The Instigator
Cindela
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

Dihydrogen Monoxide can be harmful.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,972 times Debate No: 2285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (19)

 

Cindela

Pro

Dihydrogen Monoxide can be harmful. This may sound ridiculous to some, but it is true. Quoting dmho.org, the official site for dihydrogen monoxide, "Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol. "

As you can see, DMHO has many effects that are not good, and it can be harmful.

DMHO can contain deadly diseases, and often serves as a way for diseases to infect people.
Here are also some of the risks of DMHO:
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

Here are some of the ways people are using DMHO:
as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants,
by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
by elite athletes to improve performance,
in the production of Styrofoam,
in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
in cult rituals,
by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
by many terrorist organizations including al Quaeda,
in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software SDKs,
in animal research laboratories, and
in pesticide production and distribution.
as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
in spray-on oven cleaners,
in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.

Also, there actually is a link between DMHO and school violence. According to DMHO.org, every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved

Also, DMHO has been proven to boost athletic performance. Again quoting dmho.org, One technique commonly used by endurance athletes in sports such as distance running and cycling is to take a large amount of DHMO immediately prior to a race. This is known within racing circles to dramatically improve performance.

If you still don't believe me, then take a look at some of the effects of too much DMHO:
Excessive sweating
Excessive urination
Bloated feeling
Nausea
Vomiting
Electrolyte imbalance
Hyponatremia (serum hypotonicity)
Dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood
Degeneration of sodium homeostasis

I hope that you are convinced that DMHO can be harful, and if you are not, debate me.

P.S. For more information, go to dmho.org
Yraelz

Con

Okay before I start truly debating I would like to get your advocacy on this issue. By spending one round.

Are you advocating that Di-Hydrogen monoxide should be banned then? Or if not what will your advocacy be. Obviously something needs to be done right?
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Pro

To answer your question, I will ask another: Why does it matter? I am not advocating the ban of DMHO. I am not advocating anything except that DMHO can be harmful.
Yraelz

Con

Hehehe, smart debater. Alright I will take your challenge.

So let us begin first off we need to clear up the misconception you are giving our voters:

Dihydrogen monoxide which literally means 2 hydrogens 1 oxygen. A chemical compound often abbreviated as H(2)0 or in laymen terms water.

Yes Dihydrogen monoxide is common everyday water. Which the human body is compromised of so yes in every situation he stated there will be water found. However this does not make water dangerous. My opponent supposes that because water is present during all of these events that water has caused them all. This is fallacy. It would be like saying the rooster crows when the sun comes up thus the sun comes up because the rooster crows. Obviously not true.

Thus my contention. In every single example that my opponent gave, if water had anything to do with the damage, it was not the water doing the damage but rather human application of the water. Water in itself cannot be dangerous, humans must always manipulate water in some way to make it dangerous. Under my opponents idea of what is dangerous we can assume everything to be dangerous. This destroys the idea of the word dangerous, as if everything is potentially dangerous, there is no point labeling anything dangerous.

For example a pencil can be used to stab someone however it was not the pencil that was dangerous in said situation but rather the person stabbing people with it.

I challenge my opponent to offer one example where water is actually being dangerous in itself.
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Pro

>>Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.

Here are three examples that I gave in my first argument. They are all things that DMHO can do, and they are not because of "human application." Is it the humans fault that DMHO can cause soil erosion? Is it the fault of the humans if solid DMHO is put on exposed tissue for a long time, it will cause severe tissue damage? Is it man kinds fault that DMHO can corrode and oxidate many metals? My opponent has said that all of my examples was because of the human application. I have just shown that not to be true.

>>Which the human body is compromised
I would just like to point out that if people were made of water and water only, then we would be water. Not people. We are not made out of only water.

>>Yes Dihydrogen monoxide is common everyday water. Which the human body is compromised of so yes in every situation he stated there will be water found. However this does not make water dangerous. My opponent supposes that because water is present during all of these events that water has caused them all.

I am not saying that water is causing KKK marches. I am not saying that water is the cause of the Church of Scientology. Those examples that I am assuming you are reffering to are only examples of ways people use DMHO.

