Instigator / Con
Points: 8

Vaping

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Exile
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 14
Description
Vaping: The New Crisis
Round 1
Published:
I waive, in case of trolling or forfeiting.
Published:
*Since Con waived his opportunity to provide an opening statement and define necessary terms, the burden has fallen upon me to do so.*

For the sake of fully understanding the arguments in this debate (my arguments for the most part), I will define the following terms:
  • Stress relief mechanism - any action that involves the intake of an unorthodox product/byproduct (most likely a drug) in order to relieve stress. The "unorthodox" portion of this definition is to distinguish the unnatural forms of stress relief from the natural ones(such as herbal tea and vitamins).
  • Vaping - an alternative to smoking in which one inhales and exhales water vapor to relieve stress instead of tobacco byproduct. 
  • Smoking - the action of inhaling and exhaling of smoke from tobacco leaves.
I want everyone to think about the concept of Diet Coke. Diet Coke was a product released by Coca-Cola company in 1982 as a healthier alternative to the iconic sugar-filled Coca-Cola. It contains virtually no sugar, which means your body won't store glucose as fat as a result of drinking it (which happens with regular products that contain sugar). It's a product that's meant for those who want to enjoy a soda without the heavy detriments that come with enjoying a regular sugary drink. It is simply a healthier alternative compared to regular Coca-Cola, and the idea could not be greater for the company.

Of course, just because you have the advantage of drinking a tasty, bubbly drink without facing the repercussions of sugar and weight gain does not mean you should replace your water intake with Diet Coke, now does it? Just because something is better for your body does not mean that it is evidently BENEFICIAL for it. Diet Coke contains artificial sweeteners like Aspartame, which has been shown to have a relatively strong correlation with an increased risk of cancer. Drinking too much Diet Coke can increase your sodium intake, thus making you more prone to diseases like hypertension. Finally, sweeteners are just as addictive as sugar is (which has been shown to share similar addiction levels to cocaine), and while Diet Coke contains no sugar, the sweeteners in Diet Coke make you crave it even more, thus implicitly making you vulnerable to weight gain [1]

This case study of Diet Coke that I have provided to you could not serve as a better analogy to the controversy of vaping. 

Vaping serves virtually the same purpose as Diet Coke does. It is a stress relief mechanism that allows someone to unwind without some of the major health detriments that come with smoking; call it "Diet Smoke" if you will. That being said, vaping has been proved to have negative side effects, such as the exposure to harmful chemicals, the effect it has on the immune system, and how it makes someone more likely to start smoking cigarettes. 

Pro recognizes that these detriments exist, and concedes upon the notion that vaping is not a benefit to your body, and does it's own unique damage to the it.

Therefore, in order to combat this much expected narrative from Con, my thesis statement is as follows: although vaping does not serve as a benefit to the human body, it is a better option and serves a better purpose compared to the many other alternatives that exist in the world today. 

Pro stands on the following principles:

  1. Vaping is not good, but it certainly is not as bad for you. Compared to the plethora of options that serve the same purpose as vaping (which is to relieve stress) vaping is by far the best option when it comes to these unorthodox procedures of stress relief. It is also obvious to say that vaping is a less dangerous than many other addictive substances/drugs (such as cocaine, heroine, etc.).
  2. Vaping serves a greater, good willed purposed. The idea behind vaping is that you don't have to intake harmful smoke into your lungs, and that it is supposed to serve as an ideal alternative. The foundation and philosophy behind vapes/vaping is an inherently good one and cannot be ignored. 
  3. Any kind of unorthodox stress relief mechanism is bad for you, and the grounds of this debate speak for itself. It is a safe argument to make that those who don't smoke or vape have evidently healthier lungs than those who do, and will most likely have healthier lifestyles. It is common sense to assume that putting anything in your body that shouldn't be there will cause negative effects on your health, period. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to compare those who vape vs. those who don't because that logic is impossible to falsify. Thus, it is important to recognize that this debate should be about comparing vaping to other forms of drugs/smoking. 
  4. Vaping serves as an ulterior method of quitting smoking. This is a small point, but it is important to realize that the issue of smoking is evidently more important than that of vaping, solely considering the health factors alone. Vaping, although it has it's own unique health detriments, has been used as a method of getting individuals to quit smoking, thus serving a positive contribution to the lives of those individuals. While both practices are not ideal, Pro would rather have people vape than smoke if it meant that it would either save or elongate lives. There are more minor benefits of vaping that will come, but this will be the one I'll talk about the most. 
It is with these principles that Pro will have the best likelihood of winning this debate. I will be sure to cite sources in the rounds to come but for now this serves as my opening statement.

Con carries multiple burdens on his end, so in order for him to win this debate, he must do all of the following:
  • Prove that vaping is a worse alternative than other common drugs and stress relief mechanisms.
  • Prove that vaping serves an inherently bad purpose, and is an immoral product.
  • Prove that the issue of vaping is more important than smoking and requires more attention/awareness. 
  • Prove that vaping provides absolutely no contribution to quitting smoking. 
  • Prove that there are drugs/stress relief mechanisms that are better than vaping OR have a positive impact on the human body.
Finally, I want to clarify that I don't support or condone vaping at any costs whatsoever. My argument shall not be spun out of control to the point where I am advocating that people should try vaping or that vaping is a good thing to do overall. Like I mentioned before, comparing vaping vs not vaping is a virtually impossible task on Pro's side and serves no purpose in debating whatsoever. Pro stands on the basis that vaping is simply a "lesser evil" and is not the worst option when pursuing stress relief mechanisms while under the basis that you should NOT pursue said mechanisms. 

With that said, it is with this opening statement that I am proud to support this resolution.

SOURCES


Round 2
Published:
Good Debate Arguments!

1. Apparently diet coke actually makes you fatter, and there is no evidence backing up the zero calories, and zero sugar is healthy claim.




