Challenge

It seems I have no choice but to move on from the forfeited round, and to close out strong. A. Conduct My opponented has concluded that he has already won this debate before I could even finish, rather yet any votes casted this is the wishful thinking policy. Instead of actually waiting for the debate to end and the voting period to pass he has declared himself the winner so that he may advance to the next round in Mikal's gym challenge, I would like the judges to note conduct from his actions.[1] Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.[2] [3] I would also like to note Jifpop09 alone has won several debates where he forfeited a round, so it is indeed possible.[4] [5] [6] (In link 4, he forfeited round 2. In link 5, he forfeited round 3. In link 6, he forfeited round 2,) I forfeited for the first time ever because I was painting with my mom and dad in the living room and the router had to be unplugged (and the furniture moved out of the living room) however I would rather not be upset at any votes so decide how you wish to handle conduct on your own disgretion. B. Rebuttals My opponent said: "We have already banned smoking in many states and areas" and "If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level" Yes, it has been banned in some restraunts, bars, and non-hospitality workplaces which it what your source shows, however this is a great difference from the resolution which is: People should be forbid from smoking. Ban: to forbid people from using (something) Therefore if you read the resolution of the it debate becomes apparent you are pro that: People should be forbid from smoking. My opponent said: "A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban." Once again, this is not a full ban this is just removing smoking from public places which I even argued for last round. This is using the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy[7] [8] to aid your argument, removal from public places im not a complete ban but rather setting limitations. Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy: is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[7] [8] My opponent said: "The government needs to keep its citizens healthy. If parents keep on dying off because of smoking, one, the children would be left orphaned, and the grand-parents would be really unhappy and complain, possibly starting a revolt against others, declaring that smoking should be banned." At this point you've avoided the resolution ( People should be forbid from smoking.) and have committed the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy[7] [8] twice to aid your argument. However there is yet another fallacy you've presented to your argument shown above, the fallacy is slippery slope. Slippery Slope: a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. [9] [10] My opponent said: "However, the ban of smoking will ultimately cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking." This is just another slippery slope fallacy listed by my opponent in an effort to aid his argument, in fact based on prohibition statistics, banning cigarettes may increase their usage. My opponent said: "Yes, people can buy smoking from the black-market." Either you should have listed the country you're speaking about or should have replaced can with could and explained a scenario in which they could be bought via the black market. My opponent said: "Your argument concerning prohibition--this happened in 1920. More than 90 years have passed, you have to expect the police force being far more efficient! And plus, alcohol doesn't have a "second-hand" effect that cigarettes produce. " Yes police forces now go through more extensive training, however it is blissfully ignorant to presume criminals have not done the same. In fact many gangs have already infiltrated the police force and understand police methods. [11] [12] My opponent has said: "The banning of smoke saves the school from having to teach these negative affects to children, and prevents curious teenagers from even trying a single cigarette." You have no proof to back this up, and even by your own confession cigarettes would still be accessible via black market. (note: cigarettes are already black market to teenagers, i'm assuming you're unaware of this.) My opponent has said: "In conclusion smoking should be banned and enforced as firmly as possible in order to decrease the number of people dying from lung cancer and all those other diseases." Yes, but as I have mentioned earlier humans have free will, humans have thought processing and fully understand the cost-benefit analysis in which con's of smoking is produced on the package and heavily taught in schools. Your rebuttals that attempt to support your conclusion are weak and rather off-topic my opponent has failed to prove that People should be forbid from smoking. His premise is cigarettes should be banned due to tobacco-related deaths, however people are capable of making of cost-benefit analysis this issue went unrefuted. In conclusion, instead of taking away rights in general from citizens, the government should reform the laws to make then work with the people instead of against them. (Note: My opponent only rebuttal to people can make a cost benefit analysis is that some teenagers may make the analysis and favor smoking, however the teens who do this based on my opponent's unsourced-argument are the teens aren't considering cons in the cost-benefit analysis which is taught in schools and should be continued to be taught in schools.) Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://www.debate.org... [6] http://www.debate.org... [7] https://www.princeton.edu... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] https://www.princeton.edu... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://publicintelligence.net... [12] http://articles.latimes.com...