Exposing children to secondhand smoke is abuse and should be made illegal in every U.S. state.

I’ll begin my thanking my opponent for a very enjoyable debate. She has proven to be one of the most challenging opponents I’ve debated since joining DDO. So, I sincerely thank my opponent for that intellectual challenge and seriousness with which our debate was conducted. ________________________________________________________________ Con (1) Round (4): defining abuse Pro’s definition of abuse is largely, if not solely based on a handful of medical ailments [pneumonia, respiratory problems, ear infections, ADHD] [see Pro Round 2] linked to secondhand smoke exposure. Con (a): If secondhand smoke exposure is child abuse based on the illnesses Pro provided in Round 2, then it would hold true when exposing children to common household cleaning products: By adopting this logic then a parent exposing a child to numerous household cleaning products are abusing their children. Medical evidence has shown cleaning products heavily can cause or are heavily linked to the same medical ailments used to justify secondhand smoke expose as child abuse.[1][2] Like [pneumonia, respiratory problems, ear infections, ADHD, heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes] Con (b): Pollution would be an apt analogy because Pro is arguing for a one size fits all 50 state solution to secondhand smoke Pro reached the pollution comparison but the rejection is very revealing. Pro’s argument has been that every U.S. state should make secondhand smoke exposure to children abuse. That is a one-size fits all solution, so if we can establish [as I did that pollution is just as harmful] a 50 state solution would be the right solution. By banning various kind of chemicals and kinds of pollutants, you could drastically change the exact kind of diseases that when done by a parent are called abuse. In both pollution and smoking you are using the state to regulate social norms and practices. So, Pro is incorrect in assert that smoking is a personal choice but not pollution, because the kinds of behavior, chemicals, etc. is a choice, rather than a necessity. Con (c): Reminder of CAPTA definition Pro is simply wrong about the CAPTA statute governing this debate. I will provide the definition from the website Pro and insisted Con use. Voters can read there is a minimum standard based on the statute ___________________________________________________________________ Federal legislation provides guidance to States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum [emphasis mine]: "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm." This definition of child abuse [emphasis mine] and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 [emphasis mine] or who is not an emancipated minor.[3] _____________________________________________________________________ Con (c) + (d) Elizabeth/Paige example from last round My opponent failed to explain how a concrete example like the Elizabeth smoking in a garage with her daughter in the garage constitutes abuse. Moreover, while Pro states that when are talking about secondhand smoke, we are talking about the studies cited, but the studies Pro cites do not take into account a case like the Elizabeth/Paige example. So, I am at a loss about to make of it. Elizabeth is continues to smoke in the garage as she talks to Paige. Based on all the information Pro has provided I don’t know whether this single instance would be enough to be considered abuse and if a single case is not abuse, then what number is the minimum. Pro has failed address how this is abuse. Con (e): Pro consistent equivocation of the word abuse Throughout the debate and based on the definitions, Pro has equivocated on abuse, making comparisons to sexual abuse and physical abuse and then moving away from those thinking about secondhand smoke exposure. Con has said all along, common forms of child abuse like beating a child or sexual assaulting a child are not the same or even in the same ballpark as secondhand smoke exposure. That is a fundamental disagreement. Con disagrees based on the definition Pro and Con agreed to at the beginning of the debate. I will let voters decide whether This is abuse But so is this? Pro has failed to full 100% BOP based on the arguments Con has provided and reiterated throughout the debate. Vote Con! [1] Bronstein, Alvin C., Spyker, Daniel A., Cantilena Jr, Louis R. Green, Jody, Rumack, Barry H. and Heard, Stuart E. (2007) '2006 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS)', Clinical Toxicology, 45:8, 815 – 917. PDF available: http://www.safegreencleaners.com... [2] U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION "2007 Performance and Accountability Report" 2007. PDF available: http://www.cpsc.gov... [3] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law,” or the exact website page Pro used in Round 1: https://www.childwelfare.gov...