  1. Vaping is not good, but it certainly is not as bad for you. Compared to the plethora of options that serve the same purpose as vaping (which is to relieve stress) vaping is by far the best option when it comes to these unorthodox procedures of stress relief. It is also obvious to say that vaping is a less dangerous than many other addictive substances/drugs (such as cocaine, heroine, etc.).
Yes but it is not good in the first place. Your job is to prove that it is good, not that other things are worse. Yes it is better than other options, but that doesn't mean that is good.
For my argument, I bring up this analogy.

"Let's say you go on a vacation, there are four hotels. All of them are pretty much really bad, except for the third one, which is a little bit better than the rest. They all cost same."

Which one would you pick? The third one, right? But even though the third one is better,  it doesn't mean it's good. 

Vaping serves a greater, good willed purposed. The idea behind vaping is that you don't have to intake harmful smoke into your lungs, and that it is supposed to serve as an ideal alternative. The foundation and philosophy behind vapes/vaping is an inherently good one and cannot be ignored.
Just because it starts as a good idea, doesn't mean it's good. And new reports from the CDC, states that vaping causes a severe lung disease. So, yes the intentions were good, but it still doesn't make the product good.

Any kind of unorthodox stress relief mechanism is bad for you, and the grounds of this debate speak for itself. It is a safe argument to make that those who don't smoke or vape have evidently healthier lungs than those who do, and will most likely have healthier lifestyles. It is common sense to assume that putting anything in your body that shouldn't be there will cause negative effects on your health, period. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to compare those who vape vs. those who don't because that logic is impossible to falsify. Thus, it is important to recognize that this debate should be about comparing vaping to other forms of drugs/smoking.
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.  It's not about comparing vaping to other products, it's to see if vaping is beneficial or not. Just because it's better than the other bad products, doesn't mean it's good or beneficial. 

Vaping serves as an ulterior method of quitting smoking. This is a small point, but it is important to realize that the issue of smoking is evidently more important than that of vaping, solely considering the health factors alone. Vaping, although it has it's own unique health detriments, has been used as a method of getting individuals to quit smoking, thus serving a positive contribution to the lives of those individuals. While both practices are not ideal, Pro would rather have people vape than smoke if it meant that it would either save or elongate lives. There are more minor benefits of vaping that will come, but this will be the one I'll talk about the most. 
It hasn't been proved yet that it actually helps people quit. And also it actually is the leading cause of teen tobacco use. 


Published:
Before I get into rebuttals, I have to address something very important.
 
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. 
Let this be a lesson to all (particularly Con) as to why it's important to take advantage of every single round in a debate. I'll outline this in multiple ways:
  • The role of the first round in a debate has always been used to define terms, circumstances, and provide an opening argument that makes clear what your stance is. Con knowingly waived this opportunity (for reasons unclear to me regardless of his reasoning in R1), and thus the onus fell upon me to define terms and provide circumstances of the debate. Not even in the debate description does Con outline what each role stands for; all he says is "vaping is bad bro." 
  • I said this in R1, but it's an obvious claim to say that those who don't vape, smoke, excessively drink alcohol etc. are FAR better off than those who do. It makes no sense to falsify the "anti-vaping" aspect of things, or to even advocate that vaping is simply bad, because it makes one side provide virtually a shallow stance and the other side hard to falsify. Had Con outlined this in the description or his R1 statement like I explained above, then I'd be making entirely different arguments, but there was literally no circumstance to go off of. C'est la vie, I guess...? 
  • Con has completely misunderstood the concept of being "Pro." Just because you take a "pro" stance on something does not mean you fully support it. For example, you can be "pro" gun control, but not condone a ban on guns or universal background checks. In this context, I can still be "pro" vaping, but not condone the health defects that come with it, or say that anyone can/should try vaping. 
With all of that out of the way, I can finally start my rebuttals. There wasn't much to go off of since Con spent a lot of his time trying to define my role, so in return I'll just pick apart what he said. Con even goes so far to somehow factually discredit my analogy in my R1, which serves no benefit to Con whatsoever. 

"Let's say you go on a vacation, there are four hotels. All of them are pretty much really bad, except for the third one, which is a little bit better than the rest. They all cost same."

Which one would you pick? The third one, right? But even though the third one is better,  it doesn't mean it's good. 
There are a few things wrong with this:
  • In this hypothetical, Pro forgets two elements that apply when it comes to vaping/doing other drugs. There is the option to turn around and go home if the hotels are that bad to you (aka not vape/do drugs in the first place) that Con doesn't address.
  • If we follow the logic on this scenario and assume that you so desperately want to go on your vacation and bear with a really bad hotel, then it's not like you would be better off if you picked any of the other hotels other than the third one. Of course, the hotel isn't to your liking, but it's the best of the bunch, and you're still able to go on your much awaited vacation. Ergo, if you so desperately want to take drugs and destroy your body, then you're better off vaping compared to the many other options that exists. Doing drugs is evidently bad, but if you're going to do it then at LEAST pick vaping. This is LITERALLY the stance Pro has taken in R1 and Con just completely knifed himself in this process. 
Just because it starts as a good idea, doesn't mean it's good.
Yes, of course the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but at least this road is a much smoother one than that of smoking cigarettes, meth, heroine, and many others. Smoking causes microscopic particles to remain in the lungs for the rest of your life[1], meth causes your body temperature rise after a surprising amount of time [2], and heroine causes the risk of your veins to collapse to vastly increase after only a few uses [3]. With vaping, you get absolutely none of those things, and the health detriments that vaping causes 

[Vaping] hasn't been proved yet that it actually helps people [quit smoking].
Alternatively, it has been heavily correlated. A study done by the New England Journal of Medicine took 900 people who wanted to quit smoking and made them try vaping. Among those assigned to vaping, 18% had stopped smoking, while about 10% of those using nicotine replacement therapy had quit [4]. While it hasn't been "definitively" proven, vaping has the capability to help quit a smoking addiction for already existing smokers, and considering the fact that this is unique ONLY to vaping, this cannot be ignored as a plus. 

