Question: Should instructors be granted tenure status?

The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be reconsidered. I will not challenge some of my opponent's claims directly but will present my arguments. I find it regrettable that we are having this debate, but it is essential to challenge the status quo, especially when it is harming America's economic performance and schools. This debate is not about the importance of education and teachers, which we both agree on. However, I am opposed to teacher unions because education and America's future should not be controlled by special interests that prioritize adults over students.

To claim that being anti-union is anti-teacher is akin to saying that supporting antitrust laws is anti-business. Teachers do not need excessive protection, as school boards are unlikely to fire competent teachers haphazardly due to the lengthy and costly process of finding a replacement. The risk of hiring an incompetent teacher is too high, and a high turnover rate can deter competent teachers from applying. In the private sector, 93.1% of employees are not unionized, and even in the public sector, 63.8% are not unionized. However, the problem is that teachers are protected too much, making it nearly impossible to fire them once they receive tenure.

In New York City, a "rubber room" was created to pay bad teachers to do nothing, even those with sexual misconduct or abusive behavior. Teachers receive more job security than any other occupation, which is unnecessary. Protecting incompetent teachers harms schools, as students do not learn what they need to. Education is too important for bad teachers to receive protection. Eliminating the bottom 6-10% of teachers could elevate American education to the level of Finland, a nation with top education.

My opponent's argument that teachers have the right to collective bargaining because it is not specifically prohibited in state and local law fails, as this debate is based on moral principles, not legal ones. Legal issues should not be a significant consideration since laws can be changed and are not a moral authority. Just because other public employees engage in collective bargaining does not make it morally right. I am against collective bargaining in the public sector and would remove the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and other public employees, but this debate is specifically about teachers.

My opponent argues that teachers should be protected because they invest in a college education to obtain a teaching degree. However, teacher unions do not necessarily increase teacher employment, as protecting bad teachers prevents potentially good teachers from entering the market. Many other jobs that require more specialization are less protected. Doctors and lawyers have to

Weapons in schools should not be allowed. Faculty should not feel the need to take it to another level with weapons and if they do then they should call the police immediately. There are other objects around a classroom that teachers could use as a weapon to stop someone from acting up, firearms are not necessary.

Neither the teachers nor the students should wear uniforms. It restricts freedom, promotes conformity over individualism, and neither stop bullying or improve test scores(or any other success metric).

Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. "Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, "Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.

This would create atmosphere we do not want. As if school doesn't put enough pressure and raise the intenisy on kids. To make the school enviroment more serious, formal, and tense is not something we want. Try to leave the school atmosphere relaxing and laid-back as possible. I think teahcers should have to be called by using those remarks but i think it is only so to keep and ceertain order and give teachers a lil respect. As far as teachers using the remarks for kids may seem unfair but it will certainly not be good for the educational enviroment.

It seems like we have an identity crisis going on over here:" 1. I did " Let's clarify this.Con asked " How can we be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer?"I responded " Who says that we can?"Con responded "I did".So in essence he is saying that we can be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer. "2. because they want the job"The subject of your opening sentence was the employer, thus when I responded "Why would they?" It refers to the employer (i.e. why would the employer change or add stuff?) Thus your reply, "because they want the job", really doesn't make sense."3. The employer asked for permission"I'm not sure what your trying to do with this. This would be a reason why there is no problem.Let me remind you that you took the con position. "4. Its for the protection of the companies information." Same as before. This would be why there is no problem."5. background checks are used to determine the eligibility of the people your going to hire, you wouldn't wanna hireany body that you don't know" Same. "6. Companies want to ensure that find employers that has good skills for the company, Its called the business life my friend, this things happn because there are monopolies going every time and companies want the right employee for the job" For the 1st sentance - Same. As for the rest, I have no idea what it's trying to say.As I said there seems to be an identity crisis here.It seems that my opponent thinks that he is pro, that is clearly not the case. Further more if you look at the title - which is the only thing he wrote which could be considered a resolution - it reads, "Employers hiring facebook users". If he is con, that means he holds the position that Employers should not be hiring facebook users, or that it is somehow bad that/if employers hire facebook users. Or something to that effect.A resolution that is untenable.

Friere and Hirsch say that the teachers may know everything while the students are awaiting to be taught. Since students are being taught in class and the students aren't interested , then they will never know the background information and may not grasp the concept of whats being taught to them, Although they are being fed the information and listen, it doesn't quite mean they are retaining the knowledge.They may just be listening ands not fully engaged in the lesson.

Recently at school I have noticed that some teachers aren't given the respect they so surely deserve. Then I hear some students talking about footballers like they are gods. I just don't understand it. Teachers do more for this world than footballers ever will, yet footballers are paid a whole lot more and get more respect. Well I've had it. Teachers give teach give us skills for life, whereas footballers just kick a ball about. If anyone disagrees with me, then please, feel free to make an argument.

I think Students should. I think that because they need time to socialize with their friends.

Alright, it appears that Pro is basing his view on his sole experience. So lets have some fun and grade his writing as if he was in my classroom. "My opponents view 2 (*1) is looking little bit confused.(*2) I meant that some lecturers are giving more marks to their own country students.(*3) They are not considering that students are talented or good in studies.(*4). I have this experience.(*5) If one student want to score high marks,(*6) their (*7) should always go to meet that lecturer, ask doubts always, (*8) and whenever they have time they should meet them.(*9) This is not the real way to judge a student."(*10) *1. use of numeral under twenty should be written out -2 points. *2 .verb does not agree with subject and tense is wrong -2 points *3. passive voice and lack of subject verb agreement -4 points *4. vague writing, uses they instead of teachers or graders, no verb only adverb -4 points *5. terrible sentence but grammatically it is correct. *6 should be wants not want - 2 points *7 should be they - 2 points *8 "ask doubts always" is not correct term or saying -2 points *9 confusing and redundant - 2 points *10 confusing, previous sentence discusses what a student should do, but then this sentence explains this is not the real way to judge a student. -2 points Out of a completely arbitrary 24 points (four points possible on each sentence, with each mistake in that sentence -2 points) our Pro's total is 2 points out of 24 or 1 out of 12 or 8%. Based upon this, I doubt that Pro's grades are as a result of his country of origin. Instead, I am arguing that they are based upon his inability to write in English. While English may be his second language and I commend him for attempting to write in it, it is absolutely absurd to state that you think your teacher is racist, xenophobic, whatever, solely based upon your failure to get good grades; especially when you are unable to write adequately in the language I assume you are being graded in. I wanted to discuss objectivity in grading and that was not the way this went. However, vote for me, because I made an attempt.