>>Water in itself cannot be dangerous, humans must always manipulate water in some way to make it dangerous.
Here is where you are wrong. Water CAN be dangerous. If you drink too much of it, you can vomit. If you inhale even a small amount of water, you can die. DMHO in a gaseous form can cause severe burns. I think that a severe burn can count as an instance where DMHO can be harmful!!!

In case you misunderstood this topic, this topic is about whether or not DMHO (or water, as some like to call it) CAN be harmful. Keyword being "can." I would like to give a definition of "can" from Merriam Webster:
to be able to do, make, or accomplish
My opponent has challenged my to show one way that DMHO is harmful by itself. Keep reading for the reasons:

As I have shown, DMHO able to cause harm, it can accomplish harm, and it can be harmful. DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL!!! SEVERE BURNS, DEATH DUE TO ACCIDENTAL INHALATION, SEVERE TISSUE DAMAGE, THERE ARE ONLY SOME WAYS WHERE DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL. THANK YOU

P.S. I don't know if you knew this, but on January 12, 2007, a woman died from drinking too much water. She had taken part in a water drinking contest hosted by a local radio station, and she drank about 2 gallons of water. Too much water can dilute your blood stream , and lower your electrolyte levels in your blood. This excess water can seep into your cells, causing them to bulge. If this happens in your brain, you can experience headaches and impaired breathing. Also, your kidneys can gat damaged from trying to flush out all the water. For more information go to http://drbenkim.com...
Yraelz

Con

Sweet, lets go line by line on your arguments. I challenged you to give me a way in which water can be harmful. You have failed and I will show you how.

"Here are three examples that I gave in my first argument. hey are all things that DMHO can do, and they are not because of "human application.""

"Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage."

>>This is very much human application. The human has to touch the ice in order for it cause tissue damage, and for a long time at that. Last time I checked ice doesn't run around and attack people. It is indeed people touching ice. If there was a warning sign for this it would say "touching the ice can be harmful" not "if the ice attacks you it can be harmful". You are debating whether water can be harmful, not whether being stupid can be harmful. This is human stupidity, nothing to do with ice.

"Contributes to soil erosion. "

>>Soil erosion = natural. Not harmful. It happens everyday everywhere. Soil eroding doesn't actually cause harm. Someone building their house on a place where soil is eroding could cause harm but this is once again human application. Warning sign, "Don't build your house on cliff, this could be harmful."

"Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. "

>>Once again a natural phenomenon and once again even if someone thinks its harmful it is human application. "Don't leave your bike in the rain" ever heard someone say that before?

"Here is where you are wrong. Water CAN be dangerous. If you drink too much of it, you can vomit. If you inhale even a small amount of water, you can die. DMHO in a gaseous form can cause severe burns. I think that a severe burn can count as an instance where DMHO can be harmful!!!"

>> Once again this is human application. Drinking to much water can be dangerous. Its not the water that is dangerous it is you drinking the water that is dangerous. Warning label, "drinking to much water is dangerous" not "caution: water may attempt to make you drink to much of it". Notice the difference between the subjects in those sentences. Onto your second one you say inhaling water. Same argument, its you inhaling the water that is dangerous, the water itself poses no threat to you. Its what you do with the water. Water in gaseous forms can cause severe burns.... same, don't attempt to stick your hand over the boiling water pot.

Onto your definition for can: "to be able to do, make, or accomplish"
Water itself is not able to do anything. It doesn't posses will, or ability. Something must manipulate water to do something. Water on its own cannot do anything.

"As I have shown, DMHO able to cause harm, it can accomplish harm, and it can be harmful. DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL!!! SEVERE BURNS, DEATH DUE TO ACCIDENTAL INHALATION, SEVERE TISSUE DAMAGE, THERE ARE ONLY SOME WAYS WHERE DMHO CAN BE HARMFUL. THANK YOU"

>>All ways that we can be harmful to ourselves. All ways that humans can be dangerous to themselves.

