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

A final word on statistical arguments:"To begin, he asserts he "I challenged my opponent to refrain from the use of statistics as a basis for argument". Where did you say this?"Like I said before, I do trust that my opponent is reading my arguments carefully, rather than simply skimming over them. If my opponent is unaware of my challenge, then I recommend that he use ctrl-f to find the following sentence, written under "Statistical arguments moot at best" in Round 3: "That said, I challenge my opponent to refrain from statistical arguments."Speaking of the ambiguity of statistics, I would like to put forward this study on green tea: "Recently, health food stores have begun selling green tea, because of its alleged health benefits. In fact, some have suggested that the drinking of green tea accounts for the low rate of lung cancer in Japan and China. A study published in 1990 in Environmental Research, however, claims exactly the opposite. According to that study, females in Hong Kong had a 2.7 times greater risk of developing lung cancer if they drank green tea than if they did not drink green tea. This just proves that you can prove anything with statistics, which is another way of saying you can't prove anything with statistics." [1]...as opposed to this study on green tea:"The Shanghai Women's Health Study tracked the tea consumption and cancer rates of more than 69,000 non-drinking, non-smoking, middle-aged and older Japanese women during an 11-year span. Regular tea consumption, defined as at least three times a week for more than six months, was associated with a 17% reduced risk of all digestive cancers combined."[2]So once again, statistics can be used to prove anything - they are not a good source of valid evidence. I would use statistics as an interesting tidbit of information in a debate; but nothing more than that, and by no means as the basis of my argument altogether.The damaged cilia:To answer this question, I would like to ask, has my opponent or the voters ever deprived themselves of sleep, or had ever worked night shift jobs? You may not be aware of this, but a recent study shows that sleep deprivation can lead to permanent brain damage. [3]Has my opponent, or the voters, ever gone boxing? Recent studies show that this can also cause some pretty nasty health risks as well:"...boxers are at substantial risk for acute injuries to the head, heart, and skeleton. Subacute consequences after being knocked out include persistent symptoms such as headaches, impaired hearing, nausea, unstable gait, and forgetfulness. The cognitive deficits after blunt craniocerebral trauma last measurably longer than the symptoms persist in the individual's subjective perception. Some 10-20% of boxers develop persistent neuropsychiatric impairments. The repeated cerebral trauma in a long career in boxing may result in boxer's dementia (dementia pugilistica), which is neurobiologically similar to Alzheimer's disease."[4]Thirdly, regular coffee drinking can lead to higher levels of hydrochloric acid in the body, ulcers, IBS, acidity, heartburn, peristalsis (you cannot digest your food properly), increased difficulty digesting important minerals from foods, consumption of acrylamide (a cancer-causing carcinogen manufactured to produce grout, cement, sewage/wastewater treatment, cosmetics, sugar, ore processing, plastic products, and even pesticides), and heightened stress/tension.[5][6]What this means is that, yes, smoking can damage the cilia in the lungs - but luckily, the cilia appear to be capable of regenerating themselves within three days after a smoker (who has implicably been dependant upon cigarettes prior) stops smoking:"Cilia are the tiny protrusions in your lungs that screen out all toxins and other substances that may damage your lungs. Cilia are the first that get destroyed when you smoke. But after 72 hours, these hair-like filters will start repairing and growing themselves and will continue to protect your lungs." (although I loathe to cite a blatantly anti-smoking source here) [7]I think it is also worth noting that smoking tobacco does not necessarily mean inhaling the smoke itself - this is especially true with pipe use, where puffing tends to be the more popular option.CHD and smoking:Perhaps, but again, CHD is multifactorial. Ever eat a big mac? How's that for the ol' heart, eh? Mmm, yeah!A mere statistic worth mentionin from the 1989 Framingham Heart Study:"The results showed a striking surprise: the CHD rate was higher for never-smokers than for exsmokers. The respective age-adjusted incidence of CHD ... at 12-years of follow-up, after the 4th examination, was 8.3/1000 for ex-smokers and 12.0/1000 for never smokers. On this last point, the investigators have publicly confirmed the finding by stating that "The Framingham data ... have always shown that men who never smoked had HIGHER mortality rates than men who quit...the odd implication that it is better to have smoked and stopped than never to have smoked at all."