I believe that Schools focus too heavily on what your grade is rather than what you are learning. Currently, schools are pressuring student on keeping their grades up. Sure having good grades is good, but in some cases they don't measure your knowledge. You can really understand a subject and know exactly what the material is, but none of that matters because you didn't turn in one homework assignment and that brought your grade down 1%. According to schools, that's the end of the world. Now you'll never be able to get into an Ivy League school all because you didn't turn in a homework assignment. Also going by that mindset, its okay if you don't understand the material because there is always time for you to relearn an entire lesson while everyone rockets ahead. There is no way to win in the American School systems. The stress that teachers put on the students for turning in assignments than they do about how well you understand it. Any student can get answers for their homework off of the Internet but a true intellect would be able to do the work, but occasionally forget to turn it in. I don't think grades should be determined by any sort of participation or homework grades, but instead on the more important things such as quizzes and tests. I believe schools emphasize the importance of Grades more than intelligence. Source: http://www.education.com...


Question: Is it Safe to Vape with Electronic Cigarettes?

Bloomberg’s Attempt to Ban E-Cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes offer a range of nicotine cartridge options, from 6-18mg, and even 0mg. This suggests that e-cigarettes are a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes. Since e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, they don’t produce tar, eliminating a major carcinogen found in traditional cigarettes. The absence of harmful chemicals, additives, and smoke makes e-cigarettes significantly less harmful. The vapor produced is just that—vapor, without any lingering odor or unpleasant smell. It doesn’t impact those around the user, making e-cigarettes a less intrusive option. Consequently, banning e-cigarettes is unwarranted, as they pose no direct harm to users and can assist in quitting traditional smoking.

well, at least I get to state my argument in 2Cnd, 3rd, and 4th round. I'll probably PM you to "provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round" (As said by the instigator himself, Because "I" in your perspective is Mastery, while "You" in your perspective is me. You'll only have 5th round to conclusion with no new arguments. :P (unless you want a full 7-point forfeit) "3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal. Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments." "Provide YOUR arguments and rebuttal in this round..." "YOUR arguments and rebuttal" "Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent..." (I will not forgive this error. Sorry. It's your mistake. :P) ",..FULL 7 point loss..." Now, to the argument--I argue smoking should not be banned. There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com.... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects. While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret. Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers. If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier. I conclude round 2, and will PM you so that you can provide my arguments and rebuttals in the 3rd round. Thank you.

Do you mean inside or outside public places? I honestly believe that smoking should be kept away from doorways and inside buildings as I know it is unhealthy. I am not a smoker and smoking everyday is a personal choice but everyone should have the freedom to do it if they so choose. If your kids end up picking up a cigarette you shouldn't but the blame on a random bystander smoking out in the open. Shove the dangers of smoking into your kids head whenever you can, like my parents did, and I'm sure they wouldn't get near a cigarette.

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.

"I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? ", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. " In a debate where you are arguing about law, an opinion of a flavour does not matter. The second part is Ad Hominem and doesn't matter. Let's begin with the counterpoints 1. " I never said the F. D. A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F. D. A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. " The title does imply that they will, and that you don't agree with it, therefore my point remains valid. 2. "My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper" No it isn't. It wasn't an argument. it was a summary of your paragraph. 3. "My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. " I could just stop debating right here, because he just admitted that he has no evidence, but i won't. If you do not have any evidence, you don't have an argument. 4. "My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. " Yes i am. "He tried quoting me and failed at that" I was paraphrasing, and i succeeded. "My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. " That is not what you said. In that quote, you limited it to your platoon in the marines, and before you said "Here in the Marine Corps and pretty much every military branch everyone walks around with a fatty pinch in. " That insinuates that in the marines and most other branches, every single person has a dip in. 5. "My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. " I'm glad you had fun while reading my debate. "First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. " I was just using fruit as an example because it is the most common. "Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. " I agree. Not having the burn makes it easier to chew, children have a lower tollerance for pain, so they are more likely to try the one that will give them less pain. "There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip" Where did you get that number from? There is a reason, and that is that children are more likely to try it if they are there. You have posted Ad hominems but little else. This was. .. interesting. I had fun

Show me the Constitutional amendment that says a ban on the sale of cigarettes is unconstitutional. It's not the first, since free speech doesn't cover odors. It's not the fourth, since we wouldn't have to break into homes to stop the sale of tobacco. It's not the 21st, that is about alcohol. Despite popular belief, there is no verse in the Constitution that straight-out says "You may do whatever you want." Many things have been around for dozens, if not hundreds, of years, but are now illegal or discouraged to sell because of recent science. For example, lead-based gasoline, lead crystal glass, and asbestos. A ban on the sale of tobacco would put an end to this needless, deadly, and highly-addictive ritual. When people smoke, they don't gain anything, other than a satisfaction of an addiction that wouldn't even exist if they haven't tried it in the first place. Kill it at the source. There will be no new smokers if there is no place for them to get cigarettes. People who are already hooked can be weaned by therapy, or by using of the many cigarette alternatives, such as Nicorette or E-Cigarettes.

