The Instigator
lorca
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Who
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned

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: 8/3/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,135 times Debate No: 4896
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

lorca

Pro

Based from research completed at the United States Environmental Assessment Center, Dihydrogen monoxide:

•is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
•contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.
•may cause severe burns.
•accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
•may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
•has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Additionally, dihydrogen monoxide is found in many of the foods we eat, used as a solvent in most pesticides (and cannot be removed even after washing.) Athletes use dihydrogen monoxide as a performance enhancing substance, a leading component in all alcoholic beverages, and also sold as a main ingredient in household cleaners. Inhalation of this chemical can cause almost certain death if medical treatment is not administered immediately. For those who have become dependent, dihydrogen monoxide withdrawal means almost certain death. The worst part is that it is found in every lake, river, and ocean.

I propose that this substance should be banned, and more information about this dangerous chemical can be found at www.dhmo.org and http://www.netreach.net...

Those of you familiar with the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide please refrain from commenting until my opponent's first round has been posted.
Who

Con

Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence.

Banning dihydrogen monoxide would destroy our race, as well as any other lifeforms we prevent from using it.

Here are some other facts about dihydrogen monoxide:

Humans are made up mostly of it.
The earth's surface is made up mostly of it.
It can be used as a coolant.
All plant and animal life requires it to live.
It is a neccessary ingredient in many foods and almost all beverages.
It is what we clean ourselves with.
It's fun and good exercise to swim in it.

Yes, water can do many harmful things.

Being known as hydric acid is not something wrong with water. It's simply another name. Sure, it sounds dangerous, but it's not. And water isn't even acidic.

Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life.

Boiling water or steam can burn someone - but then again, so can anything, if you get it hot enough.

Water does indeed contribute to rusting. However, rain takes blame for most of this effect, and we surely aren't going to stop it from raining any time soon.

The fact that it can cause electrical failures and cause brakes to function worse is no reason to ban water. Oil or dish soap would both also reduce the effectiveness of brakes, and a great many things are capable of causing electrical failures, including metal - which is necessary for transporting electricity in the first place. In any case, the human use of water is not what causes these effects, it is once again rain, which we cannot ban.

The fact that water has been found in excised tumors is also no reason to ban it. Association does not imply causation. Perhaps the reason e find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water. Indeed, that seems like a much more reasonable conclusion, since one would expect a mostly-water organsm to have some water in its tumors.

So, in conclusion, we should not ban water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) for many reasons. First, it is impractical. How are we to ban water? As my opponent himself pointed out, it exists so many places in nature. Indeed, it covers most of the surface of the earth, and it is the main component of rain. We cannot ban something like that.

Second, it would be disastrous to all life for us to ban it, assuming that was possible. We need water to survive, as does the majority (perhaps all?) of life on this planet.

Third, my opponent has given us no good reason to ban it. The only negative things he's sown that actually have causation are things caused by natural rain (rusting, trouble for brakes, electrical problems).

And lastly, the luxuries we enjoy from water - such as the ability to keep clean and the ability to have fun at a lake, beach, pool, or other body of water, would be lost if we somehow 'banned' water.

Your move.
Debate Round No. 1
lorca

Pro

First, thank you Who for taking and responding this debate so quickly.

I'm glad, Who, that you knew exactly what dihydrogen monoxide is. While I was hoping for someone who didn't know, I am prepared to refute my claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned.

Yes, Dihydrogen monoxide is hydric acid, H20, or water . However, a qualification has not been set to what it should be banned from, to, or from where. Actually gathering up all of the dihydrogen monoxide in this world would be imposible, as there is no container big enough to fit all of the water in the world simultaneously.

According to http://www.dhmo.org... , Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made.

However, fictional and non-fictional, I will limit this debate showing why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned in any form, thus as the resolution does not qualify that "all" dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. I propose that if I find any reason why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, I win the debate.

1. Dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from all mogwai.

After watching Gremlins, I would strongly suggest that dihydrogen monoxide NOT be placed on any mogwai, for any reason, what so ever. In spite of the fact that this causes mogwai to reproduce, the potential for harm from one mogwai can be detrimental to society. This can clearly be seen in the Gremlin series of movies.

On a side note, I'm sure that all wicked witches, regardless of their directionality, would support a ban of dihydrogen monoxide, as that book and movie "The Wizard of Oz" has clearly shown that when placed upon the skin of a wicked witch, it causes almost certain death. However, I am not a proponent of wicked witches, so I do not plan on supporting this stance.

2. Contaminated dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from drinking and entering all other sources

In third world countires, it is determined that bad drinking water kills 4000 children a day. http://www.unicef.org... Additionally, grey-water runoff from farms, factories, and sewer drains causes a contamination of drinking water supplies making water undrinkable and potentially carcinogenic.

"Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life."

Yes, dihydrogen monoxide does in fact contribute to our warmth and weather patterns. But it is also a leading cause of damages in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and various other weather related phenomena.

