Debate Tournament:Bigdanprice v Mooseofterror:Tobacco Prohibition.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2003 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Here we go!First round of the new ATS Debate Tournament.


Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.
No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom.Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only 1 image or link may be included in any post.Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

The Debate topic is:All Tobacco products should be made illegal.

Bigdanprice will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
Mooseofterror will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Defaulters will not be excepted in the next Tournament.The winner will receive 1000 ATS points the loser(on condition of completion)will receive 500 ATS points.This on top of generous points allocation for Debate forum posts.

This Topic will be opened on Sunday Nov 23rd Evening GMT and the debate may start.

The debate will be judged by 7 independent and anonymous judges who will consider the quality of debate and not be swayed by personal sympathy for either argument.
Winning the debate and winning the argument are two different things.

I wish you both goodluck.

[Edited on 16-11-2003 by John bull 1]

[Edited on 17-11-2003 by John bull 1]




posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Thank you to the people who have made this fine tournament possible, I look forward to a verbal joust with mooseofterror. Here we go…

This house believes that Tobacco prohibition, especially in public places is the only fair way a free and just society can deal with the growing problem of smoking.
Although we have no right to enforce our unreasonable will upon others in a free and just society, we have no right to damage other people’s health and pursuit of happiness through our selfish acts. This is what smoking in public essentially is. It limits another person’s happiness. Why should they be forced to breathe smoke that because of its carcinogenic nature will cause certain health problems.

Prohibition of tobacco is the only viable solution, for a free and healthy society. Tobacco is a big killer in all aspects of our culture, and indeed is responsible for 120,000 deaths a year in the UK alone. (Source DOH website) In fact it is the largest cause of premature, avoidable death in the world.

There are no easy answers to address this growing problem in our society, tobacco through nicotine is a serious addiction, and it costs world economies a great deal more in health costs than the money that is brought in with taxation. Only a comprehensive ban on tobacco will protect people’s rights, to live their life without fear of an early death brought on by the selfish addictions of other people.

The problem is getting worse. The long downward trend in smoking since the 60s may now be leveling out. Increasing numbers of young people are starting to smoke. Smoking hits poorer people harder, widening inequalities in health among social groups. With particular view to serious cancer and heart disease. We can only succeed in leveling these inequalities if we tackle smoking now, through a determined, concerted and strategic effort which address its permeation into many aspects of our society, eg through advertising, youth culture.

But I am not proposing a total ban on smoking. I accept that smokers have a right to choose to smoke, but we also have a responsibility to reduce smoking and save lives, and smokers have responsibilities to people who do not smoke. In the end this question lies not only with health but as social responsibility. Smokers must realize that it is there moral factor in their choosing to smoke in front of others especially children.

Prohibition in public is a must and this must included all advertising, which is an idea I will develop later.
Moose of Terror the floor is open….

Sources www.doh.gov.uk



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Opening Statement - Tobacco Prohibition

I think we have been down this road before, but that time with a different substance being the target of government control. As I recall, the results were not good. When we talk about the prohibition of Tobacco, we are talking about the removal of civil liberties from an individual by a government. The basic right, regardless of which country you live in, to do as one pleases on his/her property. This doesn't even include the violation of freedom of speech. Restrictions being placed advertising is an example of another human right being stripped away by the government. This double standard is disturbing and opens the door for governments to slowly chip away at the rights of its' citizens. So, I ask you, where does it stop? Is the government going to ban overweight individuals from public places? Why not? These people are setting an unhealthy example for children, so let's just keep them hidden so our children are not influenced by their "evil" eating habits.

It comes down to choice. Non-smokers have the choice NOT to go to a restaurant/bar/friends home where smoking is allowed. The OWNER of an establishment(OWNER's private property) has the choice to decide if his business will or will not allow smoking. The smoker has the choice to pay hefty taxes on tobacco products in order to keep smoking. Why does the government feel the need to impose itself on the rights of it citizens by trying to prohibit the sale of tobacco?

