Instigator / Con
8
1488
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1395

Vaping

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Exile
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1543
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Description

Vaping: The New Crisis

-->
@Christen

Yes. What Con could do is say that either Vaping is too harmful physically or it's a worse trade-off as you get the harm anyway but less of the benefit of experience/pleasure/authenticity of real smoking. It lacks the texture, taste etc.

To this, Pro will negate the pleasure of drugs as pointless, subjective nonsense. Then Con can agree with Pro and say that therefore this 'pleasure' angle is worthless, there's no real benefit to vaping whatsoever. Pro will be left with no way out.

-->
@RationalMadman

So are you saying that Con should hurt himself to hurt Pro more, like go against his own arguments to attack Pro's more?

-->
@Christen

It would mean hurting the other line of reasoning (directly opposing it) that Con was using, but doing both at once is better for Con as it hurts Pro worse.

-->
@RationalMadman

What do you mean by "kamikaze" in your Reason for Decision?

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, conduct and sources.

>Reason for Decision:
See vote

Reason for Mod Action>This vote was deemed sufficient as per the voting guidelines.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Christen

RFD:

NotClub needs to quit waiving rounds for no reason and actually start providing some arguments. I give conduct to Exile because of this, and also because NotClub was being overconfident and obnoxious: "I like how you're changing the rules of the debate (sarcasm). Let me make this clear: YOUR JOB IS TO PROVE THAT VAPING IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU'RE PRO, I'M SAYING IT'S BAD AND I HAVE TO PROVE THAT."
I give the spelling and grammar to Exile because NotClub used capital letters inappropriately: "Good Debate Arguments!"
I give sources to NotClub since Exile's sources were relevant for his arguments, but not so relevant for the debate, overall. It didn't have much to do with vaping, but was instead about sodas. NotClub was guilty of this too, but Exile was more guilty of it.
NotClub could have argued better and tried to keep things simple, but I still give him the arguments anyways. I appreciate and respect Exile for putting up a good fight and not giving up or backing down on this one, but I feel that both sides need to make sure certain things are properly defined and what exactly are some of the basic rules for both sides.
Well done to both debaters.

-->
@Christen

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources; 2 points to con for S&G and conduct.

>Reason for Decision:
See above.

Reason for Mod Action>While the Conduct point is borderline; all other points awarded are insufficient.

For arguments the voter does not:
- Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
- Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
- Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
-
For sources, the voter does not:
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's

For S&G, the voter does not:
- Explain how these errors were excessive
- Compare each debater's S&G from the debate

*******************************************************************

-->
@Exile

It's not a vote bomb.

Oh fuk I accidentally reported Ragnar's vote

Sorry Exile.

-->
@Christen

Your votes are improving at a good rate. I do not disagree with the allotment, merely the detail level. I'd estimate one more paragraph to review what you consider the core argument would fix it (the moderation team may suggest further refinement beyond that).

-->
@David
@Barney
@Christen

There wasn't any reasoning as to why Con won over Pro in arguments. This is a vote bomb.

-->
@OoDart

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con arguments, 1 point to pro for conduct.

>Reason for Decision:
Con provided convincing arguments suggesting that vaping is not good for you.
Pro did not seem to prove that vaping was not bad for you, rather that it was less bad than other things.
Both had good grammar and good conduct, but pro seemed to be *slightly* more polite.

Reason for Mod Action>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
*******************************************************************

-->
@Barney

Now looking at the debate, I see that Exile probably did a better job

-->
@Exile
@NotClub

---RFD 1 of 1---
Gist:
Let me be blunt: Con is correct but tried to treat this as a free win. Pro took the material and argued the uphill battle against a near truism.

1. Vaping is not good, but it certainly is not as bad for you
This was a comparison of harms, which con rejects because they’re harms. Pro’s preamble already addressed this, and to not treat this debate as a dishonest truism I must entertain that vaping (while harmful) can be a net improvement to a person who would otherwise smoke (or for their shared example, sleep in in a rats nest hotel or one that is just kinda bad... bad is better than horrible).
Con goes for the ad infinitum reply of “Just because it's better doesn't mean it's good.”

