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

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.