Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 3 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 86% |
Arguments: | 3 |
Debates: | 0 |
Before I begin I will start with an observation: The affirmative of this question needs to argue that tobacco should be illegal, but the negative can still support regulations while upholding tobacco's legality.
Points:
-The fact that an item may be a risk to one's health does not mean it should be illegal. Cars kill thousands every years and are quite dangerous but still retain their legality. The government can regulate traffic laws to make cars safer without unnecessarily outlawing them. Likewise, there can be designated areas for smokers this way no one else has to intake their smoke.
-Restricting freedom in the name of safety is bad. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean the government has the right to regulate our lives and protect us from it. Give me liberty or give me death. I do not want a body to tell me what I can and cannot do. For an example to put things into perspective: does the government have the right to listen into our phone calls, follow us, or interrogate us in the name of counter terrorism? The idea that the governing body can restrict our freedoms in the name of safety or the general welfare of society permits the restriction of freedom.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |