Smoking Ban

Theory(A) The structure says Rd. 2 is for "arguments." A rebuttal *is* an argument; that's why, for instance, saying "no new arguments in the final round" includes new rebuttals. This isn't a violation of structure. (B) Pro *drops* their entire case, drops all my responses, and fails to explain the link between their health arguments and the resolution. (C) Pro fails to explain the case, dropping the impracticality of implementing such a plan. Pro briefly says that if he just announces that "smoking is illegal," it'll become illegal. But that only works in a single country. Not in the *whole world,* as the resolution holds. There are 206 countries in the world. It's impractical to get all 206 to collaborate and ban smoking. And Pro doesn't address enforcement of the law, and fails to answer what criminal punishment would follow. Thus, I hold that the implementation and criminal punishment related to the plan is vague. (D) Pro asks me to show "if there is any benefit to smoking . . . so we should not ban it." There doesn't need to be a benefit to the act itself for you to have it legal -- if there are harms to banning smoking, it provides compelling offense in favor of my side. --First, the cartels impact. It's because cigarettes are addictive that the ban will not stop people from smoking cigarettes; it'll merely move into the black market, expanding the drug war and taking the lives of multiple civilians and soldiers. Then, Pro tries to weigh this argument against the negative impacts of drugs and cigarettes. For this, extend the argument from liberty: the deaths caused by smoking/drgs is *consensual.* When people smoke or do drugs, they know the consequences; they just still do it. In the Mexican Drug War *alone,* 106,000 people have been killed and 1.6 million people have been displaced. [1] The moment smoking goes to cartels, it'll take up government revenue, and force the creation of war. Prevent war, and the deaths and displacement of multiple people, by allowing the legal, highly taxed sale of cigarettes. Next, criminal networks. This is dropped. Extend this argument. The banning of smoking will encourage formation of stronger criminal networks, and cause terrorism. The economy rebuttal fails. Pro doesn't give any compelling argument in favor of his turn. What are the economic harms to smoking being legal? He briefly addresses that more deaths is a weaker economy, but the deaths are equaled by drug war and smoking-related deaths; further, that doesn't come close to the huge revenue generated by the counterplan (which is more than billions of dollars in revenue). Pro drops corruption. Pro drops morality, and it ultimately dooms Pro. Liberty is the only means by which we can justify the existence of the government. If you don't accept this point, anarchy entails, and the lack of government means there isn't a smoking ban, so you vote Con. If you accept this point, the existence of liberty that doesn't harm others and self-ownership entails the freedom to smoke in private, so you vote Con. Either way, you vote Con. As for health, Pro doesn't prove that if X harms health, it should be banned. There's no reason to believe this. Till Pro justifies that link, presume Conn on this point. Now, the costs of cigarettes. It shouldn't be the business of government if a person wants to spend a lot of money on something. How would it affect the state? The person owns the money, and has the right to spend it as he wants. If that right is removed, the point of the money system is useless. Pro doesn't show how if someone spends a lot of money on something they subjectively consider "useless," it should be banned. People treasure the experience of smoking and drugs; they gain immense pleasure out of doing it. Apply util: since they get immense pleasure, which outweighs the suffering (since they continue to smoke), turn this and let smoking be legal. On the weak bones impact, Pro says that "[s]moking should be banned because it . . . harm[s] . . . people." This is a bare assertion. There's no warrant given. Until this critical link is addressed, there's absolutely no reason to buy that this has any form of relevance to the resolution, or gives any compelling reason to follow the plan.Pro argues that smoking causes pollution. The pollution is prevented by my counterplan. My counterplan bans public smoking. Only public smoking causes pollution. The counterplan allows specified closed spaces for smoking, so that it doesn't harm the environment. This impact doesn't make you favor the plan over the counterplan; it only fights the status quo. Pro frequently claims that there is "nothing good about . . . smoking." If so, why do people smoke? People gain pleasure out of smoking. If you advocate for utilitarianism, then we must weigh pleasure against pain. People enjoy smoking. Many people love smoking and drugs. They thoroughly relish the experience. We shouldn't stop them from doing that. Vote Con on liberty, since it outweighs all of Pro's impacts. And none of Pro's responses are compelling. Sources:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...