Countermeasures 1) Harm Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful. Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects. 2) Individual choice As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants. Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be. BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD: "But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals. " If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be. Thanks. 3) Money Pro seemed to repeat the argument of "ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the "useful vs not that useful". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone. Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed. Thanks and God bless

I meant that if you breath in smoke there is such a low concentration of oxygen it is harmful (going back to my train metaphor). 2nd even though there are so many people doing mary-J if the government legalized mary-j for that reason that would encourage people from trying to legalize more harmful drugs, like meth. it is like lemmings, if one jumps off a cliff, they all do, and that ends up killing all of them. 3rd even if you smoke it with people you know, the drugs had to come from somewhere, probably a dealer with negotiated prices, and not a store bought variety with a higher fixed price. this proves true already when people want pirated videos or video games, if you could pay less for the same thing without much risk from getting caught by the government, why wouldn't you buy the thing that costs less? which brings me to the adding of other drugs in the mary-J. cigarettes wouldn't be smoked without nicotine, if there wasn't something in there making you go back and buy a pack of cigs then you wouldn't, because smoking sucks, this is also true for most marijuana smokers who are chemically addicted, there is some reason for them to come back for it mainly other additives, like heroin, coke, ext. and the drug companies probably would also get nicotine in there as well, because if you have a business you need regular customers, and addicting them to your product is one way to ensure that they come back for more

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

People everywhere are smoking, in public and non-public places.Smoking is terrible for your health. It also dangers the health of other people.Smoking can cause lung cancer, heart diseases and poor circulation. Your cat is twice as likely to get cancer if the owner smokes. Smoking is VERY bad for the environment. If people stopped smoking, 28 percent of sand litter would disappear. 600 million trees would be saved annually, and less pesticides would be in the air. If cociane is illegal, then why should smoking not be? Both a drugs that are harmful, only one is outlawed. http://therealcost.betobaccofree.hhs.gov... http://www.npr.org... http://www.familylives.org.uk... http://nationswell.com...

CONTENTION ONE: DEATHThe mortality rate for smokers in the United States is three times higher nonsmokers. Cigarettes are estimated to be the cause of 20% of deaths in the United States, every year, or 480,000 deaths [1].Cigarettes have no major redeeming health benefits.Syllogism:P1: Things that cause death without major redeeming health benefits should be illegal.P2: Cigarettes cause death without major redeeming health benefits.C1: Cigarettes should be illegal.CONTENTION TWO: "CIGARETS"So-called "cigarets" do not exist. I have never heard of them. (Cigarettes, on the other hand, are pure evil.)We should ban all imaginary things.Imagine if unicorns started popping up around the United States. People would probably get impaled or something. And they'd probably be smoking some cigarets as they brutally murdered schoolchildren, with carrots.Thus, we must ban unicorns and "cigarets".REFERENCES[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;


Question: Are electronic cigarettes a safe option for vaping?

The Controversy Over Bloomberg's E-Cig Restrictions
Both conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes contain nicotine, a highly addictive substance. E-cigarettes are not a safer option because they are just as addictive as traditional cigarettes. Even though e-cigarettes produce vapor instead of smoke, the vapor is not undetectable. The lingering nicotine odor will still cling to your clothes and hair. The vapor and smoke can be offensive to others, and I wouldn’t want someone blowing e-cigarette vapor in my face while dining out or sitting next to someone puffing an e-cigarette on the subway, inhaling second-hand smoke in a confined space. E-cigarettes should be prohibited in enclosed public areas and in the vicinity of those who may find them unpleasant.

Being trapped in a car can make it hard to breathe but it does not hinder someones breathing over the course of their lifetime. Car crashes are unexpected and most of the time unwanted. No one gets in their car and says "I want to cause a car crash today," but people do intentionally light up a cigarette. So no one actually knows when or if their going to die in a car crash but they know very well that they will obtain some sort of health problems from smoking. You say that both automobiles and cigarettes provide a service to the user. What exactly is the service that is being provided by the cigarette.. Is it the terrible addiction? The lung cancer? Bladder, Kidney, Pancreas, Cervical Cancer? Blood clots? Potential heart attacks? Strokes? Iron deficiency? High blood pressure? Emphysema? Bronchitis? Fertility problems? Asthma? Macular degeneration, (which leads to gradual loss of eyesight)? Cataracts? Gum disease? Bad breath? Yellowing of the teeth? Shortness of breath? Voice change? Mouth ulsers? Wrinkles? Reduced blood supply to the skin? Not one of these has any positive effect on a human being. And this debate was not about the differences and similarities between an automobile and a cigarette.. it was about the positive image of negative products that are being put in the minds of young viewers by radio, television and magazine ads. There are pros and cons to EVERYTHING in this world, but the cons of those things should not be compared to the devistation that is brought on by smoking. You can choke while eating a strawberry. Does that mean strawberry ads should be banned? No. A person can die from a football injury. Does that mean the game of football should be illegal? No. I'm not saying that there aren't other things on this planet that effect the lives of humans, I am saying however that cigarette ads are putting a positive image in the minds of young human beings. An image that should not even be portrayed to begin with. What good can possibly come of smoking? Does it actually make one happy? Or relax them? Maybe at the time of use but in the long run, there are no positive outcomes to smoking a cigarette. Thats why the advertisement of these products should be banned.

Time for my slicker rebuttals to your rebuttals. You said "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." I disagree and think it is a serious problem if 1/5 of our population are dying from it. You are more likely to die from secondhand smoke than something like Ebola. ( We now know that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure http://www.no-smoke.org... and 4,493 have died from Ebola http://www.bbc.com...) So to be realistic this could become your problem very easily if someone around you is smoking. You go on to say that they did not take responsibility for their actions but that statement doesn't make sense at all. I will point out some problems with that 1. Look at these numbers ( According to the report, 68.8 percent of current smokers say they want to quit and 52.4 percent tried to quit during the past year. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... ) That alone disproves your argument that they didn't take responsibility, 52% means that more than half (the majority) of smokers have tried to quit, therefore they have tried to take responsibility but it was too late. This brings me back to my research on how addicting smoking is. Since smoking is so addicting you could just try it 1 time not intending to ever do it again and you could become addicted and still get affected 2.("Smoking begins to cause damage right away and is highly addictive. Several studies have found nicotine to be as addictive as heroin, cocaine, or alcohol; it is the most common form of drug addiction in the United States. http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com...) This is another clear argument that disproves your statement, this means that if someone smokes just a couple of cigarettes and manages to quit (which is very unlikely but would mean that they took responsibility of there actions) they are still extremely likely to cause longterm health effects and possibly die from smoking so even if you do take responsibility you are still at risk. If the US government can stop ban the #1 preventable cause of death they definitely should. This is not about you con so why even say "it is not my problem" because that doesn't matter, what does matter is that if Tobacco kills up to half of its users, and 42.1 million people (over the age of 18) use it, then it is a serious issue for our country and should not be allowed. 2."You describe how bad smoking is. Irrelevant." How is that irrelevant, the reason I want to ban it is because it is so bad so this is not irrelevant. Usually a pro smokers defense for smoking is that it is not very bad for you and not very addicting. That is why I have supplied the data showing that it is bad and addicting. Now you are showing me that you can not prove that smoking isn't horrible for your health so you will write it off as being "irrelevant". So I would like you to explain how this is irrelevant without using your one strong argument that if people want to smoke it is their right. 3. I posted this video http://www.youtube.com... This video points out 3 things, 1.People that smoke do regret it 2.Once again it shows how bad smoking is for your body 3. This one is really important. The C,D,C or center of disease control was the branch of government to create this video Centers Of Disease Controls:The US agency charged with tracking and investigating public health trends. The stated mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commonly called the CDC, is "To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. (" http://www.medicinenet.com... ) This agency was created by the government to help prevent the most important public health issues, so If they are worried about smoking then we should all be worried about it because it is most definitely a very serious issue. And to Con's argument about smoking being a right i have a very obvious counter, IF THE GOVERNMENT THINKS SOMETHING IS A DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY (Guns for example) THEN IT IS NO LONGER THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS because the government is meant to make those important decisions and that is exactly what they are trying to do with smoking. (note that my opponent had no rebuttal to this.) 4. I explained how addicting and dangerous smoking is and Con simply went back to his "rights" argument but again I will tell you that if the Government thinks something is so dangerous that it is a threat to our country than it is their right to Ban it. Also a lot of people do not intend to smoke around 60% but because of addiction they can not help it. Banning smoking would help prevent these people from making a bad decision because it is a proven fact that not as many people will do something when it is illegal. 5. Con's rebuttal that the reason cigarettes are so expensive is 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." First of all this is a very unprofessional argument in which you bring your political views into the debate which is overall just silly. Secondly it does not matter why they are expensive, My point was that it is a burden on middle to low class family's and will decrease the quality of life, and though it is clear that you do not care much for others I do and I am sure that addiction is the problem and not that they really enjoy smoking. I also find it funny that you mention that it is not the governments decision what we do when it actually is. We in fact do not have the right to do whatever we want or this country would be a mess. 6. You did not have any rebuttal to this. 7. You actually had a fairly impressive solution on this one and at first one would think it would be a perfect solution but think about this, you have places you can and cannot smoke in public, People are still going to smoke in there homes and in less densely populated areas so although it would help it would not be as effective as an all out ban. Now I would like to address your arguments for smoking: 1."smoking is a right of the people" like I said before since the government has control it can actually take away our rights if they think it is reasonable and also according to the numbers I have shown so far If there was a vote a ban on smoking would very likely pass, therefore it would be a decision by people. Also if you do a bit of research you will find out that "tobacco manufacturers or libertarian viewpoints focusing on individual freedom are often partially or completely discarded by politicians" (http://www.forbes.com... ) Meaning that this argument would have little to no affect in an actual voting situation. 2. Easily your best argument here you talk about the impact on the tobacco industry and the economy. Now I will give it to you that the tobacco industry would take a big hit if a ban of smoking took place But there are many other forms of tobacco (chewing etc) so they would still be growing it meaning farming would not take a huge blow, also this new space made from not growing something that kills 1/5th of our population could go to a good cause by helping grow more food that could help keep us alive. It is a fact that we are running out of farm land and with that we get more commercialized farming which means more disgusting meat from overcrowded farms.With all of the room we could free up by stopping the growth of Tobacco we could have bigger farms therefore better healthier meat, I'm not sure about you but I would rather have the food industry make money than the Tobacco industry. Finally I would like to bring to attention that studies show that bans of smoking actually increase the income of small businesses " An analysis by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, released in June 2004, found that restaurant sales were up 7 percent one year after state's the smoke free law that made all public places and restaurants 100% smoke free took effect on July 1, 2003" http://no-smoke.org... 3. Your third that making Cigarettes illegal would make them have a more dangerous black market and you used the example of meth. First of all if 60% of smokers want to quit then only 40% of smokers would still want to smoke, from their less than half of them are realistically going to commit a serious drug offence to get a smoke and out of that 20% less than 10% will end up getting smoking and selling cigarettes, therefore making cigarettes illegal would stop about 90% of there use and would most likely stop almost all use in public due to not wanting to get caught (people do not walk down the street doing heroin and meth) As for the cartel, sure they will probably smuggle cigarettes over if there is enough of a demand but it will not have much of an affect simply because the cartel will always be smuggling things and there will always be drugs under demand that they will have to smuggle therefore cigarettes wont actually make much if any difference. Thank you for reading this long debate and taking both sides into account.

