Cigarette is my best friend

Since I hold this position, your task is to convince me that cigarette is not my best friend.

And after you post your round, I will tell you in comments if I am convinced or not. this doesnt affect how voters vote.

Round 1

1 of 1

SatanLucy

Pro #1

Ultimately, the decision on who my best friend is - my decision.

I dont consider any person my friend, let alone best friend.

However, what are qualities of a best friend?

She makes you very happy
When she is not there, you miss her a lot
You enjoy her company
She is a cigarette

Cigarette has all these properties. And I used "her" because in Bosnian language, cigarette has female gender. It is not addressed as "it", but rather, when someone in Bosnian says "that girl (ta djevojka)" or "that cigarette (ta cigara)", the "that" is spoken same. But its not same when saying things like "that boy (taj momak)". So difference between ta (female gender), taj (male gender) or to (non-male non-female gender. "ta" refers to female gender, and cigarette in Bosnian is referred to as "ta cigara", "ova (also female gender word for "that") cigara"..ect.

But enough talk about how Bosnian language gives gender to objects.

Lets put it very simply. You can make up 10000 reasons for why cigarette isnt my best friend, and I can likewise reject those reasons and just use different definition of best friend where I define most desirable thing in my life to be cigarette, and most desirable = best friend by my definition.

Of course, some arguments such as "cigarette harms you" are expected. But such are best friends. they sometimes hurt each other, but they dont stop being best friends.

OranjeDisco

Con #2

Interesting topic.

Framework?

Scientifical realism is, when we are given an object that can be empiricaly studied, by general consensus, the way we look at things.

https://anjanchakravartty.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/what-is-scientific-realism.pdf

https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/28471/1/Scientific%20realism.pdf

1. Objective truth is more important than "subjective truth"

First we have to agree that, it doesn't matter if you believe our solar system is geocentric, it is heliocentric.

In order to think rationaly (i'm supposing you don't want to be irrationnal), when it comes to describing the factual reality or the physical consequences of an action, we have to admit objective and empirical evidence carries more weight than individual feelings.

Believing the grass is purple even tho it is green makes you wrong, whatever your view/opinion may be.

If an objective claim that has been scientificaly and empiricaly proven says that A is bad for you, then except with additionnal proof saying otherwise, we must, in order to be rational, take A as bad for you.

Thinking/believing A is good for you (because A makes you feel good for example) isn't an argument by itself, because if the empirical proofs show that it is bad for you, then the only rational way to think is to believe A is bad for you.

https://fitelson.org/confirmation/hume_enquiry.pdf

2. Objective evidences: cigarettes are wrong for you

So we are set. Objective evidences are more important when it comes to what is good for you.

And so, on the topic of cigarettes, what does the evidence say? Well, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO),

1. Tobacco kills up to half of its users who don’t quit (link below)

2. Tobacco kills more than 7 million people each year, including an estimated 1.6 million non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke.

3. More than 16 million Americans live with a disease caused by smoking.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco

The objective evidences are heavy, and well documented, and they're all agreeing with something: smoking is objectively overall bad for you.

According to this article:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10625450/

Smoking:

Smoking is undisputedly a significant risk factor in the development of many chronic illnesses in humans and thus is a hurdle in living a healthy and happy life. The adverse effects smoking has on the proper functioning of the human body should seldom be neglected. The impact of smoking on the various systems of the human body has been tried to be incorporated in this review article. To completely sum up the effects of smoking in a single article is nearly impossible, as hardly one could find an organ system that is unaffected by smoking. The health benefits that could be achieved due to smoking cessation and the overall well-being it could bring to the community is a highly desirable phenomenon. As smoking is a risk factor in the causation of various diseases, abstinence from smoking provides huge protection from several ailments. The issue of passive smoking also needs to be acknowledged and addressed appropriately to ensure the safety of those who don't smoke. Advanced research, which is currently ongoing, promises to achieve a greater understanding of the various unknown aspects of smoking and hopefully let these studies enlighten more and more smokers and prevent them from dooming their lives with smoke.

3. It's even worse, smoking affects others.

Indeed, second-hand smoke exposure is actualy a huge cause of diseases.