Is rain not dihydrogen monoxide? The last time I went out in the rain I'm pretty sure it converted to water. Please inform me if someone else has had any experiences of being rained on by nature by something other than water.

"Perhaps the reason we find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water".

One of the leading causes of tumors is contaminated dihydrogen monoxide. While I will agree that it is not dihydrogen monoxide in its pure form that is causing the cancer; instead, it is the vector. Many communities already have a ban on dihydrogen monoxide if the chemicals in it are not safe for human consumption.

3. A ban on dihydrogen monoxide does not necessarily mean a ban of the chemical, rather a ban on the use of dihydrogen monoxide.

Frequently, during summer months, many states, counties, and municipalities impose bans on water. This is due to the shortage of dihydrogen monoxide, not the complete prohibition of the substance. Since this is done to preserve the continued supply of water, the con is suggesting that in times of drought, we should not ban or ration water supplies.

Most importantly, the con is suggesting that we never place a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. While I will admit that it is a vital and necessary component in all this organic, Who is suggesting that no ban should, in any form, be placed upon it.
Who

Con

My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is "prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned"

Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job!

Seriously, though.

MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so.

But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - "Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made."

Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time.
I assure you that if the words "Dihydrogen Monoxide" had been changed to "water" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%.

Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them.

Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water.

Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.].

Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did.

And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else].

Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance.

I'll go over this one more time.

"Dihydrogen Monoxide" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X.

Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned.

Consider this hypothetical topic: "People should be brutally slain"
PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because "People" refers to people in general.
Here's another one. "I'm better than my opponent." PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING, he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context.

My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing "Dihydrogen Monoxide" to mean "Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof.

Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.
Debate Round No. 2
lorca

Pro

First of all let me say how happy I am to have an opponent with a sense of humor. I had hoped to have a somewhat relaxed and fun debate, and he has not let me down. Also I apologize for my tardiness. Work has been brutal lately.

Onward then:

I am glad to hear my opponent concedes the ignorance of people, as this fact is paramount to my case.

There has been insufficient scientific research as of yet to conclusively prove that mogwai do not exist. To dismiss their plight, and the plight of all towns everywhere that could so easily be decimated by uncontrolled mogwai propagation is absolute neglect.

Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.].

My opponent here fails to offer any reason why this matters. Life requires DHMO, this does not necessarily mean that this is a good thing. I offer, there would be no significant harm to the universe were all life on Earth to cease immediately, and there would in fact, be the potential for some benefit to this particular portion of the Universe. I offer into consideration- humans cause harm to the environment, other living species, and the atmosphere. Recalling that my opponant conceded the ignorance of people, it seems unlikely that we will ever provide the benifit from our lives we can provide by our extinction. Remove all life now and it MAY be possible for some life to begin again at a later time that would be less destructive. My opponent claims that we must keep this chemical Dehydrogen Monoxide for no other reason that to keep the obviously detrimental life upon this earth, without offering any reasoning as to why this would be a good thing. I propose it would in fact be a neutral thing at worst and a bad thing at best.

Again, my opponent has simply stated, "irrelevant" and "We cannot ban rain, it is impossible." This is irrelevant. As I have shown, there would be long term benefits to just such a ban, as such the resolution is upheld.

"Banning the use of water is not ever done."

This does not mean it should not be. In fact high ranking officials have made the attempt, only to be shot down by special interest groups that stood to gain significant advantages with the distribution of DHMO. In fact in 1998 "A member of the Australian Parliament announced a campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide internationally." http://en.wikipedia.org.... Obviously he was blocked from success.

"Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned" implies that overall, it should be banned."

NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial:

DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously
DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches)
DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture.

"Consider this hypothetical topic: "People should be brutally slain"
PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because "People" refers to people in general."

It could as easily mean "some people" as it could "all people" the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires.

"Here's another one. "I'm better than my opponent." PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING; he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context."

Irrelevant. The use of the word better quantifies the statement, making it inherently different from the actual topic of THIS debate.

My opponent has made the claim that the banning of water is bad, without showing why this is so. He claims that it necessary for life without showing how that is beneficial. He has outright tossed out my defense of mogwai, showing a callous disregard for the lives of countless poor souls seeking only to enjoy a rare holiday free from strife and gremlins, and he shows no concern at all, ignoring my call to protect, all witches who may find significant pain upon contact with DHMO.

I have shown:

1. mogwai should never be introduced to DHMO
2. Witches, particularly of the western variety practicing a form of of their craft known as wicked, would certainly benefit from just such a ban
3. There are some long term environmental benefits to this ban.

Vote PRO as I have clearly met the burden of showing when DHMO should be banned.
Who

Con

I'll make this simple.

Let's examine something my opponent said last round.

"the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires."

However, that is just what my opponent himself is doing. Let's take a look at the facts.