---RFD 2 of 3---
2. Vaping serves a greater, good willed purposed
Pro introduces some good things about it, and con counters with some cases of illness (either the CDC report itself, or a better source on it should have been used. The one in question opens with a quick video explaining it, and talks about a tv program called Vaporized instead of the CDC report).
Pro defends with comparisons to tobacco and meth; which could have been handled a little better with some hard numbers on the rates of injuries (I do not actually buy the alternative to meth argument).
Con’s reply of: “can you really prove it's better?” was insufficient.

3. Any kind of unorthodox stress relief mechanism...
Con drops this in an ugly way (see conduct).

4. Vaping serves as an ulterior method of quitting smoking
Here is where con did best, showing vaping as a gateway drug leading to increased smoking (sources should have been integrated into an argument, not just tossed out afterward). The source revealed a 6.7% increase (not a sudden 27% out of nowhere... which that number as part of the debate was). I agree with pro that con really should have targeted the advertisements targeted at teens (even R2 would have still been fine...) Pro showed at 8% increased success in quitting smoking in adults (a much larger demographic than teens...), which is a massive improvement (10% shooting up to 18% is an 1.8 magnitude improvement, vs the 1.33 harmed in teens).

---RFD 3 of 3---
Arguments: Pro
See above review of key points. While vaping is not pure good, it was shown to be a net benefit to the population. ... If the debate was to be some type of absolute, such should have been clarified in the description. The resolution was not written in any way to rule out vaping as a good alternative to worse things, and all resolutions should be written with some desired path of argumentation.

Sources: Pro
I was going to leave this tied at first glance, but seeing quality of sources raised as a repeated subpoint and them specifically asked for in the grading...
Pro integrated his sources into his arguments, such as Harvard showing the improved rates of quitting smoking vs use of other treatments, and of course quick informational bits from WebMD.
Con made such blunders as a dental website not talking about vaping (which had no place in a debate about it), and a snake oil sales site disliking WebMD (which ended up bolstering instead of harming WebMD, by bringing attention back to the quality of pro’s sources, while poisoning the well for con’s own side).

S&G: tied
Please leave contention numbers in place; and ideally leave the text for them in place in every round as bolded and underlined contention headings to make lines of thought easy to follow. Also, random use of ALL CAPS is to be avoided.

Conduct: Pro
Con’s “I like how you're changing the rules of the debate (sarcasm). Let me make this clear: YOUR JOB IS...” nets the loss of this point. Even if I bought his K of the debate he instigated, where was the magical rule violated? Never lie to the audience about debate content which is verifiably different or absent.
Pro on the other hand stayed respectful, even talking con through many different tactic options at his disposal in R1.

-->
@David

I looked on their profile. Apparently they have five votes total, so those will be easy take downs as well.

-->
@David

Reported the vote. Ineligible. No forum comments, no debates.

the fact is we dont know eactly how bad vaping is and we need data to decide what to do, but the pint is made and i think its a good one
it might be less harmful
]but its still harmful
THATS IS A PERFECTLY STRONG AND VALID POINT TO ME
here honey put the down the crack pipe, i got some strawberry vap for your 12 year old lungs.. seriosly its less harmful for your growing body!
seriously, i wont even like my kids drink caffeine til their 14, your gonna hand them a vape machine?

-->
@Exile

Lol, Con already told me in an unbiased manner how points should be allocated. I should just listen :)

-->
@RationalMadman
@Vader
@bmdrocks21
@Dr.Franklin

Voting started, would appreciate your inputs!

This debate:

10/10
-IGN

-->
@NotClub

You really should put in the first round or (preferably) the description what your opponent's position actually is. That would help avoid these kinds of things.

-->
@bmdrocks21
@Exile

Yeah! Screw Cigarrettes

-->
@Exile

Lol, thank you my good sir. Perhaps you, Franklin, and I can meet up and smoke vapes, cigars, and pipes.

:D

-->
@bmdrocks21
@Dr.Franklin

You both have my respect good sirs ;)

I'm a cigar guy, myself

guys come on, pipes are the best

THC type vaping kills you. Regular no THC, nicotine vapes are bad, but they do not kill

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah I’m aware that I have to argue pro-vaping. Thanks anyway.

-->
@Exile

In case you're so new that you didnt catch on, the colouring if the sides means youre pro-vaping, not against it. He may have waived to further trap you.

-->
@NotClub

I expect a full commitment to this

if it's good or not

-->
@NotClub

Does your opponent argue for legality or that it is healthy?