2,000 year old tree ring that shows the change in temperatures of Northern Europe go here http://www.dailymail.co.uk... As far as homosexuals and gambling I think that is individual right. I don't like anything gay around me but if a flamer comes in and sits next to me at the bar it is his/her right as long as they don't harass me. If someone wants to risk all their money I think it is their right but so that person's rights don't trample other's rights, they should HAVE to be logged in. If you lose everything from gambling and file bankruptcy or try to get welfare you should be denied. You have the right to bankruptcy if your business can no longer compete and welfare if you are down by no fault of your own but when it is out of your own ignorance the American people should not have to bail you out. I would expect a church or charity to help though. That is the great thing about Americans, when left to there own accord they always come through for their neighbors.

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.

I once sat on a plane behind a timid old lady who was clearly a very nervous flier. She was sat in row 13 and I was sat in row 14 and she turned round to me and said that she believed 13 was an unlucky number and that she owed it to her grandchildren to arrive safely and that she would be be very much obliged if I would swap seats with her. I explained to her that if we swapped seats so that the bad luck was transferred from her to me and the gods decided to punish me for sitting in row 13 by making the plane plummet out of the sky in a huge ball of flames and crash nose first into the ground at five hundred miles an hour, creating a massive crater in the earth in the process, and my charred corpse was consequently smashed into a million tiny pieces and each of those tiny pieces was smashed into another million tiny pieces so that no trace of me would ever be found, her seat would follow mine very shortly afterwards. Nevertheless, I didn't want to cause the poor old dear any unnecessary anxiety so I agreed to swap seats with her. Okay, I hear you say, you very kindly put some old crackpot's mind at rest by swapping seats with her, so what? If a deluded old coffin-dodger wants to believe in ridiculous superstitions, let her, where's the harm in that? No harm at all, if it ended there, but it doesn't. All around the world, unscrupulous individuals are all too happy to cash in on weak-minded, gullible or otherwise vulnerable people. They include fortune-tellers, feng shui practitioners, soothsayers, witchdoctors, astrologists, exorcists, Shaman priests, spiritual healers and holistic medicine sellers. They all prey on people with more money than sense - the type of people that would rather believe the words of convincing con-merchants than those of the scientific community. These ruthless, heartless swindlers are raking in countless millions every year by exploiting frothing nutjobs' irrational superstitions. They must be outlawed because the people who hand their cash over to them clearly need protecting from themselves. Thank you.

I will be making my argument. I live in Paris, where smoking is legal. I honestly really hate the air, and know for sure there are a ton of pollution. I think that smoking should certainly be banned. My argumentsI. Secondhand smokingII. PollutionIII. Harm PrincipleArgument I: Secondhand smokingLets, see why do everyone want to stop pollution and global warming? Also what is pollution? Lets do this into premises1. People also talk about stopping global warming and pollution2. What is Pollution?3. Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. 4. Also this is bad for your health5. Does smoking have pollution?6. Yes it does7. And pollution is bad for people, bad health8. Because smoking has pollution, it is bad for your health9. This means that smoking should be banned. I will explain why smoking is bad for non-smokers. As I said in the premises, smoking has pollution. This means that people's lungs will get unhealthy. "Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. "Why do non-smokers have to die for people just do let people smoke? We are giving up many lives, banning smoking is much better. Without smoking do you die? No you don't. With smoking do other who not smoke not die? They do, meaning that secondhand impacts are bad, vote for Pro. From quote: . http://www.cdc.gov...The source I gave has tons of info of secondhand impact. Argument II: PollutionAs I said in my premises, pollution can cause you harm, your health harm. Because smoking has this, and the world will be more polluted, artic animals will die, glaciers, 97% of the fresh water will melt with the salt water. Just for smoking do we have no do this and harm animals and people? No. Argument III: Harm PrincipleI saw many Con debates say the harm principle in their arguments. But however, smoking does harm others. I will give a list of how much it harms others.1. Secondhand smoke2. Pollution3. Economy Impact4. Non-smokers have to pay for smoker's health because smokers are poorYou get it. The harm principle clearly then says Smoking should be banned.