The topic does not specify the context of the debate.
My opponent's first round was solely GENERAL FACTS about water. At this point in the debate, no specifics had been determined, so the only conflict that made any sense was whether or not it should be banned IN GENERAL.

After my round 1, we had 2 rounds where debaters had argued the topic on a general level, and no rounds where anyone was arguing specifically about specifics.

However, then my opponent's second round came. He decided that since he could not win the general debate due to overwhelming arguments, he would instead arbitrarily decide at this point what the topic meant. TOO LATE, my friend. The groundwork for this debate had already been set, you cannot suddenly change it into some specific variant.

Seeing this, I argued not only against his specific claims, but also against his sudden re-interpretation of the topic. I argued that the topic was stated generally, and that it makes no sense to bind it to one or two specific scenarios, especially scenarios that WEREN'T EVEN HINTED AT in round 1.

Then my opponent goes and claims that I can't just go redefining the topic at whim. However, it was not I that started arguing generally. My opponent's very first round was a GENERAL synopsis of the 'effects' of water. HE decided that the debate would be not about a specific scenario, but about the big picture. I have changed nothing. IT is my opponent who has suddenly changed it all up, claiming that one remote scenario proves his case.

I will say this the best way I know how: The lack of a quantifier does not allow my opponent to simply pick and choose whichever he so desires.

Further, the lack of a quantifier leads to the implication that this is a GENERAL topic. Coupled with the general-ness of my opponent's opening arguments, this becomes more than an implication, it becomes quite apparently the actual intent of the debate. Strapping a SPECIFIC quantifier onto the topic is what my opponent is doing - seems pretty hypocritical.

I have already shown why DHMO, water, should NOT be banned in almost every case. Still, I feel the need to respond to the three scenarios my opponent reaffirms in his final round.

1. "DHMO should be banned from mogwai"
Like I said last round, Mogwai are FICTIONAL. Therefore, ACTUALLY 'banning' DHMO from them would be pointless, since the only effect would be wasted time and additional pointlessness. Also, consider that 'banning' is not the word that would generally be used here anyway.

2. "DHMO should be banned from witches"
Once again, witches do not actually exist. To the extent that they do exist (which is as ordinary, non-magical people), they still require water, like all humans.

3. "DHMO should be banned from torture (specifically, from chinese water torture)"
This is completely nonsensical. First off, water does not make torture any worse. Second off, it makes no sense to ban water from being used in chinese water torture, since it's an impossibility to have one without the other. I provide a much more sensible counterplan - simply ban chinese water torture. Even if water was banned from torture (as if torturers care what's banned and what's not), other liquids would be used instead, so no real effect would be had. Though once again, torture involving water is not inherently worse than torture not involving water.

These are the three scenarios my opponent affirms in is third round. Here is a transcript of what my opponent said:

"NO. The topic states that DHMO should be banned. If I can show even one time in which it should be banned, the resolution is upheld. Nothing in the resolution states that DHMO should be banned overall, only that it should be banned, at all. I propose 3 situations in which a ban on DHMO would be beneficial:

DHMO should be banned from all mogwai, as stated previously
DHMO should be banned from all directionality described female users of mysticism (witches)
DHMO should be banned from all forms of torture, specifically of the type known as Chinese water torture."

It's clear that this is not simply a list of NEW points, it is a combined list of new points AND points my opponent wishes to continue supporting. Thus, it is the full list of my opponent's scenarios as of this final round, and I've just destroyed them, so even by his interpretation of the topic, I have now won (unless one of my rebuttals to the above three points was not good enough).

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I'm not sure what made you think a potential opponent would just come into this debate without at the very least without looking up "Dihydrogen Monoxide"

In any case though, I would have argued that Nihilism should be upheld if I were to take such a position.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
"First of all let me say how happy I am to have an opponent with a sense of humor. I had hoped to have a somewhat relaxed and fun debate"

okay there really is no need to be rude about it. Keep in mind you are serious in all other debates, except maybe the cats are not evil one. If you wanted it to be light hearted you could have posted such in the comments or say in your opening arguement that you want a light hearted debate while warning people of the dangerous effects of DHMO.
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Who
"the lack of a quantifier does not allow the respondent to pick and choose whichever he so desires."

I'll admit it, I lol'ed.

Will post my response later tonight if I get the chance.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Dihydrogen monoxide is water. To ban it would be to commit suicide for our entire race - water is a neccessary part of our existence."

HO, HO, HO~!!!!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Katie01 8 years ago
Katie01
lorcaWhoTied
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 lorca 8 years ago
lorca
lorcaWhoTied
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 Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
lorcaWhoTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
lorcaWhoTied
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 surfride 8 years ago
surfride
lorcaWhoTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
lorcaWhoTied
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 PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
lorcaWhoTied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
lorcaWhoTied
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 Who 8 years ago
Who
lorcaWhoTied
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