Healthcare, cause I know it's going here, is the issue every ANTI-smoker will be sure to address.
"Well, it costs the healthcare system lots of money and I don't think I should have to breathe in secondhand smoke." To that I say 1) Healthcare - Smokers pay a hefty tax on tobacco products that is in part used to supplement the healthcare system. AND Smokers pay a much higher insurance premium than non-smokers(if not in your country, then maybe this is a worthy point to bring to attention of lawmakers), so where's the problem? 2)Secondhand smoke - Blah Blah Blah, if anyone on this earth is so passionate about breathing clean air, then these individuals should first confront the government about the control of pollution. Every smoker on the face of this planet will never come close to polluting the air on the scale of large factories, automobiles and aircraft, which are monitored by none other than the very people trying to take away MY civil liberties. Let's worry about REAL problems first.



posted on Nov, 24 2003 @ 02:26 PM
link   
When someone smokes they violate the civil liberties of those who chose not to smoke. I am afraid that to say passive smoking is blah blah blah, shows the flippant attitude to the real and pressing problem that our society faces. I would invite anyone with this attitude to pay a visit to a cancer ward and then voice their opinion that it is the other person that should move to the next restaurant/bar etc. Smokers chose to smoke in front of other people; this is the ultimate selfish act. I do not deny your right to smoke but you have no right to effect other peoples lives when you do it, this is the pretext for the democratic rights across the world.
I would know like to address more directly some of the issues raised by moose of terror
1) talk about the prohibition of Tobacco, we are talking about the removal of civil liberties What about the rights of people not to have a carcinogen inflicted upon them. Was it the Nazi's right to gas the Jews?
2) Is the government going to ban overweight individuals from public places this is ridiculous the last time I checked eating fatty food does not directly effect those around you. The smoke from tobacco is offensive to many, and is scientifically proven to give people serious health problems, yes even those around you such as Roy Castle the British entertainer who never smoked a cigarette in his live but died of lung cancer due to passive smoking.
3)
It comes down to choice. Non-smokers have the choice NOT to go to a restaurant/bar/friends home where smoking is allowed. Seeing as smoking is allowed in many public places, this is the case in the UK certainly, this amounts to oppression of the non smoker’s liberties, it seems that smokers liberties must be able to be expressed above those of other people who chose not to hurt other people. It is the choice of the smoker to smoke, they not the others should have to jump through hoops.
With regards to healthcare the cost of treating cancer and heart disease across the world pales into insignificance the sum levied in tax from cigarettes. With regards to clean air, it is more of an affront to say that we should address air pollution first, when smoking only does harm and has no real benefit to the economy. Ok air pollution is bad, but smoking is the selfish choice of the smoker.
It again comes down to moral responsibility, what right do smokers have to impinge on the rights of others through poisoning the air. I have the right to live my life as I would choose and I choose not to suffer an early death even if others who smoke want one, in a grim realization of their civil liberties. Prohibition is the only way to protect the civil liberties of every one. A campaign by the UK Dept of Health says it all really...




posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Let me remind the proposition that the issue is not whether smoking should be banned in public places, but Prohibition of Tobacco in its' entirety. So please, feel free to debate the issue of smoking in public places while I debate true topic. I'll even help you out here, I agree with banning smoking in public places. No individual should be forced to breathe substances that are potentially harmful to his/her health. The question at hand is whether are not the government should be allowed to prohibit the sale of tobacco. Thank you for making my task easier by admitting "But I am not proposing a total ban on smoking. I accept that smokers have a right to choose to smoke" As for you question about Jews and Nazi's, I don't feel that discussing the pain and suffering of those individuals are on par with the issue of Tobacco Prohibition. If you would like to bring those oppressed by the Nazi regime to the level to this topic, then go right ahead.

You stated "With regards to healthcare the cost of treating cancer and heart disease across the world pales into insignificance the sum levied in tax from cigarettes"
We all know that data about the amount of money spent to care for "smokers" is biased.
First, If an individual smokes for 5 years, quits for 25 years and then develops lung cancer, the disease is labelled as smoking related. Next, smoking takes an average of 7-8 years off the life of a human being. 7-8 years mutiplied by 120,000 smoking related deaths(in the UK) equals 960,000 years. That's a lot of HEALTHCARE!! That would be almost 15,000 people living to the age of 65. I say again, That's a lot of HEALTHCARE that the government does not have to pay. This also does not take into account how much it would cost had the individuals lived longer and developed other diseases. The cost estimates put together by "ANTIsmoking" organizations do not include this figure in their healtcare calculations and that makes the results inaccurate. So, unless you can provide unbiased data about healthcare costs, I don't think you need to keep tripping over this topic.

