Opponent picks topic.

YOU have failed to provide your arguments and rebuttals in this round, thus you lose all points. I will continue the debate. There is nothing prohibiting me from continuing this round.ARGUMENTWhen a person smokes in public (and private, but the smoke won't affect anyone other than the main smoker) places, second hand smoke (SHS) is released. As a result, non-smokers breath in SHS. All of the health problems are spread to everyone else. I'll show you the facts 7,000 harmful chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to damage your health. [1] The smoke will stay in the air for a few hours after smoking. [1] SHS can cause breathing problems. It can cause coughing‚ extra phlegm‚ wheezing‚ and shortness of breath. And for children, it can also cause bronchitis, pneumonia and breathlessness. [1] "Since 1964, 2.5 million non smokers have died from exposure to second hand smoke." [2] This includes only adults, so the figure would be more had children been included. "Non smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%" [2] "Non smokers who are exposed to second hand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%." [2] [1] http://smokefree.gov...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...; REBUTTAL "There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com....... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects."This topic is worldwide, even though it does not say so in the definition or topic. If you argue with that, a 7-point forfeit occurs. "The topic has to be debatable worldwide". There is simply no need to smoke publicly or semi-publicly; why not just smoke privately?"While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret." Any proof? Public smoking can easily by identified by any member of the community."Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers."I will address this in my argument. The 1 billion people that do smoke would at least not affect anyone else who DOES NOT smoke, as they smoke privately. Only the about 10/72 people who smoke would be affected, not the whole world."If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier."I have thought out my decision to alter your topic.