I'll be presenting an argument "For" the resolution "American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply." As per the comments, Wylted and I have agreed to share the BoP.I'll be presenting arguments in a punctuated form, hitting on the main idea. Later in the debate, I will expand upon these as needed. Argumentation1. Fluoridation is unethical.It is a generally understood American ideal that people should not be forced to do things they do not want to do. This is especially relevant in areas where some unnecessary and unhelpful action is being forced upon us.While it may be easy to think about water as a "service" that one does not have to use, one cannot forget that Americans are required to pay taxes for their water. That means this service is not free, but instead a product that is being purchased from the local government by the people. This purchase is in no way a choice on the part of the citizen. As such, municipalities are abridging the people's freedom of choice by forcing them to imbibe a substance that they do not want. Fluoridation is not a reflection of the will of the people, but instead an arbitrary choice by the government of the United States. The situation would be no different if instead of fluoride, the government introduced opiates or some truth agent into the water system. In that scenario, the people would still a) pay for it and b) have no choice in the matter. Not flouridating the water is the natural solution to this ethical dilemma. 2. Water fluoridation is unnecessary. When water fluoridation was introduced in the 1940's, there was not adequate access to fluoride in the United States. It was used by dentists, but no "over the counter" fluoride products were made. Today, the opposite is the case. It is commonplace for toothpastes, mouthwashes and other teeth cleaning agents to have fluoride included in the product. As such, it is no longer necessary to fluoridate water, as ethical and cheap alternatives exist. It cannot be said that "poor people don't have access to fluoride", as these teeth cleaning agents are inexpensive and massively available. Those who do not use toothpaste and similar products are actively making a choice that could result in tooth decay. This choice is their fundamental right as Americans and it should not be taken away. Bad dental heigene is in no way a communicable disease. A person with bad teeth in no way poses a risk to others. Therefore, there is no justification for forcing "dental health" upon people, since their choice to have poor dental health only negatively impacts themselves. Furthermore, it cannot be said that poor dental health negatively affects others through economic mechanisms. One cannot go to the emergency room for lost or decaying teeth nor can they use other publically funded medical services for that issue. As such, the economic cost of choosing to have poor dental health is not transferred to other parties. 3. Water fluoridation may not even be medically beneficial. There have not been any controlled tests of water fluoridation, which sets it apart from every other legal drug offered to the public. [1] Some studies (mainly those performed by government agencies) find that water fluoridation increases dental health. Others find no link between fluoridation and dental health, while others still find that fluoridation has negative health benefits that go far outside dental health. Given the apparent lack of consensus on the effectiveness of water fluoridation, the claim that water should be fluoridated becomes even more dubious. Not only is it unethical, not only is it unnecessary, but it may be flat out ineffective at accomplishing its stated goal. Recognizing this, my previous two points stand even stronger, as one cannot claim that there are demonstrative health benefits that exist to outweigh unethical and unnecessary water fluoridation. ConclusionThis has been a cursory introduction of my arguments. I will likely not present any arguments that are unrelated to the ones presented here. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1 - http://www.livescience.com...;

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.

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

I live in New York. And I think that making smoking illegal is not only beneficial but the government's duty in many ways. First of, making smoking illegal protects the health of many innocent bystanders. At least the smoker has that filter at the end of the cigarette. The person (or child) he's smoking in front of doesn't have any filter. Allowing people to smoke jeopardizes the health of non-smokers. Secondly, making smoking illegal is the government's job. Let's face it, most people don't have much free time to go around reading a 260 page medical study on the hazards of cigarette smoking. What's the probability of getting lung cancer while smoking? How much smoking would we need to do before getting lung cancer? How addictive are cigarettes? What are the other health hazards of cigarette smoking? When it comes to something as complicated as the health hazards of smoking cigarettes, who has the time to find all this out? The government. And since they have the time to find out how dangerous smoking is, it's their job to protect us when they know that smoking directly results in emphasema, heart disease, lung cancer, and ulcers. Now about "economic downfall" and how making smoking illegal would cause "millions of tax revenue". This is true ONLY IF when smoking becomes illegal, smokers take all the money they spend on cigarettes, and put it under their mattress, and never take it out again. Because if they spend that cigarette money in any other way, or invest it buy depositing it into the bank, then that money circulates into the economy, creating jobs, and generating tax revenue. Secondly, we're not trying to ban everything bad for our health. This is not about banning beef. This is not about about banning hunting. This is about banning cigarettes. The things that harm not only OUR health, but the health of people you smoke around.


Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

Bottled water poses health risks
However, it seems my opponent and I are not on the same page regarding the debate topic. The proposition we agreed upon is: Bottled water is detrimental to health. Since there was no disagreement on the definition, it stands that detrimental means causing harm or injury to physical health. My opponent has not argued that bottled water is harmful, and it remains unproven. Let's delve into it. RebuttalsHealth impactsMy opponent states early on: "No one knows the health outcomes." This is the sole paragraph addressing health concerns, and the conclusion is essentially, "we're uncertain and I don't want to find out." My opponent hasn't demonstrated that water bottles are harmful. She discusses the potential leaching of water and antimony accumulation in stationary bottles, but that's the point; it's potential. The assertion is not that 'bottled water might be harmful.' The argument is that it is harmful. I will address this more thoroughly in my main points. Additional argumentsI'm going to do something unusual here; I'm going to concur with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is more environmentally damaging. It's pricier. It doesn't include additives like fluoride to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in countries with reliable infrastructure for clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water; I always carry a reusable container or use water fountains. But this isn't the debate topic. My opponent hasn't provided any evidence for her case. As it stands, the proposition is being resolved negatively, as it hasn't been shown that bottled water is harmful. Proceeding to my arguments. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent claims that "Bottled water isn't safer." By most accounts (in most places), I agree, but I recently spent two and a half months backpacking through Asia, and I can assure you that unless you thoroughly filter the water yourself, bottled water is the only safe option. Without specifying a region, I could easily use this as an escape route, but I don't believe I need to. Let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water undergoes rigorous safety testing (1), and the government closely monitors tap water safety (2). So both are safe. Bottled water isn't safer than tap water here, but it isn't harmful, as my opponent suggests. Both tap and bottled water meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards in

Tobacco should be banned slowly. At first, there will be great taxes and high regulations (i.e., no smoking in public), and then it will become stricter. Eventually a total ban of tobacco will come into play. [An individual has a right to decide what goes into their body] According to this argument, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess. It's not just about the smoker, it's about the poor people who must be exposed to secondhand smoke. No one likes secondhand smoke, but most people have no choice because they have to go somewhere or are in a car. If you smoke at home, it could harm your roommate, family, or pets if you have any. You may not care about the health of those around you, but they do. If you live alone (no family or pets), it could harm whoever must walk into your house. According to the CDC, tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death. More than 440,000 tobacco-related deaths occur per year in the US alone. Of these deaths, 49,400 are from secondhand smoke exposure. Other risks: - Various cancers - Laryngectomy -Use of an artificial larynx, AKA robot voice. - Difficulty breathing - Oral problems -Bad teeth -Bad breath - Bad skin - Cardiovascular problems - Brain problems - Reproductive problems Many smokers were naive when they started. They thought "Oh hey, one won't hurt", and then they got hooked and regret it. Banning smoking will stop an addiction before it starts. I coundn't find any reliable sources that listed benefits to smoking. Citations: 1. www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's "common sense," what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say "There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking." Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying "smoking hurts you." You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one. An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it. "Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them." It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban. "Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope." Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER. "Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them." Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly. "So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad." You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad! "Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold." You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2] This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit. In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong. "The smoking ban removes freedom of choice." In some cases, that's a good thing. I am not exactly democratic or libertarian. Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies. SOURCES [1] http://ash.org... [2] http://www.minyanville.com...