Well, that's it for now, you already agreed with me about smokers right to choose. I will say lastly, that if you would be well read, you would know that many studies about second hand smoke have also been frowned upon because of the biased nature of the results.

Enlighten me...



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Thanks for the reminder, but I think you misunderstood me. You have made some assumptions that point to this. The true topic as you called it really focuses on the aspects of social responsibility. Society through governmental incentives has tried for many years to encourage people to realize that smoking is a danger to you and those around you. However this has patently failed, as thousands die needlessly every year. What I am arguing is that its not just legislation thats needed to protect people’s rights but recognition by society that this problem must be tackled, although legislative support is essential. I agree alcohol prohibition was a failure, we need a new approach were education and social unacceptability replace draconian enforcement. Its not for a government to dictate if you wish to smoke in your own home, this is unenforceable, but rather to make people realize that it is unacceptable to inflict smoke on other people. Rather than refusing sale to people we should have a smoking responsibly license. Where people must pass a test to show they know how to smoke responsibly and realise the dangers before they start.
We all know that data about the amount of money spent to care for "smokers" is biased. I have come to accept this ill informed view from smokers, how can anyone rationalize a view that disregards the pain and suffering of people with diseases caused by tobacco. I would like to know how these figures are biased, even if they were, surely one unnecessary death is one too many. I do not propose a rash jump into draconian legislation, but a comprehensive build up of education and realization of moral responsibity to those around us, especially children and recognize smoking as a weakness and an addiction that we all have a responsibility to address. With regards to numeric data
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has reviewed all significant published evidence related to both active and passive tobacco smoking and cancer. The Agency concludes that, "Non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. … Second-hand tobacco smoke IS carcinogenic to humans." IARC Monographs Volume 83 Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking (June 2002) also refers to analyses of lung cancer in never smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace. These have found a statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer of 16 to 19 per cent. According to the World Health Organisation's 'Tobacco Free Initiative,' Hardly just an antismoking organistaion but rather the most respected health organization in the world. While most discussions about passive smoking have concentrated on lung cancer and breathing, the effects on heart disease are more important. …The net effect is that there are about 15 times more deaths from heart disease caused by passive smoking - 35,000-62,000 deaths annually in the US - as lung cancer."
Another report also analyses the link between passive smoking and heart disease. A Summary of the Report entitled "The Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) in the Workplace (December 2002) commissioned by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) in Ireland stated that, "The general consensus among government/scientific agencies is that ETS causes heart disease. Involuntary smoking increases the risk of heart disease in non smokers by between 25% and 30%."
Lets talk more about facts and figures and how much it costs economies besides health costs. Employers bear direct and indirect costs as a result of employees' smoking. According to the World Bank, Health, Nutrition and Population website (July 2002), the costs include:
- more employee absenteeism;
- decreased productivity;
- increased early retirement due to ill health;
- higher health care costs and higher health insurance costs;
- higher maintenance and cleaning costs;
- higher risk of fire damage;
- higher fire insurance premiums.
The case for prohibition grows a pace. Lets not let our egos get in the way here. We can quote facts at each other all day, and call them into question all day but I note that you do not deny smoking kills people. This is what I am driving at, I don’t want to quash your civil liberties I want to educate you so you can understand that smoking is tantamount to antisocial behavior; something society has prohibited for years. A Laissez faire attitude to tobacco, perpetrated by governments for years still amounts to needless deaths, so lets take up our consensus that advertising of tobacco should be band and then have the force of our convictions and see it to a satisfactory result not some partisan bodge. Society must protect itself through education about dangers to our well being and then do something about them.
I hope this enlightened you…but I suspect that a smokers hard line unthinking selfishness will come to the fore.



posted on Nov, 26 2003 @ 08:51 AM
link   
No assumptions were made, I just quoted what you said. You keep trying to drive this moral and social responsibility issue, but it is flawed. In society, each individual has his/her own morals and each differs. Having a peaceful society is dependant on the respect of each individuals' morals. That's where choice comes in as explained before. Social responsibility is dependent on each individual following the LAWS of society. So stop confusing "morals" with "social responsibility". This is the last time that I will address YOUR stance which is grossly varying from your assigned position on Tobacco Prohibition. Is this supposed to be some sort of distraction tactic, because if so, you need to rethink your strategy.

