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

Before I begin my final round, I want to draw attention to a major issue my opponent has had throughout this debate: dropping arguments and issues. While I have responded to basically every argument my opponent has made, my opponent has done done so. The following are a list of arguments my opponent has dropped or stopped contesting as of his last round:*That the rise in lung cancer began after World War I, coinciding with an increase in cigarette smoking.*That cigarette smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals in smoke, 250 of which are known to be harmful and 69 of which are known to be carcinogens.*That cigarette smoke contains arsenic, benzene, beryllium, polonium-210, carbon monoxide, cyanide,*That tobacco smoking wasn't used by Native Americans as medicine.*That FORCES does not cite their claims to reliable sources.*That the Michael Siegel he gave was taken out of context.*That his own source establishes smokers have an 8-times higher risk for lung cancer and comprise 85% of lung cancer patients.*That Lauren A. Colby does not believe AIDS is caused by a virus or that nicotine is addictive.*That the World Health Organization meticulously sources their work, and does so mostly to outside sources.*That studies demonstrate that 50% of lifetime smokers get COPD, and that 80% of COPD patients are or were smokers.*That the chemicals in tobacco damage blood cells, vessels, and organs, leading to atherosclerosis (which can heart disease and stroke) and erectile dysfunction/impotence.*That as many as 30% of CHD deaths are attributable to smoking and smoking doubles the risk of ischemic stroke.*That anecdotal evidence is the worst type of data to rely on.*That the damage caused by smoking is sometimes used to roughly compare to the poor air quality of a city.*That each of the 4.5 trillion cigarette butts discarded annually damages the environment.*That lung cancer, while only the cause of 2% of deaths, is the leading cause of death from cancers and the cause of twice as much as the deaths caused by Alzheimer's/Parkinson's.*That other smoking-related illnesses like cardiovascular disease (29%) and respiratory diseases (6.5%) cause far more death than those.That's a pretty long list, isn't it? As you can see, there's a ton of information here my opponent has either not bothered to respond to or simply given up on. With that out of the way I will begin my final rebuttals:To begin, my opponent does indeed note that, in round 3, he challenged me to refrain from using statistical arguments. OK, so what? I noted many of the arguments my opponent was giving (namely, claims of use as Native American medicine, personal experience, his tiny lists of smokers that haven't died or gotten sick. My opponent once again that statistics are poor examples to give - I call bull on this. My opponent has used statistical analysis to try and support his claims in each and every round, including in his key claims relating to smoking (namely, that it reduces risk for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's). I think my opponent is being ridiculous in trying to belittle my arguments in that regard, but doing the same thing himself. And to the studies he cites, he gives a few examples of studies being refuted by other studies. However, there is no major medical consensus support a position on the health risks or benefits of green tea - instead, this was merely a claim made by health food stores to help sell a product. In contrast, hundreds of medical studies have shown a link between smoking and illness over the past 70+ years.In response to my scientific reasons as to why smoking causes COPD (damage to the cilia), my opponent gives several examples of activities that can cause harm. For example, he notes sleep deprivation can cause brain damage. I agree with this - studies have shown that sleeping is essential to keeping your body healthy. I also agree that boxing is bad for you - getting punched in the head for a living might not be the best thing to happen to your brain. People in the medical community have called for boxing to be banned for decades.[1][2] He makes a similar argument about coffee. What do these three arguments have in common though? They have nothing to do with this debate. My opponent does indeed seem to agree that cilia are damaged by tobacco smoking, and that they only stay damaged as long as your smoke. Of course, if you smoke long enough eventually they stop working entirely. I appreciate my opponent confirming the science here.I want to elaborate on one point my opponent made, that not all types of smoking involve inhaling. This is a fantastic argument, and one I was hoping my opponent would discuss earlier in the debate. Cigar or pipe smokers do indeed face a lower risk due to not inhaling. However, only 5.4% of Americans smoke cigars,[3] as compared to 18.1% who smoke cigarettes.[4] There is also bound to be overlap with that. However, cigar smokers still face the same health risks, which rise if the smoker does inhale or smokes more cigars, even if they aren't quite as high.[5] Remember, even if you aren't inhaling it deeply you still have to draw the smoke into your mouth, and that smoke contains the same chemicals and nicotine that cigarettes contain.[5] Just because you don't inhale doesn't mean you are risk-free.Next, my opponent attempts to refute links between CHD and smoking by pointing to the 1989 Framingham Heart Study. Although I applaud my opponent for using a legitimate scientific journal and article, I want to note several things:*First off, my opponent does not directly link to the study - instead, he links to a website which cites an article that responded to the study. To be fair, the article in response is a legitimate, scientific article by a legitimate writer.*In this article, the author (Carl C. Setzler) notes that even the Framingham researchers believedthe studies that stated ex-smokers have a lower risk of CHD than non-smokers need a controlled trial, because the trial they found the information in was not controlled.[citation 6, page 6] The problem with these studies is that the groups are not randomized, but self-selecting - that is, the participants in the study were selected randomly, but the ex-smokers were essentially a self-selecting group. Setzler notes that, in three randomized trials on this issue, no link was shown on this topic,[citation 6, page 6] and because of this, "serious questions" arise about the Framingham findings due to their lack of self-selection and the lack of similar results in randomized studies.[citation 6, page 7]. Unfortunately, even considering the fact this study didn't support my opponent's claims, Mr. Seltzer's research was funded by the tobacco industry, which places his reliability as an impartial researcher at risk.[7]He also argues from the Colby source again (ugh) that nobody cares about links between exercise and heart attacks because we think exercise is good. This is false! Exercise and sports are good for you, but people displaying symptoms of congenital defects that would place them at risk for such deaths are urged to seek medical attention before it is too late.[8]Again, my opponent returns to the ad. He attempts to argue it basically says that Terrie Hall got cancer immediately. I think the way he read it is silly - the way I read it, it was saying that "Smoking harms you. For Terrie, it eventually gave her cancer". As to the Beagles, I think we can all agree that's a crappy study, both in scientific and moral terms.Next, my opponent attempts to refute my oral arguments by claiming the link "can't be determined". I'd refute this, but he again links to FORCES - which, I'll remind you, does not actually support their statements with research. As to lifespan, he (incorrectly) claims I've only established smokers die early and he has shown the opposite. I'll remind the voters I established smoking causes you to lose, on average, 15 years of life in my opening arguments, and my opponent never refuted this.Next, he resorts to anecdotal stories on how some people tried to treat illness with tobacco. As my opponent's own source says, anecdotal evidence is the worst type of evidence.Next, he accuses me of ad homenim fallacies because I called into question Colby's reliability. This is false - ad homenim fallacies require me to target a random aspect of a person's life (ie. Colby smells funny) rather than a relevant aspect (ie. Colby having no credentials). He also (finally) responds to me noting you can get the 'benefits' of tobacco smoking from nicotine gum by saying you can't get all the 'benefits' from that, again directing me to round 2 - where he gives a number of 'benefits' as cites by FORCES which, for the last time, does not support their arguments with any outside sources.In closing: my opponent has failed to show smoking has more benefits than negatives. His main sources simply consist of either authors of questionable validity (Colby) or websites that don't give proof of their claims (FORCES). In contrast, I have conclusively shown - through both studies and science - the downsides of smoking, and how the illnesses smoking places you at risk for (cancer, cardiovascular disease, heart disease) far outweigh any protection it offers (such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's). Vote Con!References:1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://archive.courier-journal.com...3. http://www.cdc.gov...4. http://www.cdc.gov...5. https://en.wikipedia.org...6. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu...7. http://articles.latimes.com...8. http://www.brennerchildrens.org...