A true gentlemen's move! And just to clarify, I am generally against fracking, just thought it’d be fun to try the other side. My case won’t necessarily be that fracking is great, but that it isn’t bad enough to warrant a ban, and that we don’t have enough information to do so presently. A ban would hurt the US economically in a couple of ways and environmentally in a couple of ways, and I will make the case that there is no consensus about whether fracking is really good or bad. And I would say really quick that I hope the voters can do their best to put aside any preconceptions about fracking when reading this debate over, I know I sure had to so I hope you will too! The first part of my case will be going through the environmental issues surrounding fracking. P1- Environmental issuesCarbonI guess I’ll start with carbon emissions. Currently, the US has lower carbon emissions than any time in the last 20 years. (3) This is largely a result of an increase in shale gas useage and a decrease in coal. Shale is cleaner than coal, so it is better for the environment. Banning shale when there are no cleaner alternatives available to be implemented on a national scale yet would do more harm than good. The reduction in US carbon emissions is a great reason not to ban fracking. According to the British government, shale produced 46% less carbon for the same amount of heat (19). WastewaterAnother concern with fracking is the enormous amounts of water it takes. Estimates vary on how much water goes into 1 well, but it is somewhere between (according to Gasland) 2-8 million gallons of water. That is a lot of water, however most of that water gets recycled. In Pennsylvania, for example, 97% of water used in fracking was reused again. So although it takes a lot of water initially, lots of that water gets reused. Also, overall the water useage from fracking isn’t that large. About .3% of water useage in 2010 was for fracking, and considering large amounts of that get recycled it isn’t that much, certainly not enough to warrant a ban. Dangers from fracking can really be seperated into two categories, above and below ground. AbovegroundThe aboveground concerns are mainly methane leakage and chemical contamination of water and air from spills and accidents. Methane leakage is actually relatively low, in a recent study by University of Texas methane leakage levels from 190 areas wells were found to be about 1.5% (8), which was much lower than the EPA estimated percentage in the ballpark of 3. Opposition activists and scientists stated in 2010 that fracking would have no benefit if leakage levels were over 2%, so even by their standards fracking is beneficial. Of course any leakage is bad, but the leakage is low enough that fracking is beneficial. Another concern of environmentally is that chemicals used in the process can poison nearby areas. Basically this can happen if there are accidents at the well site, and these accidents are due to poor well construction (having uncemented well sites for example). It’s similar to an oil spill; it’s bad but it can be avoided. Energy companies estimate that regulations would likely increase shale energy costs by 25-35 cents mcf (1000 cubic feet of gas) which is hardly an increase in price at all. (13) The point is, risks of accident aren’t directly related to fracking so they shouldn’t affect a decision to ban, but these risks can be mitigated with practically no cost to companies with regulations. BelowgroundBelowground concerns deal mainly with methane and chemicals contaminating water, but there is no consensus on this issue either. Anti-frackers claim that it sets your water on fire from your faucet (see my opponents link) and that fracking contaminates nearby wells. However, there is no hard evidence. The EPA found in the past that fracking does not contaminate freshwater wells (15) Other instances where there were concerns about fracking contaminating have been dismissed after further research as well, such as a case in Colorado involving sink water catching fire (12). There is a large concern about the dangers of contamination from fracking chemicals and methane leaking, and obviously this is an area that should be further researched. But based on the current research, a ban isn’t justified. There isn’t enough evidence currently to say that fracking always contaminates surface wells, and there is very little evidence that wells are poisoned by fracking. In some cases where companies have been accused of damaging wells (16), the drilling was performed at shallower than normal levels (usually gas deposits are at about 10,000 feet below, underground water sits at about 1,000 feet). In any case, well damage has not been connected to fracking strongly enough to warrant a ban, but stricter regulation should be in place. If more research were to come along showing that all fracking, not just negligent fracking, damaged wells, a ban would be justified, but there is no evidence that that is the case. Overall, environmentally, fracking isn’t the best. It certainly isn’t the worst thing that we do. It is cleaner than burning coal, which is what it replaces. It has lowered carbon emissions for the US and made energy cheaper. When it is done responsibly there is little risk, and most of the risks have to do with well construction and depth. The main problem is that there isn’t enough information to justify banning fracking yet, especially because there is no consensus about critical issues like well contamination. The most important thing to note is that many of the problems could be fixed with regulations instead of ban, as regulations on fracking are pretty weak at the moment (as my opponent said, fracking is exempt from parts of 7 major statutes). If my opponents burden was that “fracking is bad” he’d have an easy win, but his burden is that there should be a ban. Based on all available current information, a ban would not be justified. So now lets discuss the economic benefits of fracking, and why a ban would not be so hot for the US. P2- Economy (brifely, because character limits)To start off, there are a lot of really obvious benefits to fracking economically. Besides being cleaner than coal, shale gas is cheaper, and this will result in $2,000 annual savings according the the IHS. Fracking itself supports roughly 400,000 jobs by itself (6) and a total of 2.1 million total jobs when all of the jobs associated with fracking are counted (19). If fracking is banned, these are immediate benefits that would be lost. Also, the expected growth from fracking, an industry that could support up to as many as 10 million jobs total in the future, would be lost. Even the US Chamber of Commerce has spoken on the issue, saying speculation about the dangers of fracking and stopping fracking could endanger the economy (6). US energy exports are also up as a result of fracking, which is beneficial for our economy (19). And although exporting carbon to other countries somewhat defeats the purpose of cleaning our own energy sources(7). , fracking still has a substantial net reduction for carbon emissions overall. A ban would really obviously be bad for the US economy, and since the environmental concerns aren’t really substanted as of yet, a ban really has no legs to stand on. Regulation would be wise and would allow the economic prosperity to continue, a ban would not. Another benefit of fracking is that it is easy to convert from coal to shale (6), and since the US needs a good bridge between the old and the new sources of energy, fracking can and does provide a cheap, clean way to provide energy while the US makes that transition. Obviously incentives will have to be created to switch from natural gas to cleaner energies, but that has always been the case. Until green power is cheap and efficient enough for companies to implement nationally with no economic risk then there is no reason shale gas should not be used for power. No more characters! Banning fracking would do bad, useless economic damage when the envorinmental justification for such a ban is so lacking and is nowhere near the standard it would need to be. 1-. http://www2.epa.gov...2-http://theenergycollective.com...3http://www.slate.com...4-http://reason.com...5-http://energyindepth.org...6-http://triblive.com...;7-http://bigstory.ap.org...;8-http://theenergycollective.com...;9-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;10- . http://cires.colorado.edu...;11-http://1.usa.gov...12-http://www.eenews.net...;13-http://www.economist.com...;14-http://bit.ly...15-http://bit.ly...16-http://www.npr.org...;17-http://www.gaslandthemovie.com...;18-http://bit.ly...19- . http://www.rtcc.org...;20-http://www.ihs.com...;

