Argumentative speech

Formal Outline: Argumentative Exercise

Topic: The inclusion of electronic cigarettes in Idaho State University’s smoking ban.
General Purpose: To Argue
Specific Purpose: To convince the audience that Idaho State University should not include electronic cigarettes in its smoking ban.
Thesis Statement: Electronic cigarettes should not be included in Idaho State University’s smoking ban because: (1) the use of electronic cigarettes helps smokers quit smoking; (2) electronic cigarettes are a cheaper alternative to tobacco; (3) electronic cigarettes do not pose any health risks to bystanders from second hand smoke.

Introduction

I. [ Attention getter ] Are you truly concerned about your health?
II. [ Topic justification ] Recently, Idaho State University has put in place a smoking ban on campus that includes electronic cigarettes.
A. Although they cannot be marketed as a smoking cessation device, electronic cigarettes help users quit smoking.
B. Idaho State President Arthur Vailas says “the policy is consistent with our focus on health and wellness”. ( Idaho State Tribune, 2013)
C. I will argue that electronic cigarettes do not impose any unwanted health risks to non-smokers and should not be included in the ban.
III. [ Credibility statement ]My name is Cameron. I was a smoker for over twenty years.
A. Electronic cigarettes provided me a safer alternative to tobacco.
B. I did not have to quit cold turkey.
C. I would not be smoke free today if it wasn’t for electronic cigarettes.
D. I have tried nicotine patches, pharmaceuticals, and lozenges.
IV. [Thesis statement ] Idaho State University should not include electronic cigarettes in the smoking ban.
A. First, electronic cigarettes can help smokers quit smoking.
B. Secondly, Electronic cigarettes are by far, a cheaper alternative to tobacco.
C. Lastly, despite the oppositions’ claim, electronic cigarettes do not pose any health risks to non-smokers through second hand smoke.
Transition: Many organizations and businesses offer people ways to help them quit smoking. Although electronic cigarettes are not to be marketed as helping people to quit smoking, they have been studied and proven to be an effective alternative, which is my first argument.
Body
I. [Constructive argument] Electronic cigarettes have been proven to help smokers quit smoking just as effectively if not more, than patches.
A. A study in New Zealand, reported that after six months of study, electronic cigarettes had a quit rate of 7.3% versus 5.8% of those that were given patches (Simon, cancer.org, Sept 2013).
1. The test was given to 657 smokers.
2. Study lasted for six months
B. Using e-cigarettes cuts mean consumption by two cigarettes per day more than the patch (Phend, MedPagetoday, Sept 2013).
Transition: So you can see that studies have proven that e-cigs are a reliable method of smoking cessation. My second argument will show how e-cigs are a more inexpensive way to quit smoking.
II. [Constructive argument] Using electronic cigarettes is by far a cheaper avenue to go down than using pharmaceuticals or nicotine patches.
A. At Walgreens, their generic box of 170 pieces of nicotine gum costs $49.49(walgreens.com Oct 2013).
1. Recommended dosage is at least 9 pieces a day for the first six weeks.
2. In an average month, a user can expect to consume roughly a box and a half costing about $75.00.
B. For $65.00, an e-cig user can purchase 250 ml of juice (ecblendflavors.com Sept 2013).
1. Average users have a consumption of 3-4 ml per day (International Journal of Environmental research and public health, 2013).
2. For the $65.00 spent, a user is supplied for nearly 63 days.
Transition: It is easy to see that quitting smoking with electronic cigarettes is cheaper than conventional methods of quitting. Lastly, I will address the argument of those who oppose not including e-cigs in the ban.
III. [Refutative argument] Those who support the ban of electronic cigarettes on campus say that it poses a health risk to non-smokers, I have two reasons to disagree with that.
A. [Attack the evidence] My first reason to not agree that e-cigs impose a health risk to non-smokers, is a basic lack of evidence to support the claim.
1. In October of 2012, The Center for Air Resources Science and Engineering, from Clarkston University in New York, took part in a study to test the emitted vapor of electronic cigarettes (informahealthcare.com Oct, 2012).
a. The study was done in a small room.
b. Found no apparent risk to human health. 2. The main ingredient in the electronic cigarette liquid is propylene glycol (ecblendflavorshop.com)
a. Also the main ingredient in fog machines.
b. Has been approved by the FDA as a safe ingredient for food and medicine since 1973(U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2006)
B. [Attack reasoning] Secondly I have to disagree with the ban of electronic cigarettes, because they impose a health risk from second hand smoke, is the fact that if they pose no risk in a small enclosed room, then they surely don’t pose a risk outdoors.
C. [Denial] Finally, I disagree that electronic cigarettes pose a risk to non-smokers from second hand smoke simply because there is no second hand smoke.
C.1.1. Traditional cigarettes require the user to burn the tobacco.
C.1.1.a. This produces a constant stream of smoke full of carcinogens.
C.1.1.b. The smell lingers in the air and tends to stay around for long periods of time.
C.1.2. Electronic cigarettes do not burn anything.
C.1.2.a. The vapor is atomized on a coil through a positive and negative charge.
C.1.2.b. There is no constant source of fumes.
D. [Impact statement] To summarize all this information, electronic cigarettes pose no significant health risk to non-smokers rather provide an effective alternative to help users quit.
Transition: It is apparent that the usage of electronic cigarettes in fact do not impose any significant health risk to non-smokers. I would like to go back over the reasons that Idaho State University should not include them in the smoking ban on campus.

