ktpr debate review: Bigdanprice v Mooseofterror:Tobacco Prohibition.

On Bigdanprice v Mooseofterror:Tobacco Prohibition. (I'm assuming everyone involved is a she, unless i know otherwise. I'm pretty sure they're both dudes, but i could be wrong)

Starts out with handshakes all around. How gentlemanly. The Price House contends that we have no right to damage another person's health. Fundamentally, it limits another person's happiness. She points out that a lot of people die from smoking and says that it must be prohibited. The reason is that only a comphrenive ban can protect everybody's rights.

Then, suddenly, paradoxically, she doesn't propose a total ban. She, instead, proposes a public ban. But the debate is about "All Tobacco products should be made illegal." Uh oh....

Mooseofterror points out that government imposed prohibition has failed before and will fail again. Tacks on the slippery slop argument and what not (a favorite of mine, even though it's not always valid). The Moose says that it comes down to a choice and that's where any prohibition should come from. Seems like we're beginning to see the flames of top down or bottom up citizenry control.

Moose cuts back nicely by pointing out that smoker's already pay a lot more in premiums (believe, i was looking for life insurance recently and smoking premiums are high enough to make you quit). As predicted, the orientation of citizenry control becomes an issue with "....people trying to take away MY civil liberties. Let's worry about REAL problems first."

BigDan patches up right quick by saying a person smoking in the presence of other non smokers is violating rights too. The cut cuts both ways. You gotta consider the whole. Dan injects some extreme rhetoric, like, did the Nazis have the right to gas the Jews? And so forth.

Sets fire to some straw man arguments offered by Moose, such as, "Is the gov't going to stop fat people from eating?" Points out that the key is dual affectation. When I smoke you smoke too, little brother. Learned about Roy Castle. I had no idea. #, my dad used to smoke around me to. Maybe I'm more at risk than I thought? Nice point bigdanprice!

Item 3 is kinda confusing. Yeah i get that when i smoke you smoke too, but "... regards to healthcare the cost of treating cancer and heart disease across the world pales into insignificance the sum levied in tax from cigarettes." Huh? I missed the brain train. Maybe BigDanPrice can clear this up?

Mooseofterror comes back with a clue bat and administration, " remind the proposition that the issue is .... but Prohibition of Tobacco in its' entirety." Then goes to agree with the price Price has set forth ... and then even then points out that the research of smoking costs is biased. Points out why and how. Good move. Who do I believe now? Anyway, Moose says she and BigDan are in agreement about a smoker's right to smoke.

And the war is on! Bigdan says that the true topic is one of social responsibility. Says that the benevolent gov't has, for many a year, tried to push and prod the populace to do what's right. However, this doesn't work. Says that we need to some new methods cause Prohibition (alcohol) didn't work. Brings up a smoking license, which I think is a neat idea.

Counters biased data with pain and suffering of loved ones. But quickly leaves that front. Cites some more data which points to the dangers of second hand smoke. Says, listen bro, the case is in place, now we gotta drop a friendly hammer.

Ohhhhhh marvelous. Terror returns with moral suppressing fire and drops the bomb. Nice. Basically, she says that "In society, each individual has his/her own morals and each differs. Having a peaceful society is dependent on the respect of each individuals' morals." Nice point. Even I forgot that one.

Says that the correlations were ridiculous and arbitary. WHO proved this, indirectly. So we have different organizational studies saying different things. So we have faulty data, incorrect conclusions and the fact that passive smoke doesn't hurt you. AND, that society is made up of individuals, and hence should be respected, at some level, individually. Tacks on some big talk about empty ammo cambers and impending doom.

Aw man. It's the big, I agree with you man, but... The grand twisting and turning of opposition argurments. Dan, agrees with Moose about individual rights ... but then says that we ALL have a moral responsibility to each other. This is the common bond everyone shares and we need to respect each other. So no smoking.

Points out that there's a reason people even want to ban smoking. Calls for a soft prohibition of education and accepting social responsibility. Viagra does a little dance at the end and falls down. A smiley is scarified and the debate rolls on.

Moose strolls back in with ETS data is inaccurate, as it only did couples. But fails to reply to why people want to ban tobacco; "Because that's the issue at hand..."? But the argument is wrapped up by pointing out that, logically, given BigDanPrice's argument, he would allow for a smoking hermit. A smoking hermit isn't going to hurt anyone. So there shouldn't be a prohibition on tobacco.

Whew. Closing arguments.

Bigdanprice says that everyone has the right to live their life as long as they're not affecting someone else. Smoking kills therefore people should not smoke. A prohibition could be done in a unique way to make it effective.

Mooseofterror: In taking my right to smoke you take away certain civil liberties. This gives the government much control. Talks about how it would destroy a lot of industry as well.

Over all I think mooseofterror won. This is because Biddanprice allows for the case of a hermit recluse smoking somewhere on an island where no one is affected. Given that, a ban on tobacco products doesn't hold up because none is affected. Mooseofterror brought a variant of this argument as well. That's a wrap folks!

Thanks very much, I think that was a good appraisal. It was tough to debate for something I despised and didnt believe in, hell I smoke like a chimney, yet I tried to find a way it would be acceptable to me but I agree I fudged it a little.
Cheers!
By the way I am a HE, I am sure of it I just checked.

Originally posted by ktprktpr

Item 3 is kinda confusing. Yeah i get that when i smoke you smoke too, but "... regards to healthcare the cost of treating cancer and heart disease across the world pales into insignificance the sum levied in tax from cigarettes." Huh? I missed the brain train. Maybe BigDanPrice can clear this up?

I meant to say that the money gained from tax from tobacco is less than the cost of worldwide tobbacco related health problems. Hope this clears this up. I am off to sob into my cornflakes lol

[Edited on 4-12-2003 by bigdanprice]

yeah you both did great.... i wish i knew what the judges thought....

I actually think Bigdanprince did make a good start with the ban in public places. To bad he went along with the idea of mooseoffterror that it is not the real topic, if he would have consisted he would probably eventually also used the case of the drugs which are illegal and forbidden... and that would have made it (I think) very difficult...

Why should drugs be illegal while that just influences one person and smoke which also influences other persons shouldn't... but that's just a thought...

Debates were excellent by the way