For my opponent’s rebuttal, he attempts to show how green tea is unhealthy for you to drink. His rebuttal ran like so. P1: Green tea causes skeletal fluorosis. P2: Water doesn’t cause skeletal fluorosis. C1: Water is better for you to drink than Green tea. My opponent says this, “You must know that tea also can reducing bone quality if you drink too much.” Anything is excessiveness is unhealthy for you, even water. “Experts now warn that drinking eight glasses of water a day is not good for you after all – and could be harmful…Drinking excessive amounts can also lead to loss of sleep as people have to get up in the night to go to the toilet, and other studies show it can even cause kidney damage, instead of preventing it…Worryingly, Dr McCartney also warns that taking on too much water can lead to a rare but potentially fatal condition called hyponatraemia, which sees the body’s salt levels drop and can lead to swelling of the brain.” (1) Both tea and water are unhealthy for you “if you drink too much.” Yet the benefits of green tea outweigh the costs; just because one thing in green tea is bad for you doesn’t mean green tea is bad for you. Conclusion: My opponent has attempted to negate my argument that tea is good for you by pointing out parts of tea that might be bad for you. I have defeated this by demonstrating how the benefits of tea outweigh the costs and therefore tea is actually good for you and by showing that the same goes for water. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

In this debate, I will be talking about why smoking should be banned or at least partially banned (i.e., illegal to sell). There are many risks to smoking that apply to both the smoker and the people who have to put up with secondhand smoke. No one likes the smell of cigarette/cigar smoke, and most smokers regret it later after finding out about what it does to the lungs (sometimes even seeing their own charred lungs through endoscope!) or developing cancer or emphysema. It is hard to quit. The solution is not to do it in the first place, and surgeon general warnings don't seem to do the trick. Society would benefit from a tobacco ban.

As many researches prove air that we breath every day in big cities are more toxic than good cigar or tobacco for handmade cigarettes. As a parent I definitely tell to my children pros and cons of smoking, but no one must tell me where to smoke. I believe that every person must have right to smoke or not. And If you don't like me smoking, you can go for another place! I we will fear just to breath one shot of smoke, we also must close all junk food restaurants and all Coca Cola facility

How many incidents have you heard on the news that have to do with alcohol? Barely any, you hear more car accidents than alcohol events. This shows if we ban alcohol we should also ban cars because they can cause much more danger than a drink. How stupid would that be? Then people would also have to start cycling or another way of transport to get anywhere. Some alcohols are not even that strong so if you ban alcohol then they wouldn't even be allowed any of it such as beers like Smirnoff and Alcohol Pops. It is up to them what they drink and how it may affect their health. It is their lives and if they enjoy it and they aren't affecting anyone else; let them be. http://www.createdebate.com...

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.

You challenged me. If you honestly expected me to pass up the challenge and give you the points or however this system works simply because to argue in the precise format that you wanted was a bit more awkward than usual and my reply didn't seem to completely agree with what you were prepared for then you really really don't know me very well. I told you precisely why they shouldn't be prohibited. That to do so wouldn't sway these people even one bit, it would be a legislative waste of time, a method of appeasing bereaving families temporarily, but the time spent making such legislaon could have been better spent actually combating the problem rather than just putting down a flimsy barrier and hoping that'll stop them. These people are not exactly the humane type and they have beef with the Government as it is. Give them a reason to go further and they will go further. Try reading my post again. If it hurts your eyes then have someone else read it for you. Or you could try throwing holy water on it but that'd just mess with your computer.

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.