E-cigarettes should be banned for all children under the age of 16-17
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro must prove that e-cigarettes are dangerous for children
Since we are talking about banning, pro should propose for example a fine for children who smoke e-cigarettes while con must prove that a ban isn't necessary
Should this ban be put into action, if a child is caught using one, it faces repercussions but if a vendor is found selling one to a child, he faces bigger repercussions, possibly jail time depending on the nature of the crime
By e-cigarettes we mean vapes, iqos devices...
Burden of proof is shared
Con forfeited
Pro made well-organized arguments, was the only one to both provide sources and participate so they get the better conduct vote and legibility
Full forfeiture
Given the full forfeit, the debate obviously goes to Pro. Since Pro requested some feedback, I'm also going to provide some here:
There's a lot of focus up front on how this plan will be implemented. I do think it's important to set a clear line (saying "16-17" leaves it somewhat vague and makes the question of why you'd set that limit all the more nebulous since you're giving a range rather than a specific age), but regardless of the age you set, it's important to recognize how your policy affects outcomes. You're suggesting a ban implemented via a set of fines. Considering you're talking about children who are most often lacking a steady income, it could be argued that the burden would fall on their parents rather than the kids themselves. Also, much as I agree that vendors could be targeted to prevent distribution, you talk a bit about flavors and don't mention how these are marketed. Part of the regulations that were placed on cigarettes were the result of noting how certain advertisements were clearly meant to entice kids to smoke. I think you'd have to do something similar with vaping and e-cigarettes.
As for the health hazards, I think you lay them out pretty well. When it comes to providing your sources, it's a good idea to make sure your reader knows what sources apply where, either by hyperlinking in the text itself (I saw you did that in R2) or by providing some kind of footnote system to reference. I'd also suggest focusing more on statistical data and comparisons to cigarettes, since a comparison to something that is already banned for this age group makes for a stronger case and the numbers can do more to establish the weight of your impacts.
Con forfeiture.
I am unconditionally opposed to imprisonment as a punishment for a crime because it's a free ride for prisoners that the taxpayer has to pay for. Find an alternative penalty (community service should be fine unless a minor dies from your drugs, then it's death).
If you want to find more serious opponents, you should consider making your debates rated. New accounts can't join rated debates.
Yea i agree to some extent, but these cigs have proven to be able to kill anyone as i explained in my healthrisks arguments so they're basically murder weapons even though the murder is never intended unless the vendor is some twisted fuck. Murder= some type of imprisonment or they either have to pay a giant bail. If it's their first offence, community service works fine i guess
If a vendor sells those to kids, then they should do community service for some amount of time and if they run off, then you get the whip. If any youth dies from the drugs, then swift beheading. Their blood and organs would be useful.
They technically are banned like it’s not ethical to sell nicotine to non adults but the vendors make it so easy for the children to get their hands on them. Both should be punished, it’s not only the vendors fault
I think banning recreational drugs for people under the age of 16 is just common sense, and I'm very libertarian on drugs (I think 16 should be the legal age for weed, tobacco, and alcohol).
If the actual topic is "dangerous", then there is nothing to debate. Everything is dangerous per standard of high amount or significant cost.
That makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand where you're coming from. However, the way you have framed the debate makes it unclear whether the underlying thing that needs to be proven is whether e-cigarettes are *dangerous* or whether they ought to be *banned*. Again it could be argued that even if they are dangerous, the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body. I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument, but some people believe in that very strongly and would argue along those lines. However, you say in the very first line of your description that Con MUST prove that e-cigs aren't dangerous. If you want Con to be able to argue that they shouldn't be banned regardless of the health risks, you should change that.
I wanna debate the danger of smoking them and then explain why this danger requires a ban. I will propose a ban and opposition can dispute it
Your title (and presumptive resolution) says that e-cigarettes should be banned for children under sixteen, but the first line of your description says, "Pro must prove that e-cigarettes are dangerous for children while con must prove they aren't." One could argue that they should not be banned even if they are dangerous. Do you want to debate the ban, or do you want to debate whether e-cigarettes are harmful? You should make that clear.