So, let's talk about second hand smoke or ETS. You mentioned the WHO, in the 1998 US court ruling Judge William Osteen ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency, in a case claiming secondhand smoke was dangerous, stating that the WHO ran a multi-million-dollar study dedicated to proving that passive smoke causes cancer and came up empty. I know what your thinking, 1998. Long time ago. Well, I guess it's kind of like the current US administration is doing, keep telling the people that Iraq has WMD and pretty soon they start to believe you. I won't be surprised in 5 years when someone still argues that Iraq has WMD. When research is carried out on ETS there are certain factors that are not included in the calculations. It is the same with the costs of healthcare, in which estimates are exaggerated. In NONE of these so called studies are the natural occurrences of diseases, blamed on secondhand smoke, taken into consideration. These results are twisted in a way to support the movement for Tobacco Prohibition. Here's an example from an article that was in a Cincinnati Newspaper. "BREAD - 1)More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters. 2)Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests. 3)More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread. 4)Primitive tribal societies that have no bread, exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis." So, do you think we should make the sale of bread illegal?? It is very easy to gather statistics, but if you are not being unbiased the results are erroneous.
Another example, this time about smoking. Studies claim out of 100,000 smokers, 166 develop lung cancer. Sounds bad huh? What if you were to say that out of 100,000 smokers, 99,834 did not develop lung cancer? The odds sound good,it is my choice to smoke, so I except the risk. They also fail to mention that most studies are based on individuals that smoke 25 grams of tobacco a day for about 20 years. So, here is some data for you; Revisiting the Association between Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk III. Adjustment for the Biasing Effect of Misclassification of Smoking Habits Peter N. Lee, Barbara Forey, John S. Fry P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton, Surrey, UK Indoor+Built Environment 10:6:2001, 384-398. "Adjustment for bias due to misclassification of smoking habits reduces the observed relative risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women associated with smoking by the husband from 1.24 to 1.18. Eighteen percent risk increment …(1.00 = no risk; 1.18 = 18 % increased risk). Readers must keep in mind that statistical risks smaller than 200% are not even considered by serious science – especially when one cannot even be sure of what has been measured – as it is always and only the case for passive smoke."

You don't have to go eat dinner in the same place a smoker does and by the looks of the data, it's not going to hurt you anyway if you do eat at the same place. You have no grounds for making the sale of Tobacco Products illegal.

A gun is only as good as the ammo you're using and you my friend, are shooting blanks.
Tune in tomorrow when I demolish your case on workplace smoking. Have a nice day!



posted on Nov, 26 2003 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In society, each individual has his/her own morals and each differs. Having a peaceful society is dependant on the respect of each individuals' morals. I couldn't agree more! While morals certainly differ, moral responsibility is essentially the same. We have a moral responsibility that the way we lead our lives does not adversely effect the lives of others. To have an effective society we need moral consensus which in effect is reflected in the laws of society. So to smoke in public is to have an adverse effect on those that surround us, many people find smoke unpleasant to breathe, and seeing as they have made the choice not to smoke, not to mention the adverse effects on their health, i.e. Despite your suggestion to the contrary passive smoking does effect you, the evidence suggested earlier in the debate is not just hearsay, it is backed up by consensus among doctors around the world, indeed an alliance of Doctors in the UK including BMC (British Medical Council) have just reaffirmed the link between cancer and passive smoking and called for an advertising ban in the UK. It seems that your anecdotal evidence lacks any firm basis in fact, however funny it may be. I am also curious about the effect of bread on society.

Why do you think people want to ban the sale of tobacco? Is it just a whim to cause annoyance to smokers worldwide or is it people with societies best interests at heart, people who have seen the terrible effects of cancer and heart disease and want to spare people the pain and anguish, not through rigid prohibition but through a program of re education and development so that prohibition will in the end be unnecessary because people will realize the dangers to themselves and other people and will not want to smoke.

As to my stance on tobacco prohibition as a concept. I will put it in a language perhaps you will be able to understand. I agree with peoples right to do as they will, to paraphrase Voltaire , I do not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it. But I don’t agree that your rights extend to impinging mine. Lets just say I chose to come into your house and start a fire, this is my choice, but it is unacceptable because it shows a blatant disregard for your rights. With me so far? Good try to keep up. Prohibition should be brought about by a combination of education and accepting social responsibility and a ban on all forms of tobacco advertising, not draconian enforcement legislation, so effectively prohibition will be unnecessary as people will understand that smoking not only causes great harm to yourself but those around you as well. You still with me?