And also [vaping] is the leading cause of teen tobacco use. 
While that may be true, it's also important to note the fact that vaping doesn't serve this purpose. Like I mentioned in R1 the philosophy behind vaping isn't to get teens to do it, but rather to be an alternative to smoking. In fact, if Con wants to play the blame game he'd be better off attacking the companies that market vaping to teens, and not the product/action as a whole, (of course, he could have done that if he hadn't waived his R1). 

Also, it's important to consider that teens shouldn't be vaping in the first place. Unlike adults who have the mental capacity to make their own decisions (regardless of knowing whether it is a good or bad one) teens on the other hand do NOT. The biggest reason as to why teens choose to take up vaping is because of the culture (or the "Vape Nation") that surrounds it. According to Hon Lik, the inventor of vaping, the entire purpose surrounding it was to be for beneficial cause; to stop smoking and/or to not obtain the many detriments to smoking [5]. The rhetoric of Vape Nation trend totally diminishes the reason why Lik came up with this premise in the first place. Because of this, vaping has a MASSIVE appeal to teens, and thus it allows companies to market vaping to teens much easier considering the "flavors" that exist today. In a way, it's almost a trap that many teens fall into courtesy of the trend appeal and marketing by businesses. However, the idea that the PRODUCT is to blame because of this is not only incorrect, but is also flawed logic. Good luck to Con juggling that one. 

When you take everything into consideration thus far about vaping, you end up with the following:
  • Vaping is the least evil of all other evils that exist in the world of drugs
  • The concept and philosophy of vaping actually serves a unique and beneficial purpose
  • Unlike every other illegal/abused drug in existence, vaping actually has some minor BENEFITS to the user (depending if that person is a smoker or not)
  • Vaping has been the victim of an unfair portrayal courtesy of mainstream media/trends and through the marketing of businesses.
I cannot emphasize how exclusive these attributes are to vaping. No matter what, when you put something in your body that shouldn't belong there in the first place, it should come to no surprise if you start to experience negative effects to your health. Although vaping is not excused for doing exactly that, it brilliantly has upsides to it that absolutely no other substance in this category has. This alone should prove that vaping is not only a lesser evil, but even an ideal for someone who (foolishly) wants to start taking drugs. The fact that these attributes are so exclusive to vaping, it's almost revolutionary that a drug has a good-willed, moral upbringing, and brings vaping to a whole new level; almost that of an appreciation. This CANNOT be ignored when adjudicating this debate! 

Even though the option to vape/do drugs is not a wise one and is not recommended at ALL, Pro would rather have people vape than do any other abusable substance, since not ONE can compare to it's foundations or upsides. 

By now, it's no surprise to me that the entirety of Con's arguments will be composed of how bad vaping is for you. If Con either continues to do this, or still have the audacity to try to define my role/redefine the debate entirely, then a loss is inevitable on Con's side. Con has already done significant damage to himself by waiving his R1, and contradicting himself/providing no arguments of his own in R2. If Con wants to win this debate, then he must give up the charade of "Pro not following the rules" or "Pro has to say vaping is good," and actually deliver an argument during R3, which will almost certainly be his last chance to do so. 

Otherwise, Pro will have won this debate from all angles.

SOURCES:

Round 3
Published:
  • and go home if the hotels are that bad to you (aka not vape/do drugs in the first place) that Con doesn't address.
  • If we follow the logic on this scenario and assume that you so desperately want to go on your vacation and bear with a really bad hotel, then it's not like you would be better off if you picked any of the other hotels other than the third one. Of course, the hotel isn't to your liking, but it's the best of the bunch, and you're still able to go on your much awaited vacation. Ergo, if you so desperately want to take drugs and destroy your body, then you're better off vaping compared to the many other options that exists. Doing drugs is evidently bad, but if you're going to do it then at LEAST pick vaping. This is LITERALLY the stance Pro has taken in R1 and Con just completely knifed himself in this proces
Just because it's better doesn't mean it's good. And yes I did mess up.

Yes, of course the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but at least this road is a much smoother one than that of smoking cigarettes, meth, heroine, and many others. Smoking causes microscopic particles to remain in the lungs for the rest of your life[1], meth causes your body temperature rise after a surprising amount of time [2], and heroine causes the risk of your veins to collapse to vastly increase after only a few uses [3]. With vaping, you get absolutely none of those things, and the health detriments that vaping causes 
Basically what you're saying is that "Vaping is bad, but it's better than the other drugs? But after many of my points, (teen tobacco use, lung disease), can you really prove it's better?

Alternatively, it has been heavily correlated. A study done by the New England Journal of Medicine took 900 people who wanted to quit smoking and made them try vaping. Among those assigned to vaping, 18% had stopped smoking, while about 10% of those using nicotine replacement therapy had quit [4]. While it hasn't been "definitively" proven, vaping has the capability to help quit a smoking addiction for already existing smokers, and considering the fact that this is unique ONLY to vaping, this cannot be ignored as a plus. 
The only reason people quit smoking is to vape, but according to you, vaping is still bad. What do you mean it's unique only to vaping, dude, there's so many more things, like nicotine gum and nicotine patches, you EVEN STATE THAT. And what's better about nicotine patches is that people don't get lung disease.
When you take everything into consideration thus far about vaping, you end up with the following:
  • Vaping is the least evil of all other evils that exist in the world of drugs
  • The concept and philosophy of vaping actually serves a unique and beneficial purpose
  • Unlike every other illegal/abused drug in existence, vaping actually has some minor BENEFITS to the user (depending if that person is a smoker or not)
  • Vaping has been the victim of an unfair portrayal courtesy of mainstream media/trends and through the marketing of businesses.

