Fire_wings 50th debate: Smoking Ban

I said in the comments that I have too little time... I will try to post as well and defend my case. Sorry if my case is weak.FrameworkThis is the last round of our debate, because Pro needs to waive the next round, as it says in the rules. If you break this= you lose. BoP is on Pro. As I said Pro's premises do not work. Freedom is the most important. Without freedom, we cannot do anything making freedom the most important. My opponent needs to say "No round as agreed upon, or round waived. He cannot rebut or add into the debate.Defense 1: LibertyI said that freedom is the most important in the framework, without freedom we cannot do anything. Yes freedom= good, because banning slaves= good, meaning that freedom= good. As I said, the economy is much worser in my second argument. Also using my counterplan, there will be no secondhand smoking. My opponent says that smoke that move around, but I said that there can be smoking zones, and strict rules of them. Like in Kenya, there are smoking zones. Even though they are not followed, it is a good idea if we make a strict policy. Pro fails to rebut my argument that people have self-ownership, meaning that they can own themselves. Because they can own themselves, they can do anything they want.The right of choice, is simply much of a more important issue then a can be fixed secondhand smoke. With a bit more money, used, then we can have a fair world where smokers can smoke and non-smokers can be wherever they want with no smoke. Defense 2: Economy/ DependencyOkay, Pro makes a good rebuttal, but that was not my main point of my argument. My argument was that is smoking gets banned, then the money that the workers earned goes away, and they cannot earn it. Because economy basically equals to the government, that means that them failing and all the tobacco farmers, (sorry, I got the caculation wrong that time) will need support from the government, and as I said, government= economy basically, that means government turns bad, then the economy turns bad.Sorry for miscaculating, but then Pro fails to rebut of the people's jobs, and they can't earn money. Pro says it is useless to care because more workers die because they smoke. However it was there choice to smoke, people did not force them to smoke, making them irrevlant to the argument. Pro fails to rebut the harms and the bad effects of smoking getting banned, which makes the tobacco farmers have no job, money making the GDP going down.Defense 3: Illegal DrugsPro says that it is so widely hated by Americans. Then why do millions of people smoke it when they hate it? Pro fails to rebut the argument of criminal networks, the criminal networks strengthening. He also fails to rebut my argument that people buy tobacco and cigarettes illegally for 3 times it's worth. So a smoking ban does not good things, as I mentioned, still there will be smoking, and there is and will be no way to stop this. Defense 4: Smoking Areas/ CounterplanPro says that smoke travels to nearby apartments. That is why I said there will be smoking zones, and if we restrict the zones and rules, then there can be smoking without secondhand smoke. So my opponents rebuttal fail, that means that this argument is dropped. ConclusionMy opponent drops most of my arguments. He drops self-ownership, dependecy, criminal networks and buying drugs illegally, and also my counterplan of smoking areas. For all these reasons, vote for Con. I thank my opponent for the debate and once again,VOTE CON!!!