"P.S. I don't know if you knew this, but on January 12, 2007, a woman died from drinking too much water. She had taken part in a water drinking contest hosted by a local radio station, and she drank about 2 gallons of water. Too much water can dilute your blood stream , and lower your electrolyte levels in your blood. This excess water can seep into your cells, causing them to bulge. If this happens in your brain, you can experience headaches and impaired breathing. Also, your kidneys can gat damaged from trying to flush out all the water. For more information go to http://drbenkim.com...;

>>You only go to prove my point.... "Woman died from drinking too much water" not "Water makes woman drink it thereby killing her". This is once again human application of stupidity. It was the woman drinking to much water that lead to her death. It was her over-drinking that was dangerous in this situation not the water itself.

You leave my last argument standing thus without refutation I am going to repost so that everyone understands why your logic is wrong.

"Thus my contention. In every single example that my opponent gave, if water had anything to do with the damage, it was not the water doing the damage but rather human application of the water. Water in itself cannot be dangerous, humans must always manipulate water in some way to make it dangerous. Under my opponents idea of what is dangerous we can assume everything to be dangerous. This destroys the idea of the word dangerous, as if everything is potentially dangerous, there is no point labeling anything dangerous.

For example a pencil can be used to stab someone however it was not the pencil that was dangerous in said situation but rather the person stabbing people with it."

And finally, I would appreciate if everyone voted on who did the better debating/convincing even though I realize that probably won't really happen. If anybody has an application of water in which the water is actually being dangerous I would like to hear it in the comment section. Just please don't vote on it as it is your own argument and not my opponents. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I was very impressed with Con's response to the initial argument, complete and total trap.

Nice try Pro, but no cigar XD
Posted by DonaldAbraham 9 years ago
DonaldAbraham
Way to steal a Penn & Teller joke...
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I was actually edging on the idea that my opponent would attempt provide a counter advocacy that I could attack. The approach I took was basically last choice if he didn't. However having lost a round with the pointless question it made it imperative that he offered some form of new argument in his last speech that I would have to reply to.

On the same note he didn't bother attacking my logic in round 2 in his final speech, instead he decided to play my game.

Game = "prove to me it doesn't have human application"

Had he attacked the point and said something to the effect of "human application doesn't matter to prove something harmful" then he could have easily won. But he conceded the point, played my game, and lost to it because its not a very easy game to win for him.

The tornado point may have resulted in winning. =)
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
I would think that people are possibly indirectly responsible for the harm caused to a bike left out in the rain, but I see no valid reasoning for denying that the rain is actually causing harm to the bike, in a very direct way.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Exactly what I am saying actually beem0r. =) I'm advocating people being responsible for their actions, and that only things that are living can possess harm.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
victor: We know that DHMO is Water. Con even said so in round 2. However, the debate that water can be harmful is still a valid one. Pro provided a good case for why water can be harmful, Con rebutted using arguments based on false premises, as I said and showed in my other comment.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
victork, they're doing this as a joke, if you cannot clearly see that. The got Dihydrogen Monoxide from an episode of "Bullsh*t" where they were going around asking people to ban it. And a lot of the said that we should ban H2O.
Posted by victork 9 years ago
victork
You Are offically a screw ball and an idiot. DHMO is Water H2O di-two hydogen atoms and mono=1 and there is one oxygen atom. any body who took chimestry in High School could figure that one out
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
I vote pro because I thought Con used some false premises.

First, Con used "it's a natural phenomenon" as an argument. This is completely irrelevant. Tornados do harm. They are also natural.

Second, Con used "it's a human application" as an argument. This is also irrelevant. Whether I left my bike out in the rain or I had no say in it, on a fundamental level, water is the culprit doing the damage to my bike. The very structure of my bike is being harmed, and water is the one causing this harm. Ergo, harmful.

Using yraelz's logic, guns cannot be harmful, nor can knives, missiles, bombs, needles, 2x4's, automobiles, ovens, particle accelerators, drugs, unprotected sex, etc.

Just because something is not actively seeking to harm you of its own will doesn't mean it cannot be harmful.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sdcharger 7 years ago
sdcharger
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Twisted_Juliet420 9 years ago
Twisted_Juliet420
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
CindelaYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03