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

I disagree with his arguments, and I'll explain why. In his opening statements, my opponent makes four arguments: that tobacco is used medicinally by Native Americans, anti-smoking campaigns don't tell the whole truth, smoking has health benefits and smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. With all due respect to my opponent, all of these arguments are easily refutable. Before I begin, however, I want to examine my opponent's sources - after all, he is arguing against one of the standard, most accepted facts of modern medicine; he's making an extraordinary claim, so it makes sense he'll need some pretty extraordinary evidence. What are his sources? Let's take a look:*His first is a dead link to an e-commerce website. *His second is to the University of Ottawa's Aboriginal Health department, explaining the role of tobacco in Native American culture. However, this source specifically notes that, in Native American culture, "Tobacco is generally not smoked, except on special ceremonial occasions" - my opponent notes this himself in his block quote of it. In other words? Tobacco smoking isn't used in Native American medicine. *His third source(s) come from a website on logical fallacies, which he uses to explain that tobacco ads are bad by claiming them as being 'Argument by Slogan' and 'Argumentum in Terroreum'. The problem? Neither of these actually fit them. **To the first, the 'argument by slogan' fallacy applies only to slogans that put the slogan itself over facts. To give an example, in the SpongeBob Squarepants episode "Chum Bucket Supreme", Plankton is trying to create a catchy slogan to bring customers in. His first sign, "Chum is metabolic fuel", was factually correct to some degree, but not catchy, so customers ignored it. [1] In contrast, when he changed the slogan to the catchy 'Chum is Fum', customers flocked in to the place in droves,[2] despite the fact that the food in the restaurant is awful that even Plankton won't eat it. [3] In contrast, the anti-tobacco ad in question is both catchy and based on a factual instance - that is, a smoker getting throat cancer and having to speak through a stoma. **To the second, 'Argumentum in terroreum', this also relies on the claim not being factual. For example, in the video game Link: The Faces of Evil, Ganon threatens to murder Link if he refuses to join him,[4] something that is clearly not true as Link defeats Ganon by throwing a book at him. [5] In contrast, pointing out the risks of tobacco usage does not fit this criteria, as the claims made are true; in other words, it is no more of a fallacy than warning a kid that if he jumps off a cliff, he will die. Warnings are not equal to fallacies. *His fourth citation is Forces, a Dutch website. What is Forces? According to a translation of the front page, it is "The smoking site for the Netherlands and Flanders". What does they say about themselves? "Here you can find the information rather keep the anti-smoking organizations secret. Or do not want to read". [6] In others words, it is the InfoWars of the Dutch smoking industry. As for the webpage itself, it doesn't link to scientific studies, only other parts of the website. This makes up the entirety of his 'positive aspects to smoking section' - hardly an unbiased, impartial source in that regard. Additionally, he uses this source to support something that is not in the article itself - a quote from Michael Siegel. He makes this guy sound like an evil, sinister advocate trying to trash someone's party. In fact, in the actual article itself ("Responding to Tobacco Industry Attacks on the Scientific Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke to Disease and Death"), that's not the case: he compares the efforts of the tobacco industry to protect itself to that of a defense team that faces overwhelming evidence against it. Rather than attempt to disprove all of the evidence (something they cannot do), the goal is instead to focus on individual facts, concocting conspiracy theories to create doubt in the minds of the jurors. This is why Siegel said not to debate the tobacco industry - they have a vested interest. [10] The tobacco industry wasn't interested in an honest debate, they wanted to instead pull an OJ Simpson. If you recall correctly, Simpson had a ton of evidence against him and should have been convicted, but his defense team was able to install doubt in jurors by conspiracy theories. Siegel opposes the industry trying to defame scientists, and aptly sums up his view by saying that, instead of debating the tobacco industry on whether or not the EPA's science on this issue is corrupt, bring the fight to the tobacco industry by exposing people who have been paid to write