Rather than speculating about my strategy in the debate I would look to the hackneyed and strained nature of your argument. People have argued your stance time and again yet people still die prematurely in their hundreds and thousands every year. As for shooting blanks can I have some of your Viagra, as you don’t seem to be using it, your frustration is obvious from your vicious rhetoric. I now propose that you try and counter my argument with effective counter argument rather than petty insults.

I offer a smiliey as an offer of good faith lets not escalate and get personal, lets debate...



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I was kind of surprised that you got the double meaning of the gun/ammo analogy. The main point, just so we're clear, was to show you that your inaccurate and biased findings about ETS have ZERO merit. In a free society, you get to choose what payoffs are worth what risks. All these ETS studies are based on couples that live together in the same house and follow each other everywhere. The occasional wander into the local pub, where smoking is allowed, is not enough to cause any damage to your health. Each non-smoker, that has a smoking partner, has made the CHOICE that the benefits to be with this person out weigh the risks. So feel free to continue making accusations about ETS without providing unbiased data to support your claim. As I said before, keep saying something long enough and people will begin to believe you. Time is not on your side though, you only have 1 more chance to repeat the same unsubstantiated claim over again.

Why do you think people want to ban the sale of tobacco? Because that is the issue at hand. You just keep twisting the story because you are unable to gain any leverage and you can't be bothered to do the research.

So, since you brought up the topic about how much money smokers cost employers, I would like to expand a bit on this point. In my opening statement I made the comment about overweight individuals and if the government should have the right to ban them from public places. If you use your common sense, this is just an example and not meant to be taken literally, or is it? Overweight individuals cost employers BILLIONS of dollars each year, for healthcare, decreased productivity, etc. So why the double standard?? Are overweight individuals not setting a bad example for our children? Do they not cost their employers extra money? Again, let's outlaw overweight people. It's only fair if the government is going to push to prohibit the sale of tobacco products. OR the government could prohibit the sale of certain foods that cause health problems and contain too much fat. Where is the justice? Where is the government going to stop? Do you want your government dictating what you can eat and drink? Civil liberties is where the decisions will be made on tobacco prohibition, because the data available against smoking is one-sided and in the end the only discussion available is civil liberties. I don't know why I have to repeat myself, but I feel that you are not understanding the point. Smokers have the right to use tobacco products on their private property. This means, the prohibition of tobacco is fundamentally wrong. You also stated But I don’t agree that your rights extend to impinging mine, well I don't agree that "YOUR" rights infringe on "MINE". I won't come in your house and smoke a cigarette, so don't come try to burn my house down. I apologize if you take my argument personally, but it becomes personal when a government attempts to strip away civil liberties from its' citizens on the basis of inaccurate data. Tobacco prohibition will open the door for governments to restrict free-trade. Meaning, if your sector of business didn't give money to the elected administrations political party or campaign fund, then it should worry about its' product being eradicated. Do you really expect me to think this would be fair?

I offer a smiley as an offer of good faith lets not escalate and get personal, lets debate I agree, but you have continually avoided the true issue at hand. You have twisted your position in this debate to fit your argument. It reminds me of how the government agencies twist the data against cigarettes to fit their argument.



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Closing statements now please gentlemen.