Yes but it's still bad. Your literally just saying that it's bad, but not as bad, that's still not a pro. We aren't talking about how some guy named Hon Link wanted it to be a good idea, we're talking about how the product of his idea was good or not. You completely ignored my "lung disease" argument, it doesn't have any actually proven benefits. The last one is not a Pro. Also most of your sources are from WebMD which is an unreliable source (https://deeprootsathome.com/webmd-not-trusted-health-information/). 

Also, it's important to consider that teens shouldn't be vaping in the first place. Unlike adults who have the mental capacity to make their own decisions (regardless of knowing whether it is a good or bad one) teens on the other hand do NOT. The biggest reason as to why teens choose to take up vaping is because of the culture (or the "Vape Nation") that surrounds it. According to Hon Lik, the inventor of vaping, the entire purpose surrounding it was to be for beneficial cause; to stop smoking and/or to not obtain the many detriments to smoking [5]. The rhetoric of Vape Nation trend totally diminishes the reason why Lik came up with this premise in the first place. Because of this, vaping has a MASSIVE appeal to teens, and thus it allows companies to market vaping to teens much easier considering the "flavors" that exist today. In a way, it's almost a trap that many teens fall into courtesy of the trend appeal and marketing by businesses. However, the idea that the PRODUCT is to blame because of this is not only incorrect, but is also flawed logic. Good luck to Con juggling that one. 
Teens shouldn't be vaping, but the massive marketing to teens make them vape. It's the product that's doing the harm, that's causing the teens to switch to tobacco. I understand what you're saying, that the marketing is not the product. But the massive marketing to teens is what caused it to be bad.

My summary of points:
1. Gives you bad health
According to my sources beforehand (R1) it actually gives people a severe lung disease. And according to (https://benefitsbridge.unitedconcordia.com/health-risks-of-vaping-what-you-need-to-know/) vaping actually has:
  • Cancer causing materials
  • Harmful metals
It also gives people who vape "respiratory problems, gastrointestinal conditions, heart problems, nicotine poisoning and injury caused by e-cigarette battery explosions."  It negatively impacts 'development, mood, behavior, attention and learning."  And it even has the same oral affects as cigarettes.
2. Leads to teen tobacco use
The CDC is now blaming the rise in teen tobacco use on vaping.  And now 27% of high school students smoke in result. Compared to the 18% of adults who quit, this is huge.
Published:
Ladies and gentlemen, not only has Con failed to provide any new points or argumentation of his own, but his rebuttals (which his R3 was consisted of entirely) can literally be summed up with the following phrase:

Just because [vaping is] better doesn't mean it's good.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Of course vaping isn't good for you. Taking in any chemicals that shouldn't be in your body in the first place is NEVER good for you. This is an established fact, and there's no in arguing this point at all. Had Con taken the time and care to establish the grounds of this debate, then he wouldn't be having this issue and not be losing this debate. 

That being said, it won't stop me from (yet again) picking apart his rebuttals. 

Yes but it's still bad. Your literally just saying that it's bad, but not as bad, that's still not a pro. We aren't talking about how some guy named Hon Link wanted it to be a good idea, we're talking about how the product of his idea was good or not. You completely ignored my "lung disease" argument, it doesn't have any actually proven benefits. The last one is not a Pro. Also most of your sources are from WebMD which is an unreliable source (https://deeprootsathome.com/webmd-not-trusted-health-information/). 
This is Con grasping at straws for multiple reasons:
  • Con STILL chooses to define my role, and still provides little argumentation of his own.
  • Con amazingly goes out of his way to "discredit" my WebMD sources, which weren't meant to prove anything aside from what we know about the drugs I mentioned already. Also, the reason why I put the word "discredit" in quotation marks is because he really doesn't discredit it. He cites some sort of tchotchke article about why WebMD is so unreliable. 
  • Con's "lung disease argument" wasn't really an argument because there was hardly any warrant or impact that followed. All Con did was say "vaping causes lung disease" and cite some sort of USA Today story about it. By the way, if Con wants to go so far as to call out his opponent about not using credible sources, then he should reconsider his reliance of USA Today, as they have a history of plagiarism and fabrication [1]… just saying.
Basically what you're saying is that "Vaping is bad, but it's better than the other drugs? But after many of my points, (teen tobacco use, lung disease), can you really prove it's better?
I really don't have to "re-prove" anything that Con points out here at this stage in the debate, especially considering that he hasn't made any points himself whatsoever. That being said, I will anyway because yes, I can in fact easily prove this. 

Con brings up lung disease on the shallowest level possible, and simply just brings it up as a statement; not referring to any kind of specific lung disease or conditions that are possible through vaping. According to a statement based off various studies made by the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK, they claim that, "Physicians estimate that [E-cigarettes] are unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from conventional smoking," [2]. They also claim that there is little to no evidence that supports the notion that passive vaping or "second hand vaping," or if it causes any direct or indirect harm [3]. According to a study done by the Annals of Internal Medicine, they claim that, "long-term e-cigarette users (who had been using their product for 17 months on average) had significantly lower levels of key toxicants in their urine than those that still smoked," [4]. Therefore, those who vape are not only less likely to acquire lung disease, but the many threats that exists with smoking (like second-hand smoking and the taking in of key toxicants that directly cause lung disease) play virtually no effect in the deterioration of health on an individual who vapes or is exposed to vaping. 

And now 27% of high school students smoke in result. Compared to the 18% of adults who quit, this is huge.
Actually, 27% is not that huge in comparison to my study when you run the demographics. First off, those who are in high school generally don't qualify as an adult, so the impact isn't as important since there are generally fewer high school students than there are adults. Second, the results from statistical and scientific studies are supposed to reflect a population. Therefore, if the results are deemed effective from the study that I cited from the New England Journal of Medicine, 18% of all adults would make for a MUCH larger impact than what it says. Sure, 27% of teens start smoking due to vaping is an issue, but the comparison in demographic and impact weighs heavily in Pro's favor. 