pro-tobacco articles. *His fifth citation is used to support an entirely semantical argument: that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, only increases the risk. Even if we take the source as entirely factual (which would be interesting given it had to be corrected for factual errors), it still leaves us with several proofs of negative effects on smoking on cancer; namely, smokers are still eight times more likely to get lung cancer and make up 85% of lung cancer patients. [7] The source even agrees smoking is bad for you. [7]*His sixth citation goes back to the lung cancer argument, from a book by Lauren A. Colby. In this book, Colby questions whether AIDS is actually caused by a virus[8] and claims nicotine is nor more addictive than cake. [9] Hardly a reliable source! So, just from sources alone, my opponent's four arguments have been entirely demolished. I have directly proven that tobacco is not smoked as medicine in Native American culture, that tobacco ads are in fact honest and that smoking is indeed a cause or, at the very least, leads to a vastly increased risk of lung cancer. I have also indirectly disproven is arguments on the health benefits of tobacco by undermining his source (Forces, a pro-smoking site that sources itself). About the only points I haven't directly argued are his claims based on personal experience or individual cases. For example, my opponent argued that he's never seen a smoker have to use a stoma. Well, I've never seen an elephant. Does that mean elephants don't exist? Of course not. His second is arguing that, because some individual smokers have lived long lives, it must not be that bad. This is a silly argument, bordering on logical fallacies, but two can play at this. At least four actors who have played the Marlboro man have died of smoking-related illnesses. [11] This includes anti-smoking advocate Wayne McLaren, who died of lung cancer in 1992 at only 52 years of age. [11] Other famous smokers to die of smoking-related illnesses include Patrick Swayze (57), Terrie Hall (53, the woman with the stoma in the anti-tobacco ad), Chris "Punch" Andrews (43), Nat King Cole (45), Jack Cassidy (50, died from accidentally setting fire to his bed while smoking), Roy Orbison (52), Captain Phil Harris (53), Babe Ruth (53), Ian Fleming (56), King George VI (56). This toll includes tobacco moguls R. J. Reynolds (58) and R. J. Reynolds III (59). [12]In addition, I want to rebut some of my opponent's third-round rebuttals. I've used up about 80% of my text allotment on the first part, though, so this may be a bit short, but rest assured I will get around to this more fully in the second rebuttal round. To open, my opponent argues on how the numbers are gathered. Although I certainly trust the WHO more than Forces on this issue, this is a perfectly valid issue - how do they gather numbers? Well, you just have to look at the document. Although the opening pages - the thesis and abstract of the report, essentially - are not cited, the rest of the report is meticulously cited to internal citations. Due to character constraints I cannot link directly, but one can find the cited information on page 14 of the report as well as all 115 internal citations on pages 60-62. After this, my opponent directly tries to refute the lung cancer claims. His sources? The book and Forces. He tries to argue that, because lung cancer hasn't been directly inducted in animals through tobacco smoke. Aside from the obvious immorality of these studies, my opponent's own source in round 2 established that smokers have 8 times the risk of lung cancer and comprise 85% of lung cancer patients. Coincidence? I think not. Even if we discount direct links we still have mounds of indirect evidence. As to emphysema, my opponent claims that a pre-1973 study gives a genetic cause for the disease so tobacco doesn't cause it. This is silly; a disease can have genetic causes and other causes. In the case of lung disease, both pollution and smoking can cause it. Recent studies demonstrate 20% of smokers and 50% of lifelong smokers get COPD, and at least 80% of COPD patients are or were smokers, as compared to just 5% of cases being genetic. [13] Why is this so high for smokers and low for genetics? I'll continue rebuttals in the next round. References:1. . http://spongebob.wikia.com...2. . http://spongebob.wikia.com...(slogan)3. . http://spongebob.wikia.com...4. . http://knowyourmeme.com... 5. . http://zeldawiki.org...6. . http://translate.google.com...7. . http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...8. . http://www.lcolby.com...9. . http://www.lcolby.com...10. . http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu...11. . http://www.latimes.com...12. . http://whyquit.com...13. . https://en.wikipedia.org...