Whether banning smoking is a good idea or not.

Thanks for the response. Rebuttal/Defense I’ll begin by addressing my opponent’s counters. I’ll quote then respond. "First of all I would like to tell you that this round is the last round and is for acceptance only. This is because I lost an argument in round 1 when when the debate started.” It’s too late to make that claim, since you waived your right as an instigator to type the rules/outline of this debate. And you lost an argument? How? That’s preposterous. "Well should why the passive smokers they go to another place, and firstly people do to not roam around on the roads for no rhyme or reason, they must be doing this for a reason and I am not sure that, it can be fulfilled in a place like a mall or a cafe.” I don’t quite understand my opponent’s point here, but I’d like to repeat, we live in a free society where everyone has a right to choose, if you want to smoke, then smoke, if you don’t, then don’t and leave or implement a restaurant or whatever and ban smoking, etc. When the owners of the cigarette brands advertise, they do not mention all the harmful effects, it is the same with fast food advertisements. On the cigarette packets in the tiniest UNREADABLE form is written " Smoking Kills". It is somewhat the same with the fast food boxes, except it is usually written " Fast food kills ". You can check on the packets or look it up on the internet.” Actually, cigarette brands do advertise with warnings {1}. Oh, and you say it’s unreadable? And you’re saying that fast food ads are the same? Since my opponent failed to provide evidence with it, it may be considered null and void, but in the spirit of fairness, I’d like the readers to please examine the following images. It’s crystal clear, folks, the warning signs are as readable as it can be, now compare it to a typical fast food packaging? See any warnings on obesity/poisoning? I don’t. “CON is being unreasonable and saying that we should ban fast food also, but fast food does not harm the passers under any circumstances. SMOKING DOES.” I’m not being unreasonable here, and fast foods, in a way, via their advertising, are luring or tempting potential fast food customers to buy their products knowing it has some health issues. “Con is saying that it would effect people because they would loose their jobs, this is true, but would the governments like their countries being filled with smokers or would they prefer that a small number of people compared to the population be fired. Again there is a great chance that they might get a job somewhere else, or if not, they can request the government to place them elsewhere.” Most countries have people that smoke, in fact, in the US, an average adult smokes over 1000 cigars a year, and over 20% of adults smoke, ratings from which it decreased, I don’t see the government complaining. And no, I assume that the government would not want a less smokers-more jobless people society. And what ‘great chance’ of getting a job? And I don’t think that you can go to a government official and demand for a job at the spot. It’s ridiculous. “WHETHER I HAVE A DECENT REBUTTAL OR NO IS NOT YOUR DECISION.” Actually, since you waived your instigator right to state the rules, I have an obligation to clarify both positions, or else this debate would be pointless. “Yes the Cigars can be made easily but in a few decades there will be a ZERO CRIME RATE. By that time Cigars WILL SURELY VANISH. But for this to take place, the step of banning smoking has to be taken now.” Again, I’ve shown my opponent how cigars are made, they come from leaves of a genus herb. There is no such thing as ‘Zero Crime Rate’, most recreational drugs are illegal, but crime rates are never zero and users are never zero {3}. What more on cigars, they won’t ever vanish, and I highly doubt that people won’t smoke if we enforce such untenable law. “Killing makes contract killers relaxed, why doesn't the government make that legal too.” Misleading and invalid, seriously. So, ladies and gents, in conclusion, my arguments supporting the bad ideas of banning cigars are: - Violates Freedom of Choice Society has no right to dictate on what people should do with their bodies, even if it’s bad for them or not. - Unfeasibility It would be unenforceable if we ban cigars, since nothing would seriously change, cigars, like recreational drugs can come from anywhere, and once a smoker gets them, who knows where would they be smoking, perhaps in the privacy of their own home, I doubt the cops would arrest them that fast. It’s unreasonable. - Probability of Crime Rates increasing It’s like doubling the arrest rates of other drug offenses. - Economical Disadvantages Again, people will lose jobs to provide for their family, if we ban smoking, the taxation of it would vanish, losing millions. - Unreasonableness It’s untenable, apart from the arguments above, there are already some places where smoking is banned, which is good, but banning it in the public streets? Unreasonable. While my opponent’s arguments are: - Cigars are unhealthy to the smoker and other people. I’ve rebutted this already, and triumphantly rebutted his failed refutations on my arguments, to which he did a noble but futile effort. I’ve satisfied my BOP while my opponent didn’t, but overall, my arguments surely outweigh his, so also please review and extend all my premises. It was a pleasure debating with you, PRO. I hope we debate again soon. Voters, I urge you to vote CON. Reference: {1} http://goo.gl... {2} http://goo.gl... {3} http://goo.gl...