At the moment this debate is just going to be you stating stats then me stating stats and the stats will always contradict eachover. This argument is more about morals and logic than stats ans science. You, me or anyone else should never have the right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. 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. People that smoke now are educated about the health risks, and this is a good system, it allows people the right to choose what they want to do with THEIR bodies. Rebuttals- "Not to mention how much a pack of smokes cost" 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. The United States government brings in an anual tax revenue of $5,860,000,000 from cigarette tax. How do you think this would effect the non-smokers in society? They would have to pay almost 6 billion more dollars on taxes a year, something tells me theat once the people that want smoking banned realise this they won't be so eager to ban smoking. "You are assuming that all food leads to obesity and that is not true." 1) Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope. 2) I stated all FAST food is bad for you, an important detail, my point is, if you are so eager to improve everyone else's lives by taking away their rights then why dismiss thinks like fast food which as you say, may not be linked to lung cancer but is proven to cause health problems. "Yes--just like selling drugs on the streets is illegal. We can enforce the law and security." Is this a joke? Because I have to say I laughed a little when I read this. Its not like in Mexico (where drug use is illegal) there are cartels running around gunning eachover down and beheading eachover on the internet. Yeah I'd say drug control is going pretty well. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/02/26/where-7-mexican-drug-cartels-are-active-within-the-u-s/ latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/12/mexican-drug-cartel-violence-spreading-to-rural-us-as-police-crackdown-in-major/ "But also how smoking is basically suicide and homicide." 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. "You chose to rebut only the part of my argument about the side effects of smoking, that's sad." 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. As for these videos, I cant see the link so... I will give you more reasons smoking shouldn't be banned now. 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. This resulted in massive amounts of violence and lots of innocents being killed, is this what you want? There's an old saying "learn from your mistakes" it applies here. Thousands of jobs in the tobacco industry would be lost, that means thousands more lives ruined by your plan to ban smoking. A smoking ban would disregard property rights, why should the politicians or people like you have the power to tell someone what they can do on their own property? This is another breach of basic rights. The smoking ban removes freedom of choice. The smoking ban is not democratic, as much as I criticize your much loved democracy, it is clear that this isnt a democratic choice, "the UK office of national statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban." [1] [1] www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/9278#.VBTDtn3TXMI My summary of my argument is this- If you are a fan of democracy the smoking ban is undemocratic. If you are a libertarian the smoking ban takes away peoples rights to make their own basic decisions. If you value a co-operative society then the smoking ban doesnt because it would take a man or woman away from his or her family and throw them in jail, and ruin the lives of them and their children because they made a poor health choice. It would increase the crime rate, it would also increase the amount of taxes everyone would have to pay. Prohibition on alcohol has failed before, so has the prohibition on drugs so why would a smoking ban be practical? Thank you for reading my debate I hope you choose freedom over being controlled.

Hello. I would like to start by thanking my opponent for starting what I am sure to be an interesting debate. I would like to start off my argument by summing up my opponents points from each paragraph, and after each, I will give a short rebuttal. 1. There was a new law passed that gives the FDA power to regulate flavoured tobacco products I would like to point out that just because they have the power, doesn't mean that they will automatically ban it. 2. Some tobacco products were omitted because they are not flavoured. There is not really much I can argue here. It is a fact. 3. My opponent's first dip was non-flavored, and he is now addicted. Great. Nicotine is powerful. No matter what kind you tried first, you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine. 4. If you try different kinds of tobacco, you will have the same effect. That argument states again that nicotine is powerful. I agree. The premise is not whether they would get addicted or not. The premise is that the FDA should not ban the flavored tobacco. You have not provided any evidence that they shouldn't. 5. Kids would try all different kinds of chew I disagree, and I will argue that later. 6. My opponent is in the marines, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON has a dip in. Also, he has shared his preference. I disagree again. Not every single person has a dip in. Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? Contention 1 Kids are more likely to try and get addicted to tobacco that is flavored than tobacco that is non-flavored or "natural" flavor. Kids are given a lot of information in elementary school. Two of those things are: 1. Fruits are good. 2. Tobacco is bad. When a child starts to develop more, they start to make associations with their surroundings. If they have grown up eating fuits, and liking them, or eating a lot of fruit candy and liking it, they will be more likely to try more fruity things. If they associate the good thing, fruit, with the bad thing, tobacco, they will be much more likely to try it than if they were to associate the bad thig with a neutral thing. I was a little bit rushed for this argument, so i hope it is good enough. I look forward to your response.