- - - - -

1. Secondhand smoke exposure contributes to over 40,000 deaths among nonsmoking adults and 400 deaths in infants each year

2. In adults, secondhand smoke can cause coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer.

3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk for respiratory infections, ear infections, asthma attacks, and sudden infant death syndrome.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/index.html

By smoking, you are not only harming yourself, but you are harming others around you too.

It goes beyond subjective experience ; it's also about causing problems to others.

Empathy is also on the lign.

4. Is it too late? Can you quit this "best friend" of yours? Is it a good idea?

Yes it is.

According to the center for diseases control:

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/benefits-of-quitting.html

Quitting smoking:

Reduces the risk of disease and death from cardiovascular disease.

Reduces markers of inflammation and hypercoagulability.

Leads to rapid improvement in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels.

Reduces the development of subclinical atherosclerosis and slows its progression over time.

Reduces the risk of coronary heart disease with risk falling sharply 1-2 years after cessation and then declining more slowly over the longer term.

Reduces the risk of disease and death from stroke, with risk approaching that of never smokers after cessation.

Reduces the risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm, with risk reduction increasing with time since cessation.

May reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation, sudden cardiac death, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

In Fine (Synthesis)

(i) Empirical evidences are more important than subjective experience when it comes to the benefits or harms of an object (check 1.)

(ii) Empirical evidences show that smoking cigarettes is harmful (check 2.)

(iii) If an object is harmful, then in order to think rationaly and for your better good (check 1.), you should avoid the object.

(iiii) You should avoid smoking cigarettes.

Good Luck to my opponent !

whiteflame Global Moderator

#24

--> @Kohai, @SatanLucy, @OranjeDisco

>Reported Vote: Kohai // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: doesnt-vote-basis-arguments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Generally speaking, if your RFD requires delving into the comments, it's going to be a little problematic. Decisions have to be based on points made within the debate and not drawn from material posted outside of it. I also think you need to at least talk about arguments presented by both sides, even if it's just to point out how they're insufficient to affirm/negate.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#23

---Kohai's former vote---
Voted for: pro
This is unfortuantely a trap debate with no way for con to actually win. The burden of proof is for con to prove to pro that cigarettes are not their best friend. In the comment section, they stated "thats okay, I read your argument. I am not convinced." Which means that pro automatically wins. Essentially no matter how good con's arguments are they would always lose because pro would simply say they were not convinced.

OranjeDisco

#22

Knew that was a loss by advance, but I strongly believe that, despite all this "debating context", you should, as an individual, if you have the occasion to, stop smoking.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#21

--> @SatanLucy, @OranjeDisco, @Isabella

>Reported Vote: Isabella // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:
Votes must include specific analysis of arguments presented by both sides. Saying that one side's points were "well written" or "explained" is not sufficient since it doesn't analyze the content of either side's arguments - even points that are better written or explained may not be the strongest in the debate.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#20

---Isabella's former vote---
Voted for: con
The argument was well written and explained compared to the other one.

SatanLucy

#19

--> @OranjeDisco

"If every definition falls into my point there's no point giving any"

No definition = No definition falls into your point

OranjeDisco

#18

--> @SatanLucy

If every definition falls into my point there's no point giving any ; you're arguing the outter part of the argument and not really the main of what i said

SatanLucy

#17

--> @OranjeDisco

"I didn't need to provide a proper definition"

No definition = No deductive logic possible.

OranjeDisco

#16

--> @SatanLucy

I didn't need to provide a proper definition, because any definition makes my point. My point was about the compatibility of friendship (a relation based on trust and positive experience) and cigarettes, and I proved that cigarettes cannot be objectively good. If cigarettes are bad for you then they are by definition bad. (Plus, a cigarette being personified is rationaly impossible). My point was about proving the impossibility of being good, (therefore obviously not falling under any proper definition of "friendship".)

An epistemic way of debating is indeed a way to do things, but I mean, seriously, debating about the significance of a word? Instead I nullified the ability of cigarettes to be positive. And by definition a friendship is positive (if we suppose cigarettes can be a friend, which they cannot).