posted on Nov, 27 2003 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I’m slightly concerned that we’re not arguing on the same ground here, when I began this debate I chose to look at tobacco prohibition outside the traditional draconian measures we associate with it; I conceded the point that they hadn’t worked. Think outside the box… I’m arguing that we need to help people develop healthy lifestyles through a good education of what smoking does. This will render the old style of prohibition obsolete. You keep mentioning ETS and the biased nature of the evidence, I accepted that we can bat facts and figures between each other all day and I can pull apart your rhetoric about evidence having so called zero merit, but, if there are health risks or not, you cannot decide for the person who is on the receiving end of passive smoke. It’s their CHOICE. Its conceited and selfish to think otherwise. BTW fat people don’t get into the lungs like smoke does…!
I’ve attempted to develop my argument rationally, let me break it down into a summary:
. Everyone has the right to live their lives as they choose, so long as they do not impeach onother peoples rights to lead their lives as they choose. Smoking represents a breach of these liberties.
. Smoking kills. You can pick holes in evidence all you want. When you smoke you expose yourself and others around you to benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. Keeping telling yourself it doesn’t hurt you and you’ll begin to believe it…
. We’ve a responsibility to protect our society from this, but we need to approach it from a new perspective.
. Lets abandon the old concept of prohibition; and through information about smoking’s dangers and education about the responsibility we have to people not to expose them to smoke we will arrive at a situation where people won’t want to smoke. Lets forget the guilt, turned to denial and anger, about the dangers of smoking both active and passive, and act.
. This should be backed up by government legislation, to stop the myths of desirability engendered by tobacco advertising. And to stop smoking in public. I’m not proposing an outright ban on smoking, in the short term certainly, it just won’t be practical; but rather than having to deal with smoking’s legacies, lets prevent it at source.
I challenge you to tackle what I’m actually arguing, not what you want me to argue. I’m not a hardliner wanting to rob you of your rights, but a concerned member of society wanting to build safe and healthy world for my kids, with the right attitude we can go far. One last fact 69% of smokers want to give up…Let go of your anger and join the fight.


I’d like to thank Mooseofterror for being a worthy opponent, this debate has been great and for the record I’m a smoker and personally disagree with any form of prohibition, I hope this wasn’t apparent. Cheers.



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 12:01 AM
link   
If the government is allowed to pass legislation banning the sale of tobacco products, then we as citizens are allowing the government to take away certain civil liberties, as well as giving the government the key it needs to control free-trade. All following legislation banning products would be referenced to the decision of tobacco prohibition. Do we really want to give the government that much control. The control to tell its' citizens what they can eat and drink, what kind of computer they can buy and what type of car they can drive. All based on biased data produced by government funded agencies. There is always talk about how much money smokers cost employers or the government(healthcare), not once have I seen a estimate on how much it would cost the government in it's "WAR ON TOBACCO". Black markets will take over and the government will be left with the task of policing the illegal sale of tobacco products. Not once have I seen estimates of how many citizens will lose their jobs, retirement, and healthcare when the tobacco industries are put out of business. All so the government can get its' greedy hands further down our pants. I vote "NAY" for Tobacco Prohibition.



Thanks bigdanprince, I had fun. Nothing said was meant personal, nice job. I smoke too.



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Good job guys.Thanks.


You'll have to wait until Sunday for the result.



posted on Jan, 6 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Well, its a little later than sunday.

But our new judging panel has voted. The winner of this debate is Mooseofterror by 7 votes to 4.

A few of the judges comments:



BigDanPrice lost by virtue of a sentence in his closing statement (which summarized his whole argument): "But I am not proposing a total ban on smoking. I accept that smokers have a right to choose to smoke, but we also have a responsibility to reduce smoking and save lives..."

The problem is that this debate is about whether people have the right to smoke or not, period. It doesn't involve other people or societies, technically. So, taking the above, BigDan has just said that it's okay to smoke as long as you're not hurting anyone. An analogy is that it's okay to smoke if you're a hermit on a desert island. This makes two people debating pro. And naturally Mooseofterror wins.

Mooseofterror argued better two, but I do not feel that there was a categorical difference among the two (in terms of wit, skill or writing ability). Mooseofterror should have been able to catch on BigDanPrice inconsistency that cost him the debate, but didn't. It didn't matter in the end.



Bigdanprice did not provide any concrete evidence that passive smoking is responsible for non-smokers lung cancer. There is evidence to suggest that it isn't pollution caused by many corporations that cause this, as Mooseofterror brought up.



Comments: While Bigdanprice presented excellent arguments for his position, it was clearly not the stated resolution of debate that: All Tobacco products should be made illegal. So while applauding his thinking outside the box, it must still be acknowledged as forfiture.



Both did an excellent job but BDP had a more persuasive argument. Much to the contrary of what MOT said, BDP did appear to have researched this fairly well.
Congrats to both.



"I have to say it was a pretty good debate. BigDanPrice made the more solid argument here, and thus gets my vote"


Congratulations to both Mooseofterror and BigDanPrice, apologies for such a delay in judging.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join