Teens shouldn't be vaping, but the massive marketing to teens make them vape. It's the product that's doing the harm, that's causing the teens to switch to tobacco. I understand what you're saying, that the marketing is not the product. But the massive marketing to teens is what caused it to be bad.
Again, Con makes the mistake of literally confusing his own arguments with mine. I said in R2 that the very element that causes teens to vape is through the marketing of large companies and through the Vape Nation culture that exists. The only thing Con does differently here is blame the actual product for this issue and not the actions of the people who use the product, which is a total logical error made on his part.

For example, if I hit someone in the head with a glass bottle and end up concussing that person, then I would be held accountable, right? I would probably be sued for medical bills and god knows what, not to mentioned arrested for unwarranted assault. It wouldn't make sense to hold that glass bottle accountable, now would it? The glass bottle I used wouldn't be going to trial, responsible for a patient's medical bills, or be arrested. No matter what, regardless if a product or item has the capability to be used dangerously, it is man that causes the actions that directly harm another person, even if that person is their own self. Yes, of course teens shouldn't be vaping as I LITERALLY said this in R2, but it is the teens to blame for taking up drugs in the first place for the many reasons that I listed in the previous round.

The only reason people quit smoking is to vape, but according to you, vaping is still bad. What do you mean it's unique only to vaping, dude, there's so many more things, like nicotine gum and nicotine patches, you EVEN STATE THAT. And what's better about nicotine patches is that people don't get lung disease.
Pro never mentioned anything supporting the notion that "everyone who wants to quit smoking should first try vaping and nothing else." Everyone is different, and not every method or practice of quitting smoking is going to be successful for every individual. Nicotine patches, along with other methods of quitting smoking, cause an extensive amount of side effects that can almost inevitably lead to heart attacks [5]. Not everyone who tries orthodox methods of quitting is successful, and thus the action of at least trying vaping is justified.

What I said in R2 was that vaping has the CAPABILITY of being a useful method to help smokers quit smoking. Imagine if scientists took the time/money to research vaping as an alternative method to quitting smoking. Considering the capabilities, positive results are more probable than ever; it's almost a fantasy to even consider researching a drug like vaping but it's entirely possible. Absolutely nothing can be said the same about other illegal drugs. 

What I meant in saying that all of the attributes that are associated with vaping are unique was that those aspects could not be said the same for other dangerous and illegal drugs in circulation right now. Cocaine, heroine and meth did not have a good-willed upbringing like vaping did. Cocaine, heroine and meth do not have the capability to help end an addiction. Finally, cocaine, heroine and meth are certainly not the lesser evils in the narcotics industry, but are some of the highest evils that exist in the world today. Put into this light, there is almost a hidden beauty that vaping has, thus making it so brilliantly unique.

My summary of points:
1. Gives you bad health
According to my sources beforehand (R1) it actually gives people a severe lung disease. And according to (https://benefitsbridge.unitedconcordia.com/health-risks-of-vaping-what-you-need-to-know/) vaping actually has:
  • Cancer causing materials
  • Harmful metals
It also gives people who vape "respiratory problems, gastrointestinal conditions, heart problems, nicotine poisoning and injury caused by e-cigarette battery explosions."  It negatively impacts 'development, mood, behavior, attention and learning."  And it even has the same oral affects as cigarettes.
Not only is this COMPLETELY new as Con never mentioned anything in R1, but he also never mentioned the exposure to "harmful metals" or the crazy amount of side effects that he states in the bottom. This literally comes out of nowhere, and is a testament to Con's poor argumentation on this subject.

By now, Con has dug himself in a much deeper hole than he had been in before. He has provided little to no argumentation, and has focused solely on rebutting all of my points thus far. All he can do now is draft up a wonderfully written closing explaining statement as to why he should win while summarizing his side of the debate with no new points. Either that, or Pro will win this debate from every aspect. 

SOURCES:
[4] Shahab L, Goniewicz ML, Blount BC, et al. Nicotine , Carcinogen , and Toxin Exposure in Long-Term ECigarette and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Users A Cross-sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. 2017. doi:10.7326/M16-1107

Round 4
Published:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Of course vaping isn't good for you. Taking in any chemicals that shouldn't be in your body in the first place is NEVER good for you. This is an established fact, and there's no in arguing this point at all. Had Con taken the time and care to establish the grounds of this debate, then he wouldn't be having this issue and not be losing this debate. 
That being said, it won't stop me from (yet again) picking apart his rebuttals. 
Just because it's better than other drugs, doesn't mean it's good. I repeated this so many times, and all you did was critique me about how my argument was irrelevant, and how you agree. SO  YOU AGREE TO MY ARGUMENT? Is that not right? Therefore you conceded to my argument.

Ladies and gentlemen, not only has Con failed to provide any new points or argumentation of his own, but his rebuttals (which his R3 was consisted of entirely) can literally be summed up with the following phrase:
Also you:
"[…]Not only is this COMPLETELY new as Con never mentioned anything in R1"

You stuck with the same points too.

  • Con STILL chooses to define my role, and still provides little argumentation of his own.
  • Con amazingly goes out of his way to "discredit" my WebMD sources, which weren't meant to prove anything aside from what we know about the drugs I mentioned already. Also, the reason why I put the word "discredit" in quotation marks is because he really doesn't discredit it. He cites some sort of tchotchke article about why WebMD is so unreliable. 
  • Con's "lung disease argument" wasn't really an argument because there was hardly any warrant or impact that followed. All Con did was say "vaping causes lung disease" and cite some sort of USA Today story about it. By the way, if Con wants to go so far as to call out his opponent about not using credible sources, then he should reconsider his reliance of USA Today, as they have a history of plagiarism and fabrication [1]… just saying.