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

As Con, I will take side in why should we ban smoking. I am taking the side in banning smoking due to hazardous effects brought by it. In the community, if there are smokers, even non smokers sometimes are affected. Does not matter the percentage. As for example, in a little community of 50 people, and only 5 people are smoking, 45 of them when inhaled the smoke can be affected little by little. Smoking kills you little by little no matter how good it is for you or for smokers, I mean. Major points are: Health effects - Smoking and your Body "The effects of smoking on human health are serious and in many cases, deadly. There are approximately 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, hundreds of which are toxic. The ingredients in cigarettes affect everything from the internal functioning of organs to the efficiency of the body's immune system. The effects of cigarette smoking are destructive and widespread." -Toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke travel throughout the body, causing damage in several different ways. -Nicotine reaches the brain within 10 seconds after smoke is inhaled. It has been found in every part of the body and in breast milk. -Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing affected cells from carrying a full load of oxygen. -Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly. -The carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene binds to cells in the airways and major organs of smokers. -Smoking affects the function of the immune system and may increase the risk for respiratory and other infections. -There are several likely ways that cigarette smoke does its damage. One is oxidative stress that mutates DNA, promotes atherosclerosis, and leads to chronic lung injury. Oxidative stress is thought to be the general mechanism behind the aging process, contributing to the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and COPD. -The body produces antioxidants to help repair damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than do nonsmokers. -Smoking is associated with higher levels of chronic inflammation, another damaging process that may result in oxidative stress. And in some accounts, The Top Ten List of Negative Effects of Smoking: 1. Coughing: Smokers coughing that is. After a not predetermined time of being a smoker, you will begin to experience smokers cough, because your body uses this as a way to try and get rid of the toxins you inhale while smoking. 2. Yellow teeth: many smokers when they realise the state of their smile, that have gone from bright white to almost yellow stop smiling all that much, or try to hide their teeth while smiling. 3. Trouble with blood circulation: After contaminating your blood for a period of time with the smoke you inhale and that therefore gets into your blood stream, your blood will not circulate as freely in your body as it used to, and your arteries will begin to clog. The ares furthest away from the heart, (hands and feet) will be first to get lowered their blood flow, and you will begin to experience cold hands and feet. 4. Lessened glowing of your skin: A healthy skin have a natural glow about, but with the clogged arteries, the lessened blood flow, will slowly make your skin greyer, and more pale than it used to be. 5. Ugly yellow fingertips: The smoke that several times daily gets in contact with your skin at the fingertips, is slowly going to make the fingers on the hand you hold the cigarette with into ugly looking yellow fingers. 6. Lessened ability to smell the lovely flowers: Well maybe you don't really care about the smell of flowers, but another negative effect of smoking is that rather shortly after becoming a smoker, you taste buds and your ability to smell well be severely worse than before. The good news however is that they return rather quickly after quitting. 7. Lessened lung capacity: Your overall fitness levels are determined largely by the capacity of your lungs, and a negative effects of smoking is a slowly deteriorating lung capacity. When I smoked I had a test as I were doing sport at a serious level, but had collapsed during a track test, and were told my lung capacity were well below par for my age group. 8. Lower Energy: When you smoke, your immune system never relaxes for very long. Immediately when smoke gets in your body, the immune system start fighting it, and is therefore working on overdrive so to speak. That extra use of energy has to come from somewhere, and it does. The energy used is taken from your overall energy levels, Along with that, the lesser lung capacity reduces your bodys oxygen intake, which again reduces your energy levels. so you can expect a lower energy level overall from smoking. 9. Bad breath: Often times when I were a smoker I would wake up dry mouthed, and my girlfriend refused to kiss me because of my bad breath. This point should require no further explanation. 10. Less oxygen for your brain: Lower oxygen in your blood also causes the brain to get lesser oxygen then it needs to function optimally. This may cause you to have a worse than average ability to focus on things, and it may also cause dizzy spells. Those are just some, but there are many reasons to ban it. That is just my point for now. But one question lies: What causes cigarette addiction? Sources: | http://quitsmoking.about.com... http://www.itkorner.net...

Cigarrets should not be illiegal, even thou I dont smoke and think that it is a terrible habit, the cigarrets companies KNOW this and therefor made a public announment in every package that says that IT IS A HEALTH RISK that enduces cancer. So, the comapnies are giving the comsumers a choice with knowlegde. It is a fair game!

This should be brief so I'll jump right in. My first argument can be summarized with this quote from the American Lung Association's website, "We caution the public against smoking marijuana because of the risks it poses to lung health. "[1] Marijuana contains 33 chemicals and cigarettes contain more than 7000. [2] While cigarettes are obviously worse, inhaling any chemicals will still harms your lungs. When the same amount of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana inhalation brings four times as much tar as tobacco into the lungs. [3] Also, people who smoke only marijuana, have more healthcare visits for respiratory conditions compared to nonsmokers. [4] I may put more arguments in later rounds, but I'll leave it at that for now. 1) . http://www.lung.org... 2) . http://www.lung.org... 3) . http://www.snopes.com... via the ALA 4) Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco. West J Med. 1993;158(6):596-601.

(Con fails to rebut most of my arguments about the dangers of smoke). There's nothing to argue. Many things are dangerous, but are not banned. Alcohol is dangerous. Furniture can be dangerous. Pro basically says that because marijuana has reduced some of the use of it that it will do the same with tobacco products. That is false. It will only push the products underground and into the black market. Tobacco is really addictive and if people are kept away from their addiction, they can show the signs of being clinically addicted and sometimes be aggressive. Smoking should not be banned, it should be controlled in the public. Places like restaurants and bars should be able to chose to be smoke free or not. In public, government funded places it should be smoke free, but even then it's a hard thing to enforce.

"i'd just like to say that all my opponent did was rebut my argument" (2) That's right. I crushed your Round 1 argument. "and never presented any evidence that supported smoking being bad" (3) First of all, the opposite of "smoking is good" is "smoking is not good," and not that "smoking is bad" (it could be neutral for all I care.) In addition, I showed that smoking is bad because it raises your blood pressure and your heart rate. Furthermore, I did provide evidence. I also gave instructions to an experiment that can be performed to verify my claim. Since I showed that my argument is correct, it should be considered so unless you refute it. (To lay it out plainly, that means I win this point.) Obesity ------------ It is true that smoking suppresses the appetite, and it does help people lose weight. Models sometimes smoke cigarettes in order to lose weight. It is true that there are high obesity rates in the U.S. So? What about it? You did not make a point... Are you saying that smoking is good because it is an effective way to eradicate obesity in the U.S.? Are you saying that smoking is good because it is an effective solution for individuals to lose weight? Dementia ------------- "There is also scientific evidence to support that smoking helps stop a numberous variety of dimentias..." (4) You are correct. Smoking can be beneficial in certain cases. In addition, marijuana can help people with glaucoma. However, this does not prove your point, as I will proceed to explain. The title of this debate says "Smoking is good for you." Although it is understood that you do not mean ME personally, it is understood by the statement that smoking is *generally* good for people. Because the consumers you picked for this argument are the exception rather than the rule, whether smoking or not is good for this particular audience does not prove your position on the topic of the debate (i.e. "smoking is good for you"). Good luck (you're gonna need it lol)


Question: Is it Safe to Use E-cigarettes for Vaping?

Resolved: The use of e-cigarettes should be banned in the United States.

