The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks ( Take 2 )

"His fourth citation is Forces, a Dutch website. What is Forces? According to a translation of the front page, it is "The smoking site for the Netherlands and Flanders". What does they say about themselves?" "In others words, it [FORCES] is the InfoWars of the Dutch smoking industry." (where are my opponent's sources for this claim? Such a claim demands the BOP for such a theory)"As for the webpage itself, it doesn't link to scientific studies, only other parts of the website. This makes up the entirety of his 'positive aspects to smoking section' - hardly an unbiased, impartial source in that regard."(I'm no expert, but do believe that websites such as the WHO and the CDC would most likely link themselves as well, not to mention that they, according to my opponents arguments, appear to be biased against smoking)"Even if we take the source as entirely factual..""His sixth citation goes back to the lung cancer argument, from a book by Lauren A. Colby. In this book, Colby questions whether AIDS is actually caused by a virus[8] and claims nicotine is nor more addictive than cake.[9] Hardly a reliable source!"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the source. This is a very popular argument to use, albeit that it is actually what is comonly referred to as "Argumentum Ad Hominem."Such is the fallacy which my opponent has fallen prey to.(the original link provided was botched; I'll provide an improved one in the sources below)That said, I will now refute my opponent's arguments.Medical recognition of tobacco in Native American culture:My opponent seems to have not read Ottawa web article titled "Aboriginee Medicine and Healing Practices" very carefully. On the contrary, it clearly mentions "the four sacred medicines (sweetgrass, tobacco, cedar and sage)." Furthermore, it also reads, and I quote:"Sacred medicines such as cedar, sage, sweetgrass or tobacco are burned in an abalone shell. ...the medicines represent gifts from mother earth and the burning represents fire, the next two elements. The person puts their hands in the smoke and carries it to their body, especially to areas that need spiritual healing (mind, heart, body). The smoke represents air, the final element. Perhaps the smell of the burning medicines stimulates the brain to produce beta-endorphins and promote healing processes." [see Source 2, Round 1]In fact, tobacco has been used medicinally for centuries. Here is one account of a man who used tobacco leaves to treat his erysipelas condition: "He, with a look of astonishment, said to me, “I did not know you till you spoke; what is the matter with you?” I answered that I had had a blister on my forehead. “Yes,” said he, “and it has given you erysipelas.” (An example of erysipelas infecting the hand) I was at once alarmed; and on going to a looking-glass, was amazed at my appearance. My face looked like a large pumpkin. … After reaching my room, as soon as I could wet the tobacco, I placed it over my forehead, temples, eyes, cheeks, and nose, barely leaving breathing space for the nostrils…After about four hours had elapsed, I raised the bandage, and was gratified to see that the outlines of my nose were visible, the eyes enlarged, and my cheeks much less full. I continued the application, however, till morning, and had the satisfaction of seeing that I was relieved. … I remember Dr. Hambleton said, “No doctor could have cured you in three weeks.” [1] "My brother, who is a practising physician in North Carolina, to whom I had explained the uses of tobacco, told me that some years ago, when sore throats were an epidemic in his neighborhood, he had used tobacco in more than a dozen cases, always with success, while other physicians in that vicinity had lost some of their patients, having treated them differently."[1] The use of logical fallacies: In fact, they actually do fit. The example against the Argumentum in Terrorem which my opponent provided is actually an example of the Argumentum ad Baculum; the appeal to violence fallacy. The Argumentum ad Terrorem (a.k.a. Fear Mongering) looks a little more like this: (if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...) If someone feels the need to resort to manipulating the primal fears of others, then it would be reasonable to critique whether or not the fear mongerer truly has any substantial evidence to back the claim. (from what I learned in the alcohol poster, drinking alcohol makes you look like a meth head - is that truth?). As for Argument by Slogan - the quote "A Tip from a Former Smoker" appearing in a plethora of TV ads and posters, it seems to me that the anti-smoking campaign is, in fact, arguing by slogan. It appears we have conceded that anti-smoking campaigns actively use the fallacy of confirmation bias, as he/she has not contended this statement. Statistics revisited: ...*sigh* I challenged my opponent to refrain from the use of statistics as a basis for argument, but my opponent argued, and quote: "it still leaves us with several proofs of negative effects on smoking on cancer; namely, smokers are still eight times more likely to get lung cancer and make up 85% of lung cancer patients." I refer back to the video I provided, where Greg mentions Pascal's Wager, the study involving surger on the vegas nerve, and the feminist claim that "90% of men are likely to commit a crime against their wives". (does that sound reasonable/logical to you?)In fact, the statistics against smoking can actually act in reverse."Would you believe that the real number [of USWM dying from lung cancer] is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). "You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.*"[see Source 5, Round 1]I would extend this quote as a small piece of evidence, but not as the basis of my argument - and much less, the basis for my support of the BOP. Apparently, the source believes the benefits outweigh the risks:Although, I will concede that, yes, the source believes that smoking is not the healthiest option in the world. Here is the quote my opponent was referring to:"Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story." [see Source 5, Round 1]The source itself, presumebly written by a doctor of good standing, must logically believe that the benefits of smoking outweighs the risks if the source actively chooses to smoke the cigars anyway.Closing statements for Round 4:"my opponent argued that he's never seen a smoker have to use a stoma."This is false; I remember very clearly that I argued, and I quote, that "In my lifetime, I've only known one smoker to have a stoma." I do hope and trust that my opponent is reading my arguments carefully."Well, I've never seen an elephant. Does that mean elephants don't exist? Of course not."Well, I've never seen God. Does that mean God exists?The issues I have with this reasoning aside, I want to clarify that the argument I was making in Round 1 was that smokers with stomas are few and far between. The smoker I saw with a stoma was an elderly man; now, I am not one for making hasty generalizations, but I think it would be reasonable to say that most, if not all, smokers who develop threats to their health such are at an elderly age where they would have begun to develop health problems anyway (that's the thing about getting old, after all)."So, just from sources alone, my opponent's four arguments have been entirely demolished. I have directly proven that tobacco is not smoked as medicine in Native American culture, that tobacco ads are in fact honest and that smoking is indeed a cause or, at the very least, leads to a vastly increased risk of lung cancer."No, my opponent hasn't - one cannot disprove the resolution by attacking the sources of the evidence. Second, I have shown that Native Americans do recognize tobacco as a "Sacred Medicine", and that tobacco factually has a medical history, accomplishing in it's time "what a doctor could not cure in three weeks."[1] Third, anti-tobacco ads are dishonest, and smoking is far from a "vastly increased risk of lung cancer."Rather than find resources to debunk the studies and evidences I have provided, my opponent has "beaten around the bush" by attacking the credibility of the sources (I could equally have discredited my opponent by pointing out that the majority of his/her arguments were found on wikipedia articles, but I digress). The evidences remain, and have stood irrefuted.As for middle-aged smokers passing away, these statistics are irrelevant. Take these statistics for example: -There were 120 sports related deaths of young athletes in 2008 - 2009; 49 in 2010; and 39 in 2011. -Approximately 8,000 children are treated in emergency rooms each day for sports-related injuries. And yet people generally agree that the benefits of youth sports programs outweigh the risks! [1] - https://archive.org...[2] - http://www.youthsportssafetyalliance.org...[3] - http://www.cdbaby.com...