There's a reason why WebMD is unreliable, it's because there's a bunch of hooligans trying to look like doctors. It is an argument, stop trying to pass it off as irrelevant. If vaping causes a serious lung disease, isn't it the same as tobacco? If it has the same gum problems is it not the same as tobacco? So you spend your time trying to make everyone believe that vaping is so much better than tobacco, but I literally just proved it has some of the same symptoms, and leads to tobacco use.


Con brings up lung disease on the shallowest level possible, and simply just brings it up as a statement; not referring to any kind of specific lung disease or conditions that are possible through vaping. According to a statement based off various studies made by the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK, they claim that, "Physicians estimate that [E-cigarettes] are unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from conventional smoking," [2]. They also claim that there is little to no evidence that supports the notion that passive vaping or "second hand vaping," or if it causes any direct or indirect harm [3]. According to a study done by the Annals of Internal Medicine, they claim that, "long-term e-cigarette users (who had been using their product for 17 months on average) had significantly lower levels of key toxicants in their urine than those that still smoked," [4]. Therefore, those who vape are not only less likely to acquire lung disease, but the many threats that exists with smoking (like second-hand smoking and the taking in of key toxicants that directly cause lung disease) play virtually no effect in the deterioration of health on an individual who vapes or is exposed to vaping. 
 This is before people even knew about the long term affects of vaping. The lung disease and all that stuff was discovered after. Yes, if we were debating in 2017, I would gladly concede this point, but it's 2019.

Again, Con makes the mistake of literally confusing his own arguments with mine. I said in R2 that the very element that causes teens to vape is through the marketing of large companies and through the Vape Nation culture that exists. The only thing Con does differently here is blame the actual product for this issue and not the actions of the people who use the product, which is a total logical error made on his part.
For example, if I hit someone in the head with a glass bottle and end up concussing that person, then I would be held accountable, right? I would probably be sued for medical bills and god knows what, not to mentioned arrested for unwarranted assault. It wouldn't make sense to hold that glass bottle accountable, now would it? The glass bottle I used wouldn't be going to trial, responsible for a patient's medical bills, or be arrested. No matter what, regardless if a product or item has the capability to be used dangerously, it is man that causes the actions that directly harm another person, even if that person is their own self. Yes, of course teens shouldn't be vaping as I LITERALLY said this in R2, but it is the teens to blame for taking up drugs in the first place for the many reasons that I listed in the previous round.
So now you're blaming it on the teens for choosing to vape. But shouldn't you blame the vapes for starting in the first place? Shouldn't you blame them for containing harmful materials, and making people want to smoke?

Pro never mentioned anything supporting the notion that "everyone who wants to quit smoking should first try vaping and nothing else." Everyone is different, and not every method or practice of quitting smoking is going to be successful for every individual. Nicotine patches, along with other methods of quitting smoking, cause an extensive amount of side effects that can almost inevitably lead to heart attacks [5]. Not everyone who tries orthodox methods of quitting is successful, and thus the action of at least trying vaping is justified.
What I said in R2 was that vaping has the CAPABILITY of being a useful method to help smokers quit smoking. Imagine if scientists took the time/money to research vaping as an alternative method to quitting smoking. Considering the capabilities, positive results are more probable than ever; it's almost a fantasy to even consider researching a drug like vaping but it's entirely possible. Absolutely nothing can be said the same about other illegal drugs. What I meant in saying that all of the attributes that are associated with vaping are unique was that those aspects could not be said the same for other dangerous and illegal drugs in circulation right now. Cocaine, heroine and meth did not have a good-willed upbringing like vaping did. Cocaine, heroine and meth do not have the capability to help end an addiction. Finally, cocaine, heroine and meth are certainly not the lesser evils in the narcotics industry, but are some of the highest evils that exist in the world today. Put into this light, there is almost a hidden beauty that vaping has, thus making it so brilliantly unique.

1. I never mentioned that you mentioned that "everyone who wants to quit smoking should first try vaping first" One of your pros was that it was only unique to vaping, and you literally mentioned other ways to quit in the same paragraph.

 2. So vaping is good because it is bad? Because it  is now worse than other things.

3. No, what you said in R2 is that it was only unique to vaping. You didn't mention all that fluff you added now

4. Vaping doesn't have a proved capability to help people quit. As I said before, it is not yet proved that people can quit smoking effectively with vapes. And once they quit smoking, won't they have to deal with the harmfulness of vaping?

5. Just because something is worse than something bad, doesn't make that bad thing good. Vaping does have some positives, that's what makes it good. But does it even serve medication? No. There are tons of other things that make each and every drug unique, but it doesn't make it a positive. By your standards, marijuana is better than smoking, because it is more unique.

Not only is this COMPLETELY new as Con never mentioned anything in R1, but he also never mentioned the exposure to "harmful metals" or the crazy amount of side effects that he states in the bottom. This literally comes out of nowhere, and is a testament to Con's poor argumentation on this subject.
By now, Con has dug himself in a much deeper hole than he had been in before. He has provided little to no argumentation, and has focused solely on rebutting all of my points thus far. All he can do now is draft up a wonderfully written closing explaining statement as to why he should win while summarizing his side of the debate with no new points. Either that, or Pro will win this debate from every aspect. 
It doesn't come out of completely no where, I listed more side effects. You barely argued either, you literally used no sources for your argument. You can't judge who wins or not.



Closing Statement:

Even though Pro has drawn up some good arguments, Con most definitely won, because of shown side effects, and overall better sources. Pro completely has ignored many of Con's points, conceded to them, or passed them off as irrelevant. He also heavily was focusing on how it was better than things, but not how it was worse than not doing it at all, he ignored most of con's desperate refutes against this saying how better doesn't make it good.  But since I can't judge this debate, I let you voters to decide. And as always:

I thank Exile for the debate, and his strong arguments.