[7] Furthermore, a quote from Lauren Colby, attorney: "Risk factor studies are, by their very nature, biased by the opinions of the people who conduct such studies. That's because the researchers must select the factors that they consider risky, before the study ever begins...Yet, nobody has ever conducted a study to determine how many heart attacks are caused by exercise. Why not? The answer, of course, lies in the conventional wisdom that "exercise is good for you". Researchers don't conduct studies to link exercise with disease because everybody knows that exercise doesn't cause disease, so there's no point in conducting such a study." [8] The anti-smoking ad: "I already disproved this argument by pointing out his anecdotal claim is not reliable and that the ad is in fact true."I think the ad is stretching the truth. Take a look at the small white print in the black box at the bottom of the ad.It says, "Smoking causes immediate damage to your body [partial truth]. For Torrie, it gave her throat cancer [?]."Let me get this straight: Torrie smoked, and immediately, immediately (as it seems to be implied), contracted throat cancer? Does this mean that if I go out and smoke a cigarette right now, I will wake up the next morning with a tumor and live the rest of my life looking like this woman? This is the best example of a slippery slope fallacy if I've ever seen one.As a final word, anti-smoker firms have hardly been honest or ethical in the past. Consider the infamous Smoking Beagles experiment: In an effort to prove that smoking causes cancer, anti-smoking doctors created an experiment where beagles were forced to inhale cigarette smoke."The beagles were strapped side-by-side to a long bench, in a rather unnatural upright position. They were fitted with face masks, which forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from lighted cigarettes. A mechanical device lit a new cigarette and dropped it into the air line, as soon as an old one was used up. Although the Surgeon General later claimed that the smoking machines did not force animals to inhale and exhale deeply, the newsreel footage sure made it look as if the dogs were inhaling and exhaling very deeply."(the experiment failed, by the way) [9]Oral cancers, oesophagus:These diseases are "multifactorial". Even more threatening to this idea, the correlation between smoking and these cancers "cannot be determined". (Round 1, Source 4)Lifespan of smokers:All my opponent has proved is that there were several middle-aged smokers who passed away; again, another statistic. There is a plethora of other non-smoking middle-aged persons who pass away for a wide variety of reasons; also, there are many smokers who live to be very old (as I pointed out in round 1).Smoking not used medicinally in history:On the contrary - take a look at this excerpt:"Having suffered from periodic attacks of asthma since the age of nine, Proust was familiar with the range of contemporary treatments for the condition: over the years, he had been prescribed opium, caffeine, iodine, and morphine...However, as his note to his mother suggests, Proust’s favoured remedy involved the inhalation of smoke from anti-asthma cigarettes or powders...Proust was not alone in attempting to relieve his asthma with medicated cigarettes or combustible powders. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the inhalation of fumes from burning preparations of stramonium, lobelia, tobacco, and potash became increasingly popular amongst asthmatics and their physicians throughout the world."Closing arguments:"Also, he claims I am attacking the source because his info is fantastic. This is not true; I am calling into question the reliability of the author." ^This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy. That said, Albeit not against me, no - but against the arguers of the sources, yes. With all due respect, I would like to see my opponent try discrediting the evidences, not the authors.In round 2, my opponent claimed to bring to light alternatives to smoking. Very well: name one thing which includes all the benefits of smoking which I listed in Round 2.[1] - http://www.sott.net...[2] - http://www.womenshealthmag.com...[3] - http://www.independent.co.uk...[4] - http://www.sciencedaily.com...[5] - http://www.healthambition.com...[6] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] - http://www.second-opinions.co.uk...[8] - http://www.lcolby.com...[9] - http://www.sott.net...[10] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...