BOP is shared, as per round 1 rules. The framework is that the government should ban something if it causes a net harm to society, as the primary goal of the government is to improve the lives of its citizens. Contention 1: Health Costs. According to the CDC, e-cigarette usage has been linked to over 2,800 hospitalizations and 68 deaths. The economic costs of vaping, including healthcare and loss of productivity, are substantial and outweigh any potential benefits. Contention 2: For the Users Themselves. E-cigarettes contain harmful chemicals, such as nicotine, which can lead to addiction and have negative health effects. The government has a duty to protect its citizens from harm, and banning e-cigarettes would help to reduce the risk of addiction and health problems. Contention 3: Secondhand Vapor. Secondhand vapor from e-cigarettes can contain harmful chemicals and can cause health problems for those exposed to it, even if they are not using the e-cigarettes themselves. This can nullify any arguments for personal freedom, as the rights of non-users to breathe clean air are being infringed upon. Contention 4: Environmental Impact. E-cigarettes can have a negative impact on the environment, as the waste from e-cigarettes can contribute to pollution. Banning e-cigarettes would help to reduce this waste and its impact on the environment. Conclusion: E-cigarette usage is detrimental to society as a whole by causing addiction, health problems, and environmental harm. Banning e-cigarettes would help to protect the health and well-being of citizens and reduce the negative impact on society.

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.

Wow. You really just did that. 1: Vaccines save millions of lives every year, Over 26 million in the US alone. 2: They are proven safe. 3:Autism is not caused by vaccines. Proven by 35 World Health Organization papers. Only one RETRACTED paper said vaccines cause autism. 4: Vaccines do not cause allergies. 5: Vaccines have almost no side effects. They are 1 to 1, 000. 6: They are cheap and super effective. Pharma does not make money from vaccines

YEs everything that you said was true however, my intentions for this debate was not too debate which is healthier my hopes were to find another chewer and debate the which is a better chew in regards of taste, cuts, quality, etc. And since my intentions were not to debate the health risks and what not i am not wasting my time with this debate. thanks you, liberal scum.

You ignored what I said in the last round: < > Definition of "you" 2. one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can't even see. "you." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 14 Jan. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com...;. Emphasis on "people in general." The topic of the debate is not that smoking can be good in certain circumstances. The topic of the debate is whether smoking is good in general. These are two different points. Thus, only because you have shown that smoking can be good in special circumstances does not mean it is good in general, which I have shown is precisely the topic of the debate. "the fact that i was able to have positive affects that my opponent agreed to should be enough to win me the round" NOT!

Heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer. That is what smokers try to avoid from day to day. Recent research has shown that non-smokers can suffer health problems if they spend long periods of time among people who do smoke. I think the world would be a better place without cigarettes. According to the Manitoba Medical Association it is known that the smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, 50 of which are known to be cancer-related. Also smoke has been linked to heart and respiratory disease; lung, breast, cervical, and nasal sinus cancers; strokes and miscarriages. In children, dangers include sudden infant death syndrome, fetal growth impairment, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and middle-ear disease. Not permitting smoking in public areas may help people refrain from smoking. Some argue that there would be a significant decline in the clientele in bars and clubs, but non-smokers actually outnumber smokers three to one. A ban could actually increase people going out because nonsmokers would be more comfortable. There may also be a sudden realization of the dangers of smoking. With the state government taking a stand, it may cause people to take another look at the situation. Smoking kills 7,000 New Yorkers a year. The number of smokers has dropped since 2002, but the decline has leveled up. The people that sell cigarettes should be ashamed by the fact that they find an excuse for it as a having a job. But that else can be the solution if not limiting people? How much money do they spend on buying cigarettes? A smoker will spend about $1,400 a year for one pack a day. I find this as a chance to buy something valuable instead of harming yourself and others. It is known that if you do not display the cigarettes the number of young people who smoke will immediately, because they buy cigarettes on impulse.

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.

There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.

Voters: Please use this calculator to divide any number you want by zero. http://www.math.com... It says "Infinity". Your computer does not explode. Therefore, post it notes are not dangerous.

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/

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


Question: Are electronic cigarettes a safe option for vaping?

Resolved: The use of e-cigarettes should be regulated more strictly in the United States.

Framework: Pro will argue that increased regulation is necessary due to the potential harm e-cigarettes pose to public health, as the government's role is to protect its citizens. Contention 1: Health Risks. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), e-cigarettes contain harmful chemicals and can lead to lung injuries and nicotine addiction, especially among young people. The Surgeon General's report also highlights the dangers of secondhand vapor, which can contain toxic substances. Contention 2: Addiction. E-cigarettes are highly addictive due to their high nicotine content, which can lead to long-term health problems and make quitting smoking more difficult. According to a study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, e-cigarette users are more likely to start smoking traditional cigarettes. Contention 3: Secondhand Vapor. Secondhand vapor from e-cigarettes can be harmful to those around the user, especially children and pregnant women. The CDC reports that secondhand vapor can contain harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Contention 4: Marketing and Accessibility. E-cigarettes are often marketed in a way that appeals to young people, with flavors such as fruit and candy. This can lead to increased use among minors, who are more susceptible to addiction. Additionally, the ease of access to e-cigarettes can lead to increased use and potential harm. Conclusion: Increased regulation of e-cigarettes is necessary to protect public health and prevent harm to individuals, especially young people. This includes restrictions on marketing and accessibility, as well as increased oversight of the chemicals used in e-cigarettes.

I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.

Countermeasures 1) Harm Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful. Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects. 2) Individual choice As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants. Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be. BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD: "But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals. " If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be. Thanks. 3) Money Pro seemed to repeat the argument of "ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the "useful vs not that useful". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone. Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed. Thanks and God bless

AveRules1. over 3000 ELO to vote, and accept.2. No FF unless same number3. No trolling4. No kritiks, semanticsStructure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. RebuttalsDefinitionsSmoking: Smoking is the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes, pipes,and cigars.Ban: A stop to.Vale

But you never answered my question how do you know they don't taste good? do you have proof toxic chemicals don't taste good, you're just assuming they don't.