I have drawn up a quick sketch about how I believe the points should add up.

Arguments: Con
Grammar: Probably Pro
Sources: Con
Conduct: Tied.






Published:
Although I like to provide closing statements, given that Con has chosen to do one more round of rebuttals, I'll do the same but with brevity. At the same time, I will be addressing Con directly...

Just because it's better than other drugs, doesn't mean it's good. I repeated this so many times, and all you did was critique me about how my argument was irrelevant, and how you agree. SO  YOU AGREE TO MY ARGUMENT? Is that not right? Therefore you conceded to my argument.
This was literally the argument that I made in R1, and have been making since. If anything, you conceded to my argument on this notion.

There's a reason why WebMD is unreliable, it's because there's a bunch of hooligans trying to look like doctors. It is an argument, stop trying to pass it off as irrelevant. If vaping causes a serious lung disease, isn't it the same as tobacco? If it has the same gum problems is it not the same as tobacco? So you spend your time trying to make everyone believe that vaping is so much better than tobacco, but I literally just proved it has some of the same symptoms, and leads to tobacco use.
  1. You STILL chose to discredit WebMD, even though the only real purpose I used WebMD in the first place was to give a general overview. There is no argument in trying to discredit these sources, even though you have used unreliable sources to begin with (USA Today). It is a completely irrelevant move in this context, and it did no effect in diminishing my points whatsoever.
  2. Again, you never made any argument about lung disease, gum disease, or any argument at all. Simply saying "vaping causes lung and gum disease makes it the same as tobacco" doesn't really prove anything. You did nothing to explain it except cite sources with no intent on developing an argument out of them. To address the audience, all Con has done in this debate is desperately try to rebut all of my points, while making blatant statements and following them with sources. That's not how argumentation works. At all. 
This is before people even knew about the long term affects of vaping. The lung disease and all that stuff was discovered after. Yes, if we were debating in 2017, I would gladly concede this point, but it's 2019.
Okay... and did you cite sources and properly provide argumentation as to why my use of sources is incorrect? No you did not. This study is still very credible modern day, otherwise it would have been redacted from the journal. There is no point to be made here. 

So now you're blaming it on the teens for choosing to vape. But shouldn't you blame the vapes for starting in the first place? Shouldn't you blame them for containing harmful materials, and making people want to smoke?
NOPE. I literally explained why that wasn't the case in R3. If I hit someone in the head with a glass bottle, I would be held responsible, not the bottle.

I never mentioned that you mentioned that "everyone who wants to quit smoking should first try vaping first" One of your pros was that it was only unique to vaping, and you literally mentioned other ways to quit in the same paragraph.
Your literal rhetoric has been trying to spin my arguments into the following phrase that I spelled out in R3. I never said that you did so explicitly, but given your responses and "arguments" it's not a real surprise that this comes off implicitly anyway.

So vaping is good because it is bad? Because it  is now worse than other things.
I never said that vaping is good because it is bad, but rather that it's a lesser evil than all others. Of course there are many other things better than vaping, but that's not what this debate is about. Like I have mentioned continuously in this debate, you had the single opportunity in R1 to define what this debate would be about, and you WAIVED my good sir. Therefore, you allocated that responsibility to me. 

Vaping doesn't have a proved capability to help people quit. As I said before, it is not yet proved that people can quit smoking effectively with vapes. And once they quit smoking, won't they have to deal with the harmfulness of vaping?
Again, I never said this. I said that it has the capability and potential to help smokers quit smoking. If something has the potential to be proved, then it's worth mentioning. Also, even if people have to deal with harmful chemicals in the aftermath of quitting smoking, then it's not like they'd be better off had they continued smoking to begin with. 

Just because something is worse than something bad, doesn't make that bad thing good. Vaping does have some positives, that's what makes it good. But does it even serve medication? No. There are tons of other things that make each and every drug unique, but it doesn't make it a positive. By your standards, marijuana is better than smoking, because it is more unique.
Again, you have completely misunderstood/misconstrued my arguments. Vaping has positives that are exclusive to it being a DRUG AS A WHOLE. I said it in R3 and I'll say it again; what I meant by unique was based off of it's positives and moral upbringing. You can't say that's the same for every other bad drug in existence.

I listed more side effects. You barely argued either, you literally used no sources for your argument. You can't judge who wins or not.
No, you haven't listed more "side effects." At least not in an effective way to support an argument. I have provided extensive argumentation. All you have done is rebut, and make white claims following them with sources. That's not how debate or argumentation works. And given this debate I can very well predict who the winner will be, and it's looking like it's going to be me.

CLOSING STATEMENT:

George Stigler, a Nobel Prize winning economist, once famously said the following phrase: "If you've never missed a flight, you're probably spending too much time in airports." This phrase has so many meanings that are mostly applied to profound mathematics and economics, but at the end of the day, Stigler sends a message that we all recognize. He sends a message about the concept of risk. If you don't want to miss your flight, you'll get to an airport much earlier than necessary, thus you would be spending too much time there. The best way to prevent an overall X is to do an overall Y. 

It's no surprise that this logic is applied to everyday life. The best way to not hurt yourself skiing is to not ski. The best way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. The safest way to ride a bike without a helmet is to, well, not ride a bike without a helmet. Ergo, the best way to prevent the worst from an action is to simply NOT DO THE ACTION. 

This, my friends, is the single stance that Con has taken up in his argumentation, and sadly, that is not what this debate is about. Con idealizes in an anti-pragmatic approach to this debate, and thus he has found himself at an airport, wasting his time. Repeatedly does Con bring up the notion that just because vaping is the best of evils doesn't make it good at the end of the day. Therefore, the solution at hand is to simply not vape at all.