Conclusion
I. [Summary of main ideas] I have given you three reasons that Idaho State University should not include electronic cigarettes in the smoking ban.
A. First reason is, e-cigs have been proven as effective, if not more, than other means of helping users quit smoking.
B. Second, I sowed you how much cheaper it is to pursue electronic cigarettes over the other means of quitting.
C. Third, I talked about how in fact, there are no significant health risks from second hand smoke of electronic cigarettes.
II. [Closing statement] I am not saying I think that the campus should be a smoking campus, I am simply stating that the university should not include electronic cigarettes into the ban. Works Cited
“Idaho State Latest Campus to Adapt Smoking Ban” Idaho Press Tribune. Idaho Press Tribune, Aug 25 2012. http://www.idahopress.com/news/state/idaho-state-latest-campus-to-adopt-smoking-ban. Web. Oct 24 2013.

Simon, Stacey. “Study Compares E-Cigarettes to Quit-Smoking Aids” American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society, Sept 10 2013. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/studycomparese-cigarettestoquit-smokingaids. Web. Oct 18 2013.

Phend, Crystal. “E-Cigarette Might Help Smoker Quit” MedPage Today. MedPage Today. Sept 7 2013. http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ERS/41439. Web. Oct 18 2013.

“Walgreens Nicotine Gum, 4 mg Original” Walgreens Pharmacy. Walgreens Pharmacy. http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/walgreens-nicotine-gum%2c-4-mg-original/ID=prod1650107-product. Web. Oct 25 2013.

“7 Leaf Tobacco Blend” EC Blend. ecblendflavors.com. http://www.ecblendflavors.com/7-leaf-tobacco-blend-eliquid-flavor/. Web. Oct 29 2013.

Environ, J. “Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette Use (Vaping) Topography and Estimation of Liquid Consumption: Implications for Research Protocol Standards Definition and for Public Health Authorities’ Regulation” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013. www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph. Web. Oct 15 2013.

T. R. McAuley, P. K. Hopke, J. Zhao, S. Babaian. “Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality”. Informa Healthcare. October 2012. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728. Web. Oct 25 2013

“Propylene Glycol” FDA. United States Food and Drug Administration. 1973. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=scogsListing&id=262. Web. Oct 25 2013.

Enthymemes
Categorical Enthymeme
Major Premise: Smoking has second hand negative side effects.
Minor Premise: Electronic Cigarettes are a form of smoking.
Conclusion: Electronic Cigarettes have negative side effects.
Tests:
1. The terms are in the correct place. Major term (negative side effects) is in the major premise and the conclusion. Minor term (Electronic Cigarettes) is in the minor premise and the conclusion. Middle term (smoking) is in the major and minor premise.
2. The middle term is used in its universal sense.
3. Both the major premise and the conclusion are negative.

Categorical Enthymeme
Major Premise: Second hand smoke causes health risks to non-smokers.
Minor premise: Electronic Cigarettes produce second hand smoke.
Conclusion: Electronic Cigarettes cause health risks to non-smokers.
Tests:
1. Each term is used twice.
2. The conclusion is negative following the major premise.
3. Only three terms appear.