Spinko Tournament - Conservative Showdown - Smoking Rights

==Resolutional Analysis==1. If Roy checks his PM he will see when I discussed the on balance portion of the resolution I stated "in the majority of cases." 2. The comments tell us that there is a dispute over involuntary vs voluntary however the argument I made wasnt semantical rather it was a substantive analysis over the nature of implementing the resolution within the context of there being a gray line between involuntary and voluntary. So it wasnt a semantical trap as my opponent points out.3. He disregards the 3 points of analysis I provide in mylast speech. Thus, we will be looking at the resolution from an on balance perspective within the realm of disputed and not obvious cases. ==Framework==This is key. Remember he drops the framework which tells us governments are bound to best protect the populous from harms. As sch, he had the burden to show that the harms of regulations outweigh the benefits. He had not done so, and since this is the last round no new arguments are allowed. And this gives a prima facie reason to vote Pro. This is true because insofar as Roy doesnt provide us with a harm to weigh, any benefit from regulating smoking will outweigh (since theres nothing to weigh it agains.) And the alternatives fail since it doesnt say why regulating is bad or harmful, but rather theres other ways to mitigate potential harms. And he fails to properly weigh the health care costs argument becuase all he asserts is that there is a less of a burden on the system. Alright, thats fine. But why is that important? He doesnt impact back to any outweigh good whereas my arguments link back to a minimum of saving more lives. But Ill show later why the health care argument doesnt matter.==Contentions==C1: Harms1. Low threshold, gasoline fumes and burning wood--> It is important to note that when he makes this argument in the first round he states "Is inhaling gasoline fumes in any amount good for a person? I seems reasonable that it is always harmful. Keep in mind that low-level risks are rarely measured. There are imputed from high level exposure." This does not answer my objection. I objected to the fact that my opponent no where tells you what this threshold level is. Unless had provided one we must assume the Surgeon General is right in this case: that any amount of SHS is dangeorus and threatening to people around the smoker. Refer to the Rd. 1 analysis - tobacco smoke contains 4,000 different chemicals a lot of which are carcinogens. So at this point any threshold he might bring up is new, so dont allow it. His assumption about health risks isnt sufficient. --> The only shred of an argument that he amde was that it would have to be lower than the natural ambient levels, in the case of burning wood. Howevr again he never provides a specific threshold that can be analyzed universally (since it is dependent on burning wood) and that it doesnt link into "on balance" since it assumes a slight variable in the environment. 2. 30% stat is based on people living with heavy smokers--> That is completely false. The Barnoya evidence was an analysis on numerous studies with both heavy areas and light areas. The result was thus a median result. Medical Costs1. Cost is lower cause people have died + tobbacco use has been in a steady decline + Euro analysis--> He ignores the impact of my argument. Even though smoking is not the ONLY cause of heart disease and cancer, it is a major contributing factor. Thus, as long as I win that reducing smoking reduces those 2 diseases than I will be linking into less costs that are incurred due to heart disease and cancer.--> TURN: The argument that tobbacco use is on a steady decline flows Pro. This is true because this advantage is due to the advocacy of the Pro - namely that regulations cause a detterent and quiting effect. Remember, he drops the deterent point in his last speech so this gives me a clear link to higher medical costs.--> No the analyss of a single-payer system is VERY important. He ignores my point that healt care costs are less in the Netherlands because the government uses a cost-benefit system when deciding on how to ration care. As such, smokers will get less care in the Netherlands because its cost effective. Whereas this does NOT apply to the US because we do not ration our care based on cost-benefit. We ration it based on profit. As such if a welathy smoker can pay to get all his cancer treatments and heart treatments he will live longer than those in the Netherlands. AlternativesSorry if my jargon was confusing. I get ahead of myself, but yes you interpreted it correctly. 1. Roy says that he is advocating against regulations on all forms of voluntary exposure.--> Not really. The resolution was"on balance" it was not an absolute resolution2. Roy says he obtained fiating ability by allowing regulation of involuntary exposure--> Not really because you rent fiating that into existence for analysis because those regulations already exist without a Con vote.He drops my politics argument. This said that even if you GRANT that Con can fiat an alternative to the resolution he would still have to pass congressional muster. This is true because I fiat with the power of the resolution, whereas he would have to fiat with a politics base. Thus extend my arguments that Congress would never pass those alternatives because its a libertarian tea-party type Congress and it is a solidly Republican house. C2: SolvencyHe drops and thus concedes all the solvency evidence. This gives me a clear link to the framework. Extend Richardi and Barnoya-2. Both pieces of evidence tell you that increased relations resulted in less AMI in the analyzed areas and less signs of cancer.At this point I outweigh in terms of strength of link to the resolution insofar as I am giving a CLEAR and CONCEDED benefits for affirming the resolution. Roy has not done so.Thanks for the good debate. : )