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

Before I get into rebutting my opponent's most recent round, I need to go back and finish my rebuttals from the prior round. When I left off I established emphysema and COPD are directly linked to smoking, so I will go from there.Regarding the claim smoking is linked to bronchitis, my opponent claims that bronchitis has many causes and that smoking only plays a minimal role, especially in comparison to figure. His source doesn't seem to confirm his argument, however - he sourced it with citation 5, which is an article about the negative environmental effect of cigarette butts. Nowhere in this article is bronchitis mentioned. After looking at the rest of his sources to make sure he didn't mistakenly link to a different source, I found none of them actually support his argument - in fact, none of them actually say anything at all about the causes of bronchitis! In contrast to my opponent's claims, bronchitis is directly linked to smoking. Why? According to WebMD, "Every cigarette damages the tiny hair-like structures in your lungs, called cilia, that are responsible for brushing out debris, irritants, and excess mucus... the damage to these cilia prevent them from functioning properly, thus increasing your chances of developing chronic bronchitis. In some heavy smokers, the mucus membrane lining the airways stays inflamed and the cilia eventually stop functioning altogether. Clogged with mucus, the lungs are then vulnerable to viral and bacterial infections, which over time distort and permanently damage the lungs' airways. This permanent condition is called COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)".[1] I think this more than proves the link to COPD, emphysema, and bronchitis.Next, my opponent attempts to refute the links to heart attacks. I find his argument bizarre - like with bronchitis, he attempts to claim many other things cause heart attacks and attempts to refute statistical proofs. To be blunt, this argument is exceedingly ignorant. The reason smoking causes heart attacks is that the chemicals in smoke damage blood cells, blood vessels and the heart. The damage to blood vessels often leads to atherosclerosis, a condition where plaque builds up in your arteries. When the plaque hardens, it this causes the vessels to constrict, which is a bad thing because it limits the blood flow to vital organs. If this plaque build-up occurs in coronary arteries, you have coronary heart disease (CHD) - which leads to a list of delightful things like chest pain, heart attacks, and death.[2] If the plaque builds up in arteries leading to the head or limbs, you get peripheral arterial disease (PAD), which adds stroke and heart disease to your problems.[2] According to the American Heart Association (sourced to DHHS and the Surgeon General's 1990 report), as much as 30% of CHD deaths are attributable to smoking and smoking doubles the risk of ischemic stroke.[3] Next, my opponent attempts to claim statistical arguments are bad. He links to a video from YouTube's Greg. I have no issue with Greg, so let's assume he is correct that statistics are the second-worst type of data to rely on. What does he say is the worst type? Anecdotal evidence. By my opponent's own argument, many of his arguments are moot! This includes his anecdotal claims relating to Native American medicine, his claim to have seen only one smoker with a stoma, and his list of smokers that haven't died. I've already safety refuted these, but I appreciate my opponent helping me disprove it more.Next, he goes on to list toxic chemicals in the air. I think we can all agree air pollution is bad and unhealthy. Does that eliminate the risk of smoking entirely or outweigh it? No. Smoking is so bad for you it is sometimes used to gauge air pollution levels - for example, a recent WHO report noted that, in Cairo, Egypt, the air quality is so bad it is akin to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.[4] Also, I would like to not that, just from my opponent's own argument, I've found another risk of smoking. His source 5 notes that when cigarette butts are discarded, they often seep their toxic chemicals into the environment and our water. This is a side risk of smoking, but I think it is a fair one to note since over 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are discarded annually.