SatanLucy

#15

--> @OranjeDisco

If you want to know why your argument fails, it's this:

My structure was:

Best friend = X
Cigarette = X
Best friend = cigarette.

Your structure, at the very minimum, should have been:

Best friend = Y
Cigarette =\= Y
Best friend =\= cigarette.

But with no definition of best friend provided anywhere in your one round, thus no "Best friend = Y", the deductive structure in your argument is non-existent.

So yeah, if you plan to convince me, you at very least need to provide definition of "best friend", which you didn't do.

SatanLucy

#14

--> @OranjeDisco

"It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. It is factual to say cigarettes are not your best friend, regardless on how you see things."

Incorrect again.

OranjeDisco

#13

--> @Savant

Instead of studying what Con talked about**

OranjeDisco

#12

--> @Savant

The key point you are missing is that an object and a relationship between two individuals doesn't work the same way.

1. A friendship needs reciprocity, intentions and relational capacity. A cigarette doesn't have a consciousness, and it cannot literally be a friend because friendship requires mutual agency and reciprocity.

-> that was so obvious i didn't mention it. I wanted objective claims. Attacking a word wouldn't convince them ; that was my whole point of debating

2. Missing something does not make it friendship.
Drug addicts also miss heroin. That does not make heroin their best friend.

-> Again, see how it's even easier to attack friendship ? But it's pointless.

3. In your vote Savant, instead of studying what Pro talked about on the topic, you discussed about what they COULD have talked about. Not to mention I had to pick a framework and stick by it ; not taking into account I only had one round and no chance of replying to any opposition.

OranjeDisco

#11

--> @SatanLucy

It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. It is factual to say cigarettes are not your best friend, regardless on how you see things.

Savant Administrator

#10

I think SatanLucy's definition was along the lines of "Epstein might be Bob's best friend, but it doesn't mean he is good for Bob."

Savant Administrator

--> @OranjeDisco

"i thought that when someone says something is their best friend, it means that it's good for them"

I would have accepted a definition along those lines if you had said/defended something and attacked Pro's definition more directly. But as it stands, if one side tells me how to interpret the resolution and the other side doesn't, I have to go with the interpretation provided.

OranjeDisco

After re-reading, I don't really see how it doesn't come in that definition either tho so

OranjeDisco

I see, i thought that when someone says something is their best friend, it means that it's good for them. Like if aspirin is your best friend, it's because it's good for you. That's why I was attacking this, not really the epistemic way of things :00

SatanLucy

--> @OranjeDisco

thats okay, I read your argument. I am not convinced.

OranjeDisco

--> @SatanLucy

Ignore my last sentence, i thought there were more rounds :'l

SatanLucy

--> @OranjeDisco

I dont need to defend anything. I merely need to state my position and ignore all counter arguments.

OranjeDisco

--> @SatanLucy

Curious to see how you'll defend cigarettes ^^

SatanLucy

--> @ChatKnight

Try accepting the debate.

ChatKnight

--> @SatanLucy

Your "best friend" is trying to kill you.

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Both sides provided a framework for their argument, but only Pro's framework gives me a way to judge whether something is a best friend. This is an is debate, not an ought debate. Con makes a strong argument that Pro ought to quit smoking but falls short of arguing that the cigarette is not Pro's best friend. There could be a connection between these things depending on how best friend is defined, but Con never defines it.

Meanwhile, Pro gives a specific set of criteria for being a best friend (happy, enjoying company) and claims that cigarettes meet the criteria, which isn't really challenged by Con. Con claims judgments should be objective but doesn't give alternate criteria, and as written, "cigarettes make Pro happy" might be objectively true. Pro also pre rebuts much of Con's case by saying that best friends "sometimes hurt each other, but they dont stop being best friends."

Con asking "Can you quit this "best friend" of yours?" doesn't help their case also. It almost implies they are just accepting that cigarettes are Pro's best friend and saying that is a bad thing, instead of arguing the resolution.

Round 1

1. Objective truth is more important than "subjective truth"

2. Objective evidences: cigarettes are wrong for you

3. It's even worse, smoking affects others.

4. Is it too late? Can you quit this "best friend" of yours? Is it a good idea?

In Fine (Synthesis)

New comment