However, that's all he says when delving deep into this debate, and it's not a realistic approach to the subject at hand. At the end of the day, people don't want to spend that much time in airports; they still want to ski, have unprotected sex, and will still ride bikes without helmets. All while considering the risks. The beauty in this concept is that evidently, people don't really care about the risks of their actions, (otherwise they wouldn't do those actions to begin with), but care rather whether or not they do the action to begin with.

Enter, Pro's side of this debate. Pro has conceded to the notion that vaping is evidently bad for your health right at the beginning, because it wouldn't make sense to tell people not to do something foolish, or to compare those that don't do foolish things against those who do. It doesn't make any sense and it would make that concept impossible to falsify. Everyone who doesn't ski will be much safer than those who do. Every girl who doesn't have sex will 100% not get pregnant compared to those who do. Every person who doesn't ride a bike will be safer than those who ride without, or even with a helmet to begin with. 

Thus, this debate has been about comparatives since the beginning, and for good reason. 

Pro has shown you extensive argumentation as to why vaping is inherently good compared to all other illegal drugs to begin with. Pro has also shown you that unlike every other illegal/bad drug in existence, vaping has a unique moral upbringing that is dedicated to help those quit smoking. In addition, Pro has also shown you that vaping has in fact been used in studies where it has been tried as a method of quitting smoking. Pro has shown you why teen smoking rates rise because of vaping, and it is at the foolish choices of teens, and the propagation of the media and mass marketing from businesses that has made vaping look cool. Pro has shown you how vaping does not nearly cause any of the drastic side effects that come with smoking or any other drug with credible sources. Finally, and most important of all, Pro engaged in actual argumentation, and has been able to prove every single burden on his side, whereas Con has been unable to do so. 

If there is a single aspect as to how you, the voter, should adjudicate this debate, then at the very least do so on argumentation. One side, Pro, has clearly participated to the fullest extent of this debate with proper argumentation. The other side, Con, has excused himself from this practice, and never made any clear arguments as to why vaping is bad within the context of this debate.

For all of those reasons, there is a very clear winner in this debate, and that winner is Pro. 

**A special thank you goes out to NotClub, for creating and contending this debate topic. If willing, I'd be happy to give each other feedback on our arguments.***
Added:
--> @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.
#34
Added:
--> @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?
#33
Added:
--> @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.
#32
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
What do you mean by "kamikaze" in your Reason for Decision?
#31
Added:
--> @Ragnar
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
#30
Added:
--> @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.
#29
Added:
--> @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
*******************************************************************
#28
Added:
--> @Exile
It's not a vote bomb.
Instigator
#27
Added:
Oh fuk I accidentally reported Ragnar's vote
Sorry Exile.
Instigator
#26
Added:
--> @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).
#25
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @Ragnar, @Christen
There wasn't any reasoning as to why Con won over Pro in arguments. This is a vote bomb.
Contender
#24
Added:
--> @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.
*******************************************************************
#23
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Now looking at the debate, I see that Exile probably did a better job
Instigator
#22
Added:
--> @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.”
#21
Added:
---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).
#20
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I have been asked by Exile to vote on this debate and will do so with no bias whatsoever.
At the time of posting this, to my knowledge, both users identify as male so such pronouns will be used.
In my eyes this debate is absolutely tied for three reasons:
1. Both sides equally fight for a BoP that makes their side the truism.
2. Both sides interact with the other by disregarding everything they say as relevant to the debate, despite giving nothing that would be relevant to the debate that the opponent wants to have.
3. While Pro goes through effort to prove that Vaping is entitled to remain a legal drug that shouldn't be abolished (yet), Con corner Pro into admitting that there is no real benefit to having it. In fact, a point that Club could have brought up is that if you do want the pleasure of smoking then why not go for the real thing with all the wonderful flavours, sensations etc. Why settle for vaping at all? (that would seem suicidal but as RM I respect kamikaze debating a lot, when it tears your opponent even further into hell than you go, because debating is about pure manipulation of logic, not about actually respecting it).
The reason that Con should objectively have gone kamikaze and done the method in my third reason for it tying (since he didn't do it) is that it sandwiches Pro into fighting off one angle with freedom to take drugs you like and fight off on another angle, the quality of the drug you're taking vs that of the real thing, in terms of pleasure of the experience.
The problem is that Club never sandwiches the BoP properly, enabling Pro to keep running 'the other way' and portraying a narrative of pleasure via drugs being an option all should be entitled to once old enough and that vaping is overall a not-so-harmful drug. On the other hand, Club does mitigate this with the example of lung disease from vaping THC and such, but he just mentions it. Barely expanding on a point and not truly hitting home that you're bringing up a completely decimating rebuttal to the entire case of Pro by explaining that THC, when smoked via vapes can actually kill people brutally, making them froth at the mouth etc. almost like a chemical acid attack, is far worse than the real 'weed', especially when taken on the most vulnerable to persuasion; the young adults / old teens, it really would have destroyed Pro MUCH MORE than Con realised. Con just left it at that and keeps hitting home that Vaping needn't be considered at all, because you don't need drugs for pleasure.
I reiterate, Con is on the side of this debate that enables the one debating it the ability to sandwich the opponent via BoP. He didn't take that but he DID ensure, through very soft barely developed hints at rebuttals via evidence brought forth and mentions of the harms not really outweighing the total lack of need (risk vs reward). Nonetheless, Pro defined the debate as one about whether vaping should be legal and allowed to exist for consenting angles to experience as a form of drug-triggered pleasure. It is clear neither side was having the same debate as the other.
Con was debating whether Vaping is good or bad for you, Pro was proposing the resolution that Vaping should be legalised. I don't understand how we can even say 'by default Pro gets to define the resolution' when it's Con who instigated the debate... Lol.
Both sides used sources fairly well, Con failed to truly develop on points when using them (explaining what points of Pro are most hit by the sources etc) but he does use the sources accurately and they are reliable, as were Pro's.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1395/comment_links/19864
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.