YOU have failed to provide your arguments and rebuttals in this round, thus you lose all points. I will continue the debate. There is nothing prohibiting me from continuing this round.ARGUMENTWhen a person smokes in public (and private, but the smoke won't affect anyone other than the main smoker) places, second hand smoke (SHS) is released. As a result, non-smokers breath in SHS. All of the health problems are spread to everyone else. I'll show you the facts 7,000 harmful chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to damage your health. [1] The smoke will stay in the air for a few hours after smoking. [1] SHS can cause breathing problems. It can cause coughing‚ extra phlegm‚ wheezing‚ and shortness of breath. And for children, it can also cause bronchitis, pneumonia and breathlessness. [1] "Since 1964, 2.5 million non smokers have died from exposure to second hand smoke." [2] This includes only adults, so the figure would be more had children been included. "Non smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%" [2] "Non smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%." [2] [1] http://smokefree.gov...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...; REBUTTAL "There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com....... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects."This topic is worldwide, even though it does not say so in the definition or topic. If you argue with that, a 7-point forfeit occurs. "The topic has to be debatable worldwide". There is simply no need to smoke publicly or semi-publicly; why not just smoke privately?"While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret." Any proof? Public smoking can easily by identified by any member of the community."Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers."I will address this in my argument. The 1 billion people that do smoke would at least not affect anyone else who DOES NOT smoke, as they smoke privately. Only the about 10/72 people who smoke would be affected, not the whole world."If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier."I have thought out my decision to alter your topic.

CONTENTION ONE: DEATHThe mortality rate for smokers in the United States is three times higher nonsmokers. Cigarettes are estimated to be the cause of 20% of deaths in the United States, every year, or 480,000 deaths [1].Cigarettes have no major redeeming health benefits.Syllogism:P1: Things that cause death without major redeeming health benefits should be illegal.P2: Cigarettes cause death without major redeeming health benefits.C1: Cigarettes should be illegal.CONTENTION TWO: "CIGARETS"So-called "cigarets" do not exist. I have never heard of them. (Cigarettes, on the other hand, are pure evil.)We should ban all imaginary things.Imagine if unicorns started popping up around the United States. People would probably get impaled or something. And they'd probably be smoking some cigarets as they brutally murdered schoolchildren, with carrots.Thus, we must ban unicorns and "cigarets".REFERENCES[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;

Being trapped in a car can make it hard to breathe but it does not hinder someones breathing over the course of their lifetime. Car crashes are unexpected and most of the time unwanted. No one gets in their car and says "I want to cause a car crash today," but people do intentionally light up a cigarette. So no one actually knows when or if their going to die in a car crash but they know very well that they will obtain some sort of health problems from smoking. You say that both automobiles and cigarettes provide a service to the user. What exactly is the service that is being provided by the cigarette.. Is it the terrible addiction? The lung cancer? Bladder, Kidney, Pancreas, Cervical Cancer? Blood clots? Potential heart attacks? Strokes? Iron deficiency? High blood pressure? Emphysema? Bronchitis? Fertility problems? Asthma? Macular degeneration, (which leads to gradual loss of eyesight)? Cataracts? Gum disease? Bad breath? Yellowing of the teeth? Shortness of breath? Voice change? Mouth ulsers? Wrinkles? Reduced blood supply to the skin? Not one of these has any positive effect on a human being. And this debate was not about the differences and similarities between an automobile and a cigarette.. it was about the positive image of negative products that are being put in the minds of young viewers by radio, television and magazine ads. There are pros and cons to EVERYTHING in this world, but the cons of those things should not be compared to the devistation that is brought on by smoking. You can choke while eating a strawberry. Does that mean strawberry ads should be banned? No. A person can die from a football injury. Does that mean the game of football should be illegal? No. I'm not saying that there aren't other things on this planet that effect the lives of humans, I am saying however that cigarette ads are putting a positive image in the minds of young human beings. An image that should not even be portrayed to begin with. What good can possibly come of smoking? Does it actually make one happy? Or relax them? Maybe at the time of use but in the long run, there are no positive outcomes to smoking a cigarette. Thats why the advertisement of these products should be banned.

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.

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.

In terms of safety, it's hard to tell what is a safer vehicle, the one that will explode on rare occasions, or the one that will take more time to open up and save a victim. Firefighters will spend more than 20 minutes standing around waiting for the charge in the battery to die before going into the car and rescuing someone. In a bad accident, where time is an issue for saving you, your chances of dying are dramatically increased by driving an electric vehicle. As for pollution, don't confuse "global warming" with pollution. Further, be careful where you are talking about when you say "asthma is getting worse". Asthma conditions may be getting worse in some regions, while not changing or, instead, improving in others. Example, In China, there are more respiratory conditions in general due to the high pollution. In the US, it is fair to say regions with more smog or air pollution from local plants are more likely to have asthma issues, but it is not true to say that everything is getting worse. Especially if you don't have any data to show that asthma incidence has increased over that past 10-20 years in the US. Do I agree that less people driving gas vehicles would improve the air quality for people around highways or in cities? yes. Do I think that electric is the way to go? Definitely not yet. This all boils down to economics. Society will innovate in lieu of these prices, making either more fuel efficient vehicles, which will reduce emissions in of itself, or create a new source of energy for cars that is economical. We need to wait until the price is right for other competitive energies to enter the market. At this point, Electric is not economical until gas prices nearly triple on a per gallon basis. If someone were to buy an electric car, it would have cost them $42-80K. They would drive it for a few years, the battery would decay, and they would have to spend thousands to replace it. It's not economical yet, but given time, it will be. There's no magic bullet to our concerns now. We just have to wait and let people motivate themselves.