[5]Next, in relation to my arguments on oral cancer, my opponent argues practicing basic oral hygiene could help alleviate these oral issues with smoking. That might help with teeth staining or bad breath (provided you carry around a toothbrush everywhere you go, since most smokers smoke throughout the day), but I doubt it would get rid of oral cancer or periodontitis. On life expectancy, my opponent doesn't actually refute me, he instead directs back to his opening arguments. I've already rebutted those, and I don't have room to do so again.In relation to COPD, he asserts there is no known cause for it, linking back to the Colby book. I have already established this claim is false earlier this round.On ED/impotence, my opponent incorrectly asserts I called the the 1950s the heyday of smoking - I noted the rise in smoking began after World War I, which would be the 1920s. My opponent then proceeds to list a couple smokers that didn't get ED or impotence. Nice try, but smoking only substantially increases the risk - it doesn't cause it in everyone. I'm sure I could find several skydivers survived their parachute not working, but that doesn't mean it's safe to not activate your parachute. Besides, I've already established artery damage as the cause of ED.Finally, I'm not quite sure what ETS is or how it relates to the source - I need clarification from my opponent on what he is saying here. Now, onto my opponent's most recent arguments!First off, my opponent questions me comparing FORCES to InfoWars. My comment there was a joke - FORCES, like InfoWars, is a conspiratorial website. He also contests me noting FORCES doesn't actually link to outside studies by arguing WHO and CDC might also do so. Sure, they might link to a study they made, but the 115 sources in the WHO report were mostly from outside groups.[6] 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. Mr. Colby is not a doctor, and has no experience in the medical field, but is instead a lawyer who contests FDA actions.[7] His lack of knowledge of the topic is demonstrated by his ignorance on the cause of AIDS and addictive nature of nicotine, so it is perfectly reasonable to call into question his reliability and credentials.Firstly, my opponent attempts to refute my claims on Native American medicine. Despite the fact that his own source said Native Americans rarely smoked and only did so ceremonially, he attempts to refute it by talking about the use of smoke. However, in contrast to how he wrote it, the ritual he is talking about, known as "smudging", is used only for ritual cleansing - not actual medicine.[8] Additionally, the ritual requires no direct inhalation of smoke. His claims about the use of tobacco leaves as medicine also face this problem - aside from being purely anecdotal, they also do not involve smoking at all. Placing a leaf on your skin is not smoking.After this, my opponent just repeats the previous points he made about the 'appeal to terror' and 'appeal to slogan'. He than attempts to sneak in a claim we 'both agree on confirmation bias' - we don't. I already disproved this argument by pointing out his anecdotal claim is not reliable and that the ad is in fact true.Now, we go back to statistics. 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? I don't find this anywhere in the debate. The quote in question came from me directly noting facts given from his source prove a major increase in risk for lung cancer among smokers. If my opponent did not want me to make this claim, he should have abstained from using that source. He asserts lung cancer is the cause of only 2% of deaths worldwide, which is true: however, lung cancer happens to be the type of cancer that results in the most death worldwide and is the tenth-leading individual cause of death worldwide.[9] Others higher-ups on the list that can be caused by smoking include cardiovascular diseases (29%), respiratory diseases (6.5%), and cancers (12.5%).[9] The two biggest diseases smoking claims to stop, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, only add up to less than 1%.[9] So in other words, smoking might protect you from a couple of uncommon causes of death, but place you at risk for much more common causes of death. I'll leave the voters to decide on if that is worth it.I have very little room left, so I'll just skim over the rest. To the first, I apologize for the mistake. To the second, I've already proven the risks of smoking generally reduce the lifespan. To the third, I did indeed disprove this using his own source - tobacco smoking is not used as medicine, but as a rare cultural thing. When tobacco is used as medicine, the leaf is used, but not smoked. Putting a leaf on your skin is not smoking. My opponent's last argument is that youth sports can occasionally cause injury, but are recognized as good. Yes, because youth sports don't kill 50% of participants or take 15 years on average off a kid's life!I look forward to the final round.References:1. http://www.webmd.com...2. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...3. https://circ.ahajournals.org...4. http://www.dailyfinance.com...5. http://www.cleanup.org.au...6. http://www.who.int...7. http://www.lcolby.com...8. http://www.med.uottawa